Community

Honestly, it matters what the Judge believes and whether or not he believes that your opponent thought you were casting it. Assuming that you even get to that point, many times you won't because  your opponent will scoop none the wiser.

but if it gets to that point and the Judge reasonably believes that your opponent thought you cast it - even if you weren't,
do you really think you'll be able to convince the Judge that you weren't casting it?

do you really think that he'll think that you weren't trying to cheat your opponent?

 

Dec 27, 2012 -- 12:42PM, 2goth4U wrote:

Honestly, it matters what the Judge believes and whether or not he believes that your opponent thought you were casting it. Assuming that you even get to that point, many times you won't because  your opponent will scoop none the wiser.

but if it gets to that point and the Judge reasonably believes that your opponent thought you cast it,
do you really think you'll be able to convince the Judge that you weren't casting it?

Well... that seems like a rhetorical question but I agree you need the opponent to agree you have not actually cast the spell,

In my opinion it is a fine line, depends on the wording, and it is important your opponent believe you have not cast the spell.

What about a situation:

4 mountains, opponent at two

You tap all the mountains, saying 'floating red mana'

then 'moment of truth, I need a searing spear or a chanra's fury, and I dont have the spear'

'but I can reveal that.... I do have the fury (excitedly reveals fury)!'

I mean, lots of people here are judges, which is why I am asking. If what I am suggesting is cheating, thats cool, I wont do it, regardless of the tournament/ If what I am doing is not cheating, then I would possibly do it in a competitive tournament environment, simple as that. 

Not an FNM goes by that my opponent opponent makes a ridiculously bad decision because they dont understand the rules and as long as they have been courteous I let them take it back, but I feel like bluffing in a legitimate way could be useful if I were to attend a grand prix or something, or am playing against people I know regularly attend grand prix or similar tournaments.

again it's open to interpretation

but you misrepresented the ability to cast Fury for

in fact, I'd also like to hear what a Judge's opinion is on this 

I'm not a judge, but if someone looks calmly at his opponent and says "I have this card, gg?" with all his mana open and he doesn't tap a land, I can hardly understand why the judge would get semantic and say "hey, he wasn't saying he could cast it!"

If you reveal  a card and he scoops, all right. If you reveal a card with a grin, sure. If you reveal a card and verbally tell your opponent you should be winning ("gg?"), that's cheating. If you tap your lands and reveal the card, cheating. If you imply in any way that you could cast the spell, cheating.

It's not a bluff to pretend like you can do something and hope to God your opponent doesn't realize it. Look at it the other way. If you really had the available mana to cast your spell, what should your opponent do if you flash the spell while you have priority? Ask you "go through the motion" or count your land before scooping? When you say "I have this spell that can kill you" and your opponent takes his cards, he's not conceding by any stretch of the mind, he's thinking you're killing him. That's not a bluff, it's cheating.

Let's look at the examples provided within this thread :

- Going to change your life total immediatly when he declares attackers : perfectly legal move that doesn't misrepresent any public (or derived) information. The only thing it implies is that you don't want him to cast his spell, aka strategy.
- Estratti's bluff : motionning to play a card and bringing it back to your hand only heavily implies that a hidden card is a type of spells. Again, no misrepresentation of public (or derived) information. Only a misrepresentation of hidden information.
- Reaching for Township but not activating it : once again, you're misrepresenting what you intend to do, not any information whatsoever.

Misrepresentating something your opponent doesn't have access to : bluff. Misrepresentating something he has access to : cheating.

In this game case "good game" is not misrepresentative. It is the end of the game. Your opponent is quite likely to respond "yah good game, looks like you were just a mana short". In fact, thats what will happen 99% of the time. Its not at all uncommon for a player to "tap out" before conceding, just to make their opponent sweat a bit before giving them the win, then revealing your hand to show how close you were. In fact, given that 'good game' has been said, its more likely said first by the losing player, as an admission of guilt, than by a winning player as a means of asking if the game is over. Its like a missed trigger, you can choose for your opponent to get the trigger or not, in this case, its good game, but your opponent can choose whether to win or concede. Obviously tone of voice will matter here, but if you use a neutral tone and your opponent chooses to concede I hardly see how that is misrepresentative. Heck, this kind of situation could legitimately come up unintentionally on the part of the chandra's fury player if they arent the type to show much emotion win or lose.

Here, I am misrepresenting what I will do, but tapping lands is certainly legal, and so is revealing cards. Declaring it is the end of the game when it is the end of the game is likewise not misrepresentative. Saying something like 'you lose' is definitely cheating I agree. Slamming fury, sliming broadly, and saying good game is also cheating.

Also, my most recent wording explicitly uses the word 'reveal' , mana 'floating' and stays away from 'good game', instead going for 'i need a chandra's fury'. Claiming you need cards, even cards you dont have, is perfectly legitimate as far as I know. Maybe you say 'need to topdeck bonfire' in the hopes your opponent will play around it.

I realize some of these arguments are stretches, which is why I bring this up here rather than go around attempting this at random tournaments.
 

I guess, it seems to me, if you combine a bunch of legitimate game actions in such a way as to make your opponent believe something that is not true, even if that is your intent, is that necessarily cheating?

So, out of curiosity, if your opponent responded to you showing Chandra's Fury with, "Yeah, good game," and picked up his cards, who is the one who actually conceded the game? You might both legitimately believe the other player did, given the circumstances.

In that case the fury player loses. There is no other legit viewpoint I think.

"So, out of curiosity, if your opponent responded to you showing Chandra's Fury with, "Yeah, good game," and picked up his cards, who is the one who actually conceded the game? You might both legitimately believe the other player did, given the circumstances. "

If you want to see if your opponent bought what we are debating is a bluff or cheating, you can simply hand them the match slip and you sign it either way regardless if he markes you lost or you won.

Either way, there is no legitimate way for you to debate that he conceded. The opponent needs to make the leap that he lost, you cant make it for them.

It's not just about your actions, it's about your intentions. If a judge was even called over, he'd basically just have to talk to you and decide for himself whether he thinks your intention was to mislead your opponent to a concession.

There's no hard rule that will be applied in all cases. It's literally "If a judge is even called, he'll look at the facts and make a call."

I'd find it hard to believe that a player who reaveals a card from his hand that could win him the game if he had the lands and ask "GG?" wouldn't be trying to misrepresent the game state. A player who knows he's losing will show the card, say "gg" in a neutral tone and pick up his cards, since he's conceding.

I guess, my impression is that misrepresenting that you *can* do something is completely legit, i.e. you can reach for township and set it aside, then begin to tap mana before blockers, hoping you opponent thinks you *can* activate and makes worse blocks.

Misrepresenting that you *are* doing something or *have done* something you cannot do is clearly wrong. Lets say you 'reveal' fury after blocks but before combat damage when your opponent is at 6 and about to take 4 from combat. Of course if your opponent takes 4 from fury rather than conceding you have an obligation to correct them, as you need to point out discrepancies in life totals. In fact, if your opponent actually takes 4 at all you have quite possibly cheated, as you shouldnt have made him think you were actually casting the spell.

However, having thought about it more I agree that "Good game" in a questioning voice reasonably implies that you have cast the spell. In an earlier post I imply that you should probably avoid saying 'good game' at all.

In my opinion, what really matters seems to be whether you are trying to convince your opponent you have cast a spell you couldnt cast (cheating) or that you *could* cast a spell you couldnt cast, but havent cast it yet (bluffing, similar to township example)

Considering that typically you dont randomly reveal cards from your hand, I do feel you need to make significant effort to ensure your opponent understands you are revealing, and not casting the spell. In this instance this likely involves specifically mentioning the mana is *floating* and that specifically stating you are *revealing* the card, as reveal has a specific in game use in magic, that appears in the rules text of other cards (i.e. 'reveal a card from your hand at random')

Anyways, the intent of the bluff is not to convince them you have cast fury, but rather to let them make a mistake by thinking you *could* cast fury. Tapping lands usually means you are casting something, but not necessarily. You can tap lands and float mana for whatever reason you want. Likewise, if you specifically state you are revealing the card, you are using a term with specific in-game meaning which is different from cast. Also, whenever I cast a spell I set it on the table, and when I reveal I often just show them the card from my hand, so the actions associated with each term are likewise possibly different.

I mean, I feel like it wouldnt be illegal if I say 'I have fury', reveal it, put it back in my hand, and hand my opponent a match slip and pick up my cards. For some reason I have more hesitation with this line though, as even though it makes it more clear you are revealing, by putting the card back in your hand you are obscuring its manacost, which seems wrong to me.

The goal is to show(reveal) to your opponent a lethal burn spell and tapped mana and let him leap to an incorrect conclusion at the end of a long and possibly mentally exhausting match as a bluff, not to actually misrepresent the manacost of fury in any way.

That wall of text is in a grey enough area and rests on thin enough technicalities that the judge on the scene could still easyly DQ you for fraud.

If I were a judge, I would want to know what on earth made you reveal Chandra's Fury.

Dec 28, 2012 -- 1:43PM, Bowshewicz wrote:

If I were a judge, I would want to know what on earth made you reveal Chandra's Fury.

An earlier poster (level 1 judge) seemed to think that revealing fury without tapping lands was perfectly legal, so certainly the act of revealing fury when you cant cast it is not grounds for a DQ. I am revealing fury in the hopes my opponent concedes because even through I wont have cast it he doesnt realize I wont have the mana to do so. 

The main issue that has been brought up with tapping lands is that it suddenly becomes very unclear whether or not you are casting fury or simply revealing it. You are basically using (or abusing depending on your PoV) the fact that while you can reveal hidden information, usually you have no reason to volunarily do so.

I am basically trying to argue that as long as you make it clear you are not casting it, it is not any different than simply revealing it, in which case the tapping the lands part is legitimate.

I am trying to make the illusion that I *can* cast the fury as strong as possible, while at the same time ensuring that my wording implies I am not actually casting it.

Floating mana in order to convince your opponent you *can* do something is already part of several well established legal bluffs.

I guess, to the people that think I would get DQ'ed, is it because you think I am implying I am actually casting the spell, or for another reason??

When you combine the reveal with tapping lands it comes too close to doing something or declaring that you are about to do something.

Consider this alternate situation:
My opponent has a mono-colored creature in play and open. They pass the turn to me. I float mana and reveal ultimate price with all the verbal caveats you propose. My opponent casts Rootborn defenses .

What should happen? Forget that. What happened?  
   
 
If we unconditionally allow the type of bluffing you propose because it does not violate the letter of any specific rule it risks games degenerating into ambiguous table-talk and constant double-checking of "are you casting that?" and "do you pass priority?" and we loose the essence of what it is to play magic because everyone is too busy trying to bluff and not get bluffed.

Revealing a card you can't cast and handing a concession paper to your opponent is trying to convince him that you can cast it. You can turn it any way you want, try to separate the sequence, but in truth, you're trying to convince your opponent that you have the necessary mana to cast a spell when you don't, which is not clever but cheating.

Saying "I float four mana and reveal my card" is semantically possible within the rules. However, the only possible goal you had in mind would be to misrepresent the gamestate in the hopes of getting a concession from a careless opponent. This is not a clever bluff. It's cheating.

Fraud does not imply that you made illegal move. You only have to do moves, legal or not, in the attempt of misrepresenting the game-state. If you want to misrepresent your strategy or the cards you have in hand, you're bluffing, because your opponent can't access that information. If you're trying to convince him you can kill him when you can't by lying about the game-state, you're cheating, simple as that.

You shouldn't win a game of Magic because your opponent doesn't take the time to count your lands each time he sees a card from your hand.

Also, what Zauzich said. 

Dec 27, 2012 -- 11:53AM, mr.physics wrote:

I see what you mean adeyke. In the actual situation, I was actually playing online via a forbidden program with an explicit *reveal card* option, so it was 100% clear that I was revealing and not casting. I didn't put a lot of thought into the hypothetical situation because thats not what happened and I try to avoid mentioning such programs on these boards.

dafuq? If your game has a "*reveal card*" option why are you even asking? If he scoops in rage that's too bad for him, but this little trick won't work with more competitive and/or real games. Whether you consider it cheating or not it won't work

This varies by player, but typically whenever I am casting a spell in response to something on the stack, I say "Response, I do action X"

Zauzich, if my opponent was to say "response, cast rootborn" then he clearly thought I was casting the spell.

At that point I could argue, "I was just revealing!" but that line of reasoning is likely to fail, as it relies on my opponent believing I had not actually yet cast the spell. If my opponent tried to do this bluff on me, even if I didnt think he was casting, I could probably reasonably say "response, do X" and then he will certainly have trouble convincing a reasonable judge that he was not casting, and if he did he would likely get DQ'ed. Since this bluff will work only very rarely, I don't see strategic advantage of using it unless its the end of the game.

 Alternatively, my opponent could have cast dissipate, and then its even clearer he believes I have cast.

In my example, if my opponent concedes, its not clear at all to me he thinks I actually went ahead with and cast a spell, if I explicitly use the word reveal, while in your example, it is clear he thinks I am casting the spell, and whether my opponent thinks I am actually casting or just implying (but not explicitly stating) an ability to cast, similar to how you can imply you can use gavony township when you cannot, is the crux of the argument.


Dilleux_Lepaire, "Revealing a card you can't cast and handing a concession paper to your opponent is trying to convince him that you can cast it. You can turn it any way you want, try to separate the sequence, but in truth, you're trying to convince your opponent that you have the necessary mana to cast a spell when you don't, which is not clever but cheating.:: 

There is no such thing as a concession paper, there is only a match slip. If my opponent did this to me in most circumstances I wouldnt think he was trying to bluff me, I would just think he was conceding and wouldnt find him handing me a match slip weird. If you are a neutral outside observer here, I find it hard to believe that handing a person a match slip implies they have lost, only that the match is over. As Ive mentioned before, its not terribly uncommon for a losing player to tap all their mana before losing and then reveal their cards (especially if its the final game of a match and their opponent isn't gaining new info from seeing the cards)

Furthermore, you could have said the same thing even if I had not tapped the lands, but I believe I am on firmer ground when I say that is not cheating, and is the kind of play that others have mentioned actually happens at grand prix. If you don't tap lands, it is very clear you are simply revealing the card. 

The act of revealing a card to make your opponent think you can cast it even when you cannot is a legal play (as far as anyone has told me in this thread).

You appear to think this would slow the pace of play, but its disadvantageous for you to try this at any point in the game other than the final play as 95% of the time you would be giving your opponent free information for no reason, and why would you normally do that?

Also, misrepresenting what you *could* do with cards you have in play is not illegal. In the township example, if I move township to the front of my lands and then start tapping mana and smiling, it seems to my opponent that I am about to activate township, but that play is perfectly legal (as far as I know). The township bluff in fact relies on you making your opponent believe you are about to use township when you are not, otherwise why would it work?

Currently, the rules of magic in repetitive REL are set up to punish players who arent careful, i.e. missed trigger rules. Even if you believe your opponent has remembered that they have a pyreheart wolf trigger that makes it so you have to double block, if they dont announce the trigger, verbally or otherwise, you are able to single block. This argument is admittedly not watertight because it only shows players are expected to know their own cards, but it does show that the rules contain verbiage that goes to extraordinary lengths to punish players for lack of knowledge of cards. I could argue that being able to recognize that your opponent cant cast cards they have revealed but havent cast is a skill, in the same way remembering mandatory triggers is also a skill now. If fury is clearly visible and its clear you are not casting it, I think it is a skill on the part of your opponent to recognize it costs 5 mana.

 Statue of Luberty: You are right, I have never tried this in a real game. I am asking on the rules Q&A to determine if its a legal play, not if it will work. If it is considered a legal play, there is basically no strategic disadvantage of trying it in the final game of the match (if its legal, if its a gray area there is a huge disadvantage as depending on the judge you might get DQ'ed), and I am very confidant that while this type of play might only rarely work at a high level of play, it will definitely sometimes work. If its not illegal, why not go for increasing your win % by 0.1%?

Why would someone tell me what they are might do instead of actually doing it? My reply, would "ok, so do it".

Your biggest worry should be that your words be taken as a shortcut, at which point a bluff becomes cheating.

Dec 29, 2012 -- 2:42AM, ikegami wrote:

Why would someone tell me what they are might do instead of actually doing it? My reply, would "ok, so do it".

Your biggest worry should be that your words be taken as a shortcut, at which point a bluff becomes cheating.

I feel like whether or not this is a shortcut should be a known fact, there are several legitimate 'shortcuts' but judges actually know what they are. If this is considered a shortcut then I agree, it is cheating and therefore shouldnt be done.

To me, your reply of "ok, so do it" indicates that you would not fall for the bluff, which is completely fine as well. My reply would be "because I can't, good game" and that would be the end of that.

Someone could tell you they might do something because based on your reaction, they could try to read if you could counter that play, similar to reading tells in poker. 


In a recent match I had a leashed chaos imps and an isperia's skywatch against a freshly cast archon of the triumvirate and three sunspire griffin , and I am at 4 life. I also have a goblin electromancer , seven lands, and three cards in hand. The only relevant card in my hand is an annihilating fire , of which he has seen multiple copies. My opponent is at 14. He goes to blocks and is still deciding blocks but looks like he is going to double block with two griffins the skywatch and take 6. I act excited as if he has already declared blocks and start tapping mana with an expression like "thank god he made those blocks". As I quickly tap out my opponent goes "wait Im not done blocking!". He tanks for a long time, and I start pointing out all kinds of cards that could make the block bad, from inaction injunction to both fire and explosive impact (if he doesnt block imps and I have both I can cast both thanks to electromancer). My hope here is that he triple blocks chaos imps and blocks skywatch with archon so I can finish archon off and live another turn since he only has 2 power of fliers left. In the end he decided to double block skywatch and chump imps, which leaves himself fairly exposed to inaction injunction or bounce.

You could argue that telling a person what you could do would never normally happens, but I am pretty sure what I did here was legal and gave me a bunch more outs than I would have otherwise had, so it isnt too strange. At the FNM level, sometimes your opponent fails to play around cards they should play around (i.e. attacking a vitu-ghazi guildmage into hussar patrol mana, and this type of bluff can help make sure they play it safe.

EDIT: my above example doesnt actually involve revealing cards. If I had both explosive impact and annihilating fire its conceivable I could have actually revealed the fire. He might be tricked into then triple blocking the skywatch and not blocking at all with the archon, because he knows I have fire. In that case I win on the spot, and its very possible that revealing the fire would make him make the blocks that cause him to lose, especially since I have electromancer and he may not think I have the mana to cast impact and fire. Sure, at a higher level of play thats unlikely to work, but its perfectly legal so why not try it at FNM. 

I don't see how casting rootborn defenses to save his creature makes it clear that the opponent thought you cast ultimate price but the opponent scooping to your revealed uncastable spell is somehow less clear.

The main difference is that in the first situation you are put in the awkward position of explaining that you didn't actually cast the spell and a judge almost certainly gets involved. In the second situation you get to keep your mouth shut and walk away with a match win that your deck and play didn't otherwise earn. 

Suppose your oppenet says "Okay, I'm dead." before picking up his cards instead of "Okay, I scoop." Are you claiming you'd correct him?  

If you want to take your game into this type of gray area where you look for advantage with bluffs or scams or word games, etc. not one can stop you from trying. Don't come here, though, and ask, and then try to argue, that one particular shade or flavor of gray is definitively not out of bounds. Don't come here looking for the bright thin line. There isn't one, it's a gray area, and you're in the weeds.

Dec 29, 2012 -- 3:09AM, mr.physics wrote:

I feel like whether or not this is a shortcut should be a known fact, there are several legitimate 'shortcuts' but judges actually know what they are.

huh? You seem to believe there's a limited list of approved shortcuts, which that's not the case at all.  There are no shortcuts in the rules. There is, however, a means of creating shortcuts on the fly.

In a few words, to take a shortcut, one proposes a course of actions (involving decisions by any number of players), then the players either agree in full, in part, or not at all. The game jumps to the earliest agreed state, and the remainder of the shortcut is discarded.

The agreement doesn't have to be verbal. e.g. starting one's turn is accepting a "go" shortcut (a shortcut for all players to pass priority until the current player's turn is over).

The OP's terms sounds an awful lot like a list of proposed actions, and it could come down to a he-said-she-said, and it wouldn't look good for the bluffing player.

Dec 29, 2012 -- 9:25AM, ikegami wrote:

Dec 29, 2012 -- 3:09AM, mr.physics wrote:

I feel like whether or not this is a shortcut should be a known fact, there are several legitimate 'shortcuts' but judges actually know what they are.

huh? You seem to believe there's a limited list of approved shortcuts, which that's not the case at all.  There are no shortcuts in the rules. There is, however, a means of creating shortcuts on the fly.

In a few words, to take a shortcut, one proposes a course of actions (involving decisions by any number of players), then the players either agree in full, in part, or not at all. The game jumps to the earliest agreed state, and the remainder of the shortcut is discarded.

The agreement doesn't have to be verbal. e.g. starting one's turn is accepting a "go" shortcut (a shortcut for all players to pass priority until the current player's turn is over).

The OP's terms sounds an awful lot like a list of proposed actions, and "good game" or picking up one's cards (as opposed to "I cede") would definitely indicate acceptance of the shortcut.

So this could be interpreted as proposing a shortcut that includes an illegal action. 

Yes, and that would be punshiable. (Both players if it's accepted.)

Dec 29, 2012 -- 2:23AM, mr.physics wrote:

Zauzich, if my opponent was to say "response, cast rootborn" then he clearly thought I was casting the spell.

At that point I could argue, "I was just revealing!" but that line of reasoning is likely to fail, as it relies on my opponent believing I had not actually yet cast the spell.

You missed the point. If you're doing something and you believe that in the case your opponent falls for it you'd get penalized by a judge, then you're cheating. Whether it's revealing Doom Blade or Chandra's thingy, it's the same thing : you're trying to misrepresent what's happening and your opponent falls for it.

There is no such thing as a concession paper, there is only a match slip.

I seem to be mistaken as to what exactly is a match slip. Never heard the word before, so I assumed it was a paper the loser signs that works as a concession. My bad.

Also, misrepresenting what you *could* do with cards you have in play is not illegal. In the township example, if I move township to the front of my lands and then start tapping mana and smiling, it seems to my opponent that I am about to activate township, but that play is perfectly legal (as far as I know). The township bluff in fact relies on you making your opponent believe you are about to use township when you are not, otherwise why would it work?

The Township example provided earlier in the thread that happenned at a GP wasn't about not having the lands. The player had the lands but tried to activate his Township earlier to make his opponent change his blocks. I know it's your own made-up example, but you never implied anything else.

Now, if a player has only four lands (including the Township) and says "I may activate the Township, man" while the other player is choosing blocks, he's clearly cheating (misrepresentation of game state). If he taps his lands and starts to put counters, same. If he just taps his lands, he never announced Township or anything like the player who revealed Chandra's Fury with a smile. He just tapped lands, with one in fron tof the others. We're not at the same level of misrepresentation, because he can finish the sequence with "and cast Rootborn to protect my blockers" or something.

Currently, the rules of magic in repetitive REL are set up to punish players who arent careful, i.e. missed trigger rules. Even if you believe your opponent has remembered that they have a pyreheart wolf trigger that makes it so you have to double block, if they dont announce the trigger, verbally or otherwise, you are able to single block.

As far as I know, that's not true. Pyreheart Wolf has a triggered ability that prevents you from blocking with only one creature. He doesn't have to announce anything and purposefully trying to block with one creature is cheating. He can't even let you do it because it isn't a beenficial trigger in the closed list. You might mean beneficial triggers such as Ajani's Mantra 's. It's a closed list and it's recent. Hardly what I'd call upon to interpret the rest of the rules.

If fury is clearly visible and its clear you are not casting it, I think it is a skill on the part of your opponent to recognize it costs 5 mana.

You want every game to be a funfest of "look what I have in hand" "I'll wait until you cast it"? Telling your opponent you're casting it is cheating but just implying it is not? We now need to learn to never turst anything our opponent says about the game-state in case he's just using semantics to screw us up? You think that the sequence "I have Doom Blade and your creature in very intimidating" "I answer with Rootborn" "I cast my Doom Blade in response, since I haven't cast it yet" is desirable and reflects a player's skill?

I don't want to play that sort of Magic.

 

Statue of Luberty: You are right, I have never tried this in a real game. I am asking on the rules Q&A to determine if its a legal play, not if it will work. If it is considered a legal play, there is basically no strategic disadvantage of trying it in the final game of the match (if its legal, if its a gray area there is a huge disadvantage as depending on the judge you might get DQ'ed), and I am very confidant that while this type of play might only rarely work at a high level of play, it will definitely sometimes work. If its not illegal, why not go for increasing your win % by 0.1%?

Getting multiple DQ's, even in the last match of a tournament, isn't nothing. The next time you're trying to do something you can do, you'll have to try twice as much to convince a judge that you aren't just trying to rule-lawyer your way out of a defeat.

NO, you absolutely can't "try" to cast spells which you don't have the correct mana for.

This is definitely cheating and shameful card play.

If you knowingly try to gain an advantage by cheating than you will be DQ'ed and maybe banned. Besides the fact that you're a bad person for playing cards like this.

If you unwittingly cast a spell with the wrong mana it's most-likely some form of failure to maintain the game state and you will probably get a recorded written warning and whatever else the judge deems appropriate.

My question is "Why are you even considering casting spells that are ILLEGAL to cast?" It's not like it's ok if your opponent doesn't notice it...it's illegal regardless. That's not playing Magic...that's playing some other type of game which your opponent isn't aware of.

Dec 29, 2012 -- 9:22AM, Zauzich wrote:

I don't see how casting rootborn defenses to save his creature makes it clear that the opponent thought you cast ultimate price but the opponent scooping to your revealed uncastable spell is somehow less clear.

The main difference is that in the first situation you are put in the awkward position of explaining that you didn't actually cast the spell and a judge almost certainly gets involved. In the second situation you get to keep your mouth shut and walk away with a match win that your deck and play didn't otherwise earn. 

Suppose your oppenet says "Okay, I'm dead." before picking up his cards instead of "Okay, I scoop." Are you claiming you'd correct him?  

If you want to take your game into this type of gray area where you look for advantage with bluffs or scams or word games, etc. not one can stop you from trying. Don't come here, though, and ask, and then try to argue, that one particular shade or flavor of gray is definitively not out of bounds. Don't come here looking for the bright thin line. There isn't one, it's a gray area, and you're in the weeds.

If your opponent says "Okay, I'm dead." instead of "Okay, I scoop" you should absolutely correct him or her. A failure to point out discrepencies in life totals is cheating - fraud. In fact, if someone tries this bluff on you and you realize it, saying "Okay I'm dead" and then waiting to see if they correct you is what you might do, if they don't, you just won a match rather than a game. If someone said "Okay, Im dead" I would say "Your at 4".

 Zauzich: Your opponent shouldn't think you have cast the spell. If he does, you've misrepresented the game state, and you have a responsibility to clarify what is going on. When multiple spells are going on the stack, I tend to say "response, cast rootborn defenses". You cant respond to a spell that hasnt been cast, so in this case its clear there is confusion you have responsibility to clear up. If your opponent says "I scoop", if you have been explicit in saying it is a reveal, then I dont think you can just assume your opponent thought you got to the point of actually casting it. All you can be sure of is that there has NOT been a change in life totals if they scoop, because if their was they would have to say so, and you should in no way indicate the life total is changing. 

Ikegami: Apparently my understanding of shortcuts is deficient, I appreciate the correction. If you are saying that tapping mana (any amount of mana) and revealing a card, is a reasonable shortcut for casting, even if you specifically state you are revealing and not casting, then I accept that this line of play is indeed illegal. This, to me, is the most convincing argument I've heard so far as to why this is illegal. I'm still not sure, as if your opponent says "I scoop" its not clear any game actions actually happened. As above, if he says "Im dead" then he is proposing a shortcut you have a clear responsibility to not accept. 

Dilleux_Lepaire: The pyreheart wolf example actually happened at a Grand prix. It was ruled in favor of the player single blocking (Owen Turtenwald) by the head judge.

Also, a very key point is that you are not implying you are casting the spell. That is cheating no questions. In fact, I have stated many times you need to be clear you are revealing, not casting. Ikegami may be right that revealing and tapping mana may be a shortcut for casting even if you explicitly state you are revealing in which case I agree, the play is simply illegal.

 Also, the "I have doom blade and your creature is very intimidating" line in my opinion is completely fine. At competitive REL, I dont see how that would be considered casting the spell. Also, when people cast spells, they typically target in one motion, if you gesture to the 'intimidating' creature then I think its clear you are targeting, and hence casting. Likewise in the Chandra's fury example, you could target yourself, if you actually cast the spell, the opponent shouldn't simply assume he is the target, and if they ask who the target is, which they 100% should if they think you are casting and you havent said, you have an obligation to point out you arent casting. If you gesture to indicate he is the target, then you are implying you have cast the spell no gray area there.

Multiple players have mentioned how this makes magic "unfun" but in my opinion slows the rules down much less than the current trigger rules. Also, Ive argued its not even a useful trick unless its the very end of the game, so its not like its slowing down or interrupting the pace of play.

Also, if my opponent scoops when I reveal a card, I do not believe I would get a penalty from a judge, or at least that is not clear to me (although ikegami's talk of shortcuts is something I hadnt thought of, and I admit my rules knowledge of shortcuts was lacking)

Edit: urza's: everyone keeps saying I am trying to cast a spell. There is absolutely no spell casting going on. Revealing a spell you cant cast is perfectly legitimate play. Revealing spells you cant cast and implying you could cast it indirectly (reveal fury and dont tap lands, tell your opponent 'close game' in a neutral voice, is legit, and others have verified this). The issue with tapping lands is that someone could reasonably think you are casting the spell, which is why I talked about being clear you are revealing it, and to say mana is floating, etc. Recently ikegami has stated then this may be considered an illegal shortcut, and he might certainly be right. I dont know much about the rulings on shortcuts.

Dec 29, 2012 -- 10:04AM, Dilleux_Lepaire wrote:

As far as I know, that's not true. Pyreheart Wolf has a triggered ability that prevents you from blocking with only one creature. He doesn't have to announce anything and purposefully trying to block with one creature is cheating. He can't even let you do it because it isn't a beenficial trigger in the closed list. You might mean beneficial triggers such as Ajani's Mantra 's. It's a closed list and it's recent. Hardly what I'd call upon to interpret the rest of the rules.

This, in fact, WAS changed recently for Competative REL tournaments.

magic.tcgplayer.com/db/article.asp?ID=10...
   

Haven't read many responses in the past 2 pages, but to recap my own thoughts (though admittedly, while a qualified lv 1 judge I haven't actually judged too many events, and haven't had anything dodgy like this come up):

If the player hadn't tapped their lands and had just revealed the card, and tried to trick their opponent into conceding that way, I wouldn't consider it cheating. If I considered the event something low level (pretty much anything regular REL), I'd probably tell them about how that level of event is mostly social and for fun, so they shouldn't be so ultra competitive as to be underhanded like that as they'll alienate themselves from the community.

If they had tapped their lands and the rest of the scenario was the same, and someone brought it to my attention, I'd probably consider it cheating. Of course, they are always case by case decisions and I'd need to hear what people had to say before making a decision, but I wouldn't be surprised if I decided it was cheating for intentionally trying to illegally cast a spell. Tapping lands and showing a card is something I'd consider an allowable representation of a spell cast (after all, a normal instant/sorcery cast in Magic usually involves tapping lands and putting the card on the table - so this isn't far off at all), so I'd consider it trying to trick the opponent into letting you cast the spell illegally, rather than trying to trick the opponent into conceding.

As a side note, Inaction Injunction does nothing to a creature that's already attacking or blocking (well, except from stopping it from being declared as an attacker or blocker from that point on, or activating abilities). If your opponent double blocked you and you then detained one of the two blockers, the detained creature would still be blocking and would still deal damage.

Dec 29, 2012 -- 10:57AM, Zauzich wrote:

This, in fact, WAS changed recently for Competative REL tournaments.

magic.tcgplayer.com/db/article.asp?ID=10...
   

Crap. My rules version is out of date. Thanks for the correction.

Mr. Physics : Revealing a card in hand in the hopes of making your opponent believe you could cast it is cheating. A judge wouldn't try to know it the way it was done suggested casting at all.

The definition of Fraud is :

A person intentionally and knowingly violates or misrepresents rules, procedures, personal information, or any other relevant tournament information.

Did you intentionnaly and knowingly misrepresented relevant tournament information? Yes you did. End of the line. That you didn't technically say anything that semantically was false does not mean you didn't intentionnally misrepresent the game state, as your only objective in doing so is to lead your opponent into believing something false.

Let's say you have a friend who just got a haircut. God is it ridiculous on him. He asks "Who do you like my haircut?" and you answer "I've always liked that haircut". This is technically true, but you still just lied to your friend, since you said something you knew he would understand as the exact opposite of waht you thought. This is the same situation.

If you reveal it in your turn when you're about to concede and say "I had that in hand" and he scoops, we wouldn't be on the same boat, of course. That would be totally random and you wouldn't have the intention the infraction requires. It could happen. You reveal it with a sad face and you say "That was a good game, I just needed..." and he takes his things and go, probably in frustration, and quits the venue. Could you be disqualified (let's say if a bystander would call a judge)? Of course not!

Thanks for the reply JaxsonBateman. I completely agree that tapping lands and revealing a card is a representation of a spell cast if nothing else is said. I was wondering if you explicitly used the word 'reveal' it would change things but the general consensus appears to be that no, it doesnt. Thats cool, I look forward to not doing this and avoiding unfavorable judging experiences in my future ; )

I agree that the REL definitely matters, even in the case of just revealing the card. In general using technicalities to win casual events is something to be avoided. That said, in the top 8 of an FNM vs someone I know has played on the pro tour, Ill be less lenient that some kid in his first FNM top 8.

I once pointed out to someone that isperia, supreme judge has a *may* trigger, and that to draw cards after taking damage is too late. They got pretty upset and I felt badly, so I learned my lesson there. Tried to find the guy to let him know his opponent had changed his mind and conceded, but apparently he had already left. In this case, if he had drawn, say, a dramatic rescue he gains very valuable info, say that he can save rescue on a blocker rather than use it on an incoming attacker. Of course, it seemed true that he hadnt actually thought of that and wasn't trying to do that ;/ In retrospect I should have just told him to be more careful next time, which is what I usually do when someone makes a mistake at FNM.

 On your sidenote: In the example with sunspire griffins and archons, if I have injunction and fire, it makes sense to hold the injunction until after combat, as you certainly want to detain the archon, but you actually want it to block as if it does you can kill it, so in this case it makes sense to save it for post blockers. If he double blocks skywatch and chumps imp like he did, you can then fire one of the griffins blocking skywatch so that he loses all 3 griffins, then injunction archon and hope to draw into impact or bounce if they are in your deck (they were in my deck).

Edit: D_L you make it seem like flashing fury with the intent of causing your opponent to concede without tapping mana is illegal, and misrepresenting the game state. I don't believe this to be the case, and on this point others have agreed with me. Your example seems to imply that in order for the concession to work, you must not have revealed the card with that intent. Tricking you opponent into a concession is not illegal, although you may have some moral opposition it is part of how the game works as far as I can tell. Tricking your opponent into thinking you are casting a spell when you are not is cheating. Basically, what has been argued here is that tricking your opponent into thinking you *could* cast a spell you arent casting, regardless of the verbiage, is cheating, as the line between 'could cast' and 'casting' is too thin. Basically if I am tapping mana, their is some kind of understood contract that I am casting a spell, which is not present in the gavony township example. 

Let me be clear. If you reveal a card during the course of a game, in the manner you are discribing you are attempting (by your own admission) to be attempting to muddy the game state. You can't cast the card, YOU know this, showing the card and using the mannerisms described is attempting to to distort the game state. A judge CAN punish you for this as it would be quite obvious to most players that you're trying to persuade an opponent to resign under false pretenses.

There is a lot of leeway for judges to make rulings about this sort of under-handed tactic.

If someone tried this against me I would immediately call the judge over and tell him what was going on, at the very least they would probably have a record on your DCI about this type of play.

You also mentioned casting spells which you don't have the legal mana to cast and that you WOULD try this WILLINGLY against an unwitting opponent. There is NO grey area on this sort of cheating and I really regret your mindset on playing Magic. The fact that you've spend so much time thinking about these senarios that you think might be ambiguous enough to get away with.

In your world it might be fine to sneak a fifth Thragtusk into your standard deck, knowing that for any one game you probably wont get caught.

Dec 29, 2012 -- 7:29PM, Urzasapprentice wrote:

Let me be clear. If you reveal a card during the course of a game, in the manner you are discribing you are attempting (by your own admission) to be attempting to muddy the game state. You can't cast the card, YOU know this, showing the card and using the mannerisms described is attempting to to distort the game state. A judge CAN punish you for this as it would be quite obvious to most players that you're trying to persuade an opponent to resign under false pretenses.

There is a lot of leeway for judges to make rulings about this sort of under-handed tactic.

If someone tried this against me I would immediately call the judge over and tell him what was going on, at the very least they would probably have a record on your DCI about this type of play.

You also mentioned casting spells which you don't have the legal mana to cast and that you WOULD try this WILLINGLY against an unwitting opponent. There is NO grey area on this sort of cheating and I really regret your mindset on playing Magic. The fact that you've spend so much time thinking about these senarios that you think might be ambiguous enough to get away with.

In your world it might be fine to sneak a fifth Thragtusk into your standard deck, knowing that for any one game you probably wont get caught.

I feel like this could be considered a personal attack, and is inconsistent with what else I have written in this thread. Knowingly putting in a 5th thragtusk is the same as rules lawyering someone on something you think is a legal play? Winning on rules technicalities is a part of how competitive magic works. Doing straight up illegal plays is not.

To bring up two recent high profile players involved in this type of play (trying to get wins off technicalities): Jackie Lee and Owen Turtenwald.

Owen single blocked after he got attacked with a pyreheart wolf . Pyrehearts ability is a *must* and I am sure owen knows this. I am sure Owen knew his opponent knew this when he attacked. Owen also knew his opponent had not explicitly mentioned the trigger in any way, so under the new rules at the grand prix level he could single block. As soon as the block happened, obviously his opponent protested. Head judge's ruling: Owen can single block. When I first read this I thought "what the malarky is this madness". It just seemed slimy to me. It was always pretty clear to all players what pyreheart does... who puts a 3 mana 1/1 undying in their red deck wins deck? At first this play made me think less of Owen as a player, but it also got me thinking long and hard about the rules at competitive REL. Eventually I realized, I was misguided in taking out this negative impression on Owen, but rather on the trigger rules which allow seemingly illegal board states. I would like the trigger rules changed back to where you can't have *mandatory* triggers not trigger, or at least have some new rule to ensure the pyreheart situation doesnt occur. However, even though I don't like the spirit of the rules in this case, I will still make the single block as Owen did as long as the play is legal. I think of competitive REL as much more similar to a sporting event than just a game. There was a huge furor in golf about something called a *belly putter*. Now, I dont really know much about golf, but I do know that a bunch of the people calling for belly putters to be banned *used belly putters*!! at the same time. I do not view these people as in any way being hypocritical. They are using every currently legal aspect of the rules of their sporting event to win.

In the Jackie Lee example, as I understand it, something roughly along the lines of the following occured: Her opponent had a stab wounded guy and during his upkeep he did not in any way mention verbally or otherwise acknowledge the trigger. Her opponent then went to write down a loss of 2 life during his upkeep (which he did not verbally announce, and he should have). According to Jackie, she though she didn't have to mention the trigger, because he had missed this. Result, Jackie Lee is DQ'ed for cheating-fraud. You might say 'of course!' but its a LOT of people appear to misunderstand the rules justification for this. The loss of 2 life was *not* considered an acknowledgement of the trigger. I mean, why else would you lose two life, clearly the opponent was remembering the trigger and hence marking down the two life lost, but thats *NOT* how the rules are interpreted at competitive REL. She was DQ'ed for a *failure to note a discrepency in life total* which is cheating-fraud. I feel like if I brought this question to these boards everyone would be arguing with me that taking 2 is an acknowledgement of the trigger, but as far a I currently understand the rules *they would be wrong*. To me, the DQ here is 100% correct she clearly was committing fraud by allowing a life total discrepency to knowlingly continue, but I can definitely see her side to the story, which came about with her getting confused about her obligation under the new trigger rules.

I said I WOULD try this WILLINGLY against an unwitting opponent *if I confirmed the play was legal*. I wasnt sure it was legal, which is why I asked. If Jackie Lee had really thought about her play ahead of time, she would have realized it was illegal and Im sure she would *not* have attempted it.

I was arguing for a long time because I felt a bunch of people were arguing based on emotion just as much as logic. Some of them made statements contradictory to my understanding of how actual rulings would happen. Others used arguments that I feel simply wouldnt be supported by high level judge rulings.

I am not trying to muddy the game state. I am trying to make my opponent see floating mana and a revealed card and say *ahhhh the writing is on the wall, time to concede*. I wasnt trying to misrepresent the amount of mana I am tapping or that I can cast the spell. Sure, I am hoping he will mistakenly believe I can cast it, just as I might reveal it without tapping and hope he thinks I can cast it. I am taking a legal action, floating mana, and explicitly saying I am floating mana. The ambiguity comes in because since magic is such a complex game, people tend to use shortcuts rather than follow the rules to the letter, even at high level tournaments. You might say there is *no* ambiguity about an opponent taking 2 during their upkeep from their stab wound trigger, and I think you would be 100% right at FNM. At a GP, you are expected to specifically mention that its do to stab wound. As far as I can tell, if Jackie had honestly not seen him mark his life total, it could have been her opponent getting DQ'ed for the same reason *failure to acknowledge changes in life total*. I have also specifically mentioned that in my example, if your opponent says "I'm dead" you MUST correct them.

Jaxson Bateman came here and explained exactly how he would handle the ruling as a judge, and my response was 'okay, I can see your point, I wont do it". This is because he focused on the fact that tapping and *revealing* could reasonably be considered a shortcut, even though when you cast you place the card on the table (a fact he touched upon). Ikegami pointed out a difference in how shortcuts work in magic and how I thought they worked, and I basically said "yah you are probably right".

I fail to see how going to the *rules* boards and trying to seek clarification of how something would be ruled so I can know if it doesnt work the way I think is underhanded. Its not that I cant see the other side, I can see people who think that Owen's play was underhanded. I don't think it was. Neither did the head judge of a grand prix.

I feel like you're coming around to the right way to think about things and seeing everyone's point of view so I can respect that.

The reason we got a bit put off is because you actually talking about playing cards you didn't have the mana to cast to slip by and your lava axe inquiry is also in my mind quite questionable and I wouldn't respect you as a player for trying it, I think there are judges who would REALLY have a problem with it the way you ORIGINALLY explained it.

But at least you're learning the rules!

Dec 30, 2012 -- 3:37AM, Urzasapprentice wrote:

I feel like you're coming around to the right way to think about things and seeing everyone's point of view so I can respect that.

The reason we got a bit put off is because you actually talking about playing cards you didn't have the mana to cast to slip by and your lava axe inquiry is also in my mind quite questionable and I wouldn't respect you as a player for trying it, I think there are judges who would REALLY have a problem with it the way you ORIGINALLY explained it.

But at least you're learning the rules!

Yah, I agree the way I first explained it is probably illegal, and in an attempt to figure out exactly what was going wrong I changed the wording several times throughout the thread to try to pin down exactly what was going wrong, but its a bit of a massive thread so I dont expect everyone commenting to have read every post.

I am glad to see people think I am not beyong reason ; ). If I cant admit I might be wrong, then I am basically no better than a troll. While I am still a bit confused (I posted my question with more updated wording to a level 2 judge ask a judge forum) I can certainly see where the "it might not be illegal, but a lot of judge's would reasonably DQ you anyways" is coming from. If everyone can agree that you cant do it, then that is how the game is played and I have no problem with it. Likewise if people agreed I can do it I would have no problems with it.

I am trying to better learn the rules in case I decide to take my game to the next level, and appreciate the help.

In the Jackie Lee example, she was looking at her opponent writing her loss of life and thought that since he never announced it verbally, she could just say nothing and that would be a missed trigger. However, since you're required to point out discrepancies in life totals and she didn't, she was DQ'ed. This is only an example of trying to use the rules to your advantage and not knowing other rules that come in. I don't see how it relates to the present discussion, though.

You have to understand that even if you attempt something that is technically legal, you can't try to screw up your opponent with such tactics. Cheating in the IPG has rarely anything to do with illegal actions, but more with your actual intent. The objective is to create a favorable gaming environment that is fun to play within. While it may be interesting once in a while to rules-lawyer your way out of a defeat, you have to understand that if we let all technically correct play slide, then we have a game where you're constantly double-checking what you're opponent is doing or announcing and trying to bluff the moves of the game.

Trying to bluff about what's in your hand is interesting. Trying to bluff about what you're actually doing is much less interesting for the players. That's the reasoning behind such calls.

Of course, for such calls, it all depends on the judge! It's a close call, with arguments either way, as this thread showed. 

I have one piece of advice for you: don't try this. Ever. Because when (not if) your opponent--or a player at the next table, or a spectator--realizes what's going on and calls me over, you and I are going to have a nice long talk that's almost certain to end with you being disqualified. You're attempting to tightrope walk on a thread two feet over a lava pit here--even if you don't quite fall you're still going to get badly burned.

Generally speaking, any time a player is trying to explain to me how what they were doing wasn't actually cheating because technically they didn't do X, or because they made sure to do Y, I'm going to be extremely skeptical to the point of outright disbelief. Those explanations being made at all means the player knows very well they're doing something shady--either they're cheating and they know it but they're trying to cover their ass after the fact, or they're still cheating but have managed to rationalize their behavior so as to convince themselves it's not really cheating. And I have a very low tolerance for rationalization.

You thought that this was shady enough to warrant making this thread and asking about it before trying it in a real event. The very fact that you felt you had to do that should give you your answer: it's shady, and quite possibly cheating. You shouldn't do it. So don't.

As a casual player thinking about getting into more competetive tourneys, I am very happy to hear all of the judges here blast this kind of play.

Cool.

zammm, I appreciate the post. I actually made the thread because I wasn't sure if I could intentionally reveal cards from my hand. In most things in magic, you can't do anything the cards dont say so I wasnt sure.

I havent played at competitive REL, but I play with many who regularly do and I catch wind of some popular rulings about how things are judged there that maybe gave me the wrong impression. For example, I would consider it quite reasonable that a person taking 2 in their upkeep is a pretty clear acknowledgement of a stab wound trigger, but apparently that is not the case from how I am reading the Jackie Lee DQ. Despite the 2 damage, the trigger was considered missed, and the DQ had nothing to do with the missed trigger. It had everything to do with not pointing out a known disrepancy in life totals.

Personally, I feel that trying to argue that the 2 damage was from anything other than stab would, and not an acknowledgement of the trigger, is waaaay harder to rationalize than me not being considered casting a spell if I say Im revealing it, explicitly state I am floating mana, and dont declare targets, and in addition if my opponent makes any reasonable indication they think I have cast it I correct them. My takeaway from my impression of what happened here is: don't jump to conclusions. Say your opponent has a lethal burn spell you know they have, and you have no way of stopping it, you can't jump to the conclusion they are casting it.

Its also very possible I am wrong in my understanding of how the Jackie Lee DQ took place, in which case anyone can feel free to correct me.

Your post seems to indicate that if you try to use rules technicalities to get wins, you will be punished. However, to me, single blocking a pyreheart wolf seems like a pretty clear technicality, the only reason its legal is that its really hard to come up with a trigger rule that makes perfect sense in all cases. However, judges upheld that there was nothing wrong with the play.

In the legal system, there are laws, which obviously cant cover all cases, and precendents people use to interpret those laws. I hope it makes at least some sense that to a player considering transitioning to competitive play, whats considered fair and whats not could seem a bit confusing due to these precendents. Also, since the pros tend to know the rules at least as well as the judges, it would seem like they have a big leg up in these situations, and it definitely seems there are numerous examples of the pros using technicalities, it going to a judge, and they get away with it.

As far as I can tell, trying to trick your opponent into thinking you are doing something you can't do is completely fine. Like I said, this might also be untrue, but the reveal without tapping and gavony township examples lead me to believe this is the case. Maybe my problem is I have trouble seeing the heart of the difference between some of the examples that are considered 'no problem' and some of the examples that are somehow 'shady'.

Lets say, for example, that I have been revealing chandra's fury for every turn of the game, just to make my opponent try to play around it. Probably not the best idea but certainly not illegal as far as I can tell. I could even ask my opponent if me setting the card on the table is ok, with the understanding that this a shortcut for revealing and I let him know that when I plan to cast the spell, I will say, "I am casting 'chandra's fury'", I go ahead and explain what it is I am doing and he has no problem with it. Then a turn comes around where I draw a land so that I am up to 4 mana, and I basically try to make him think I am about to cast fury by moving chandra's fury to the middle of my board and tapping four lands, then staring at my opponent expectantly. I just don't see how this case is any different than chandra's fury being gavony township, and basically trying the same move. As far as I can tell, the township example is 100% legal and not shady. In the fury example basically everyone is telling me: don't do it, you'll get DQ'ed.

Anyways, enough people have all agreed the play is illegal that Im perfectly willing to accept it and move on, but I still find this aspect of the rules unclear.

 

Dec 30, 2012 -- 1:14PM, mr.physics wrote:

Its also very possible I am wrong in my understanding of how the Jackie Lee DQ took place, in which case anyone can feel free to correct me.

I'm afraid I don't have time to go into details right now as I'm about to head to work, but I'll come back to this thread later and explain as best I can, as well as respond to your post properly.

Suffice to say there have been a lot of misunderstandings floating around recently about both that and the Pyreheart Wolf incident you mentioned.

It feels likw there's still a lot of discussion about what the rules actually entail and part of the problem is that half of the judges have their own issues.


The rules are, iirc, are pretty clear about a lot of stuff. You can't lie. You can't at any point directly misrepresent a game state. You can ommit all sorts of things.


Additionally, the acknowledgement seems to have a lack of consensus in terms of what it entails. Gesturing at a board full of manadorks and souls tokens with a resolved behemoth and say "that's lethal" with a flourish from the behemoth to the assembled dorkage seems like a reasonable awknowledgement of a trigger, especially since the point is apparently "awknowledging triggers is a skill" silliness that made it into the commentary... is apparently not neccesarily a valid trigger awknowledgement. Luckily "exalty x~foo" works, but... urgh.


Mike Long may have been a dirty cheater who is gone (daddy gone), but it's important to identify him as "a player who got caught cheating and is banned for life because of it"rather than "the definition of what cheating is". At a high enough level play there's a lot of poker style skill. A state where remembering to anounce your triggers is a skill but bluffing, mind games and anything like that which is not actually doing an action (and count me in the camp of "tapping your mana and then clearly displaying a specific spell sure sounds like anouncing and paying costs to me!") is a part of the game that I'm happy about often enough that I think attempts to reign it in should be shot down. Faking a second pump? Good god that was beautiful. Tell me that's not awesome and I'll tell you that kitchen table magic might be the best for you (and keep in mind a play a lot of that too. And then... let's consider the reverse of the equation. In kitchen table magic I may not pull that stuff but you can bet your foil Jace that a level of trash talk that would totally result in a trash talk is the norm and an integral aspect of our enjoyment. In Competitive magic you can pull some sleights of mind and in kitchen table you can be a horribly abusive river of filth and trash talk. Different environments, different mutually exclusive codes of conduct. 

Two things :

In the Jackie incident, the problem was that he was clearly writing down the damage and that she was playing as if there never was any damage, since the trigger was missed. What I understood from what I read was that she failed to notice to the other player that since the trigger was missed, the life wouldn't go down. If the trigger wasn't missed, however, she still would've been cheating because she was playing as if.

Anyway.

Second thing is about the legal system. It's not true that people get away on technicalities. I'll admit I'm not an expert on the american system of justice, but I know that here in Canada (and we work on the same kind of laws), when someone is clearly abusing the system, the courts find a way to gut him. I've seen again and again people trying to abuse the system and end up wasting thousands of dollars on a lawsuit they lost even though the law is clearly on their side. Don't assume that court blindly apply laws, they don't Isn't that great?

Dec 30, 2012 -- 11:38AM, zammm wrote:

I have one piece of advice for you: don't try this. Ever. Because when (not if) your opponent--or a player at the next table, or a spectator--realizes what's going on and calls me over, you and I are going to have a nice long talk that's almost certain to end with you being disqualified. You're attempting to tightrope walk on a thread two feet over a lava pit here--even if you don't quite fall you're still going to get badly burned.

Generally speaking, any time a player is trying to explain to me how what they were doing wasn't actually cheating because technically they didn't do X, or because they made sure to do Y, I'm going to be extremely skeptical to the point of outright disbelief. Those explanations being made at all means the player knows very well they're doing something shady--either they're cheating and they know it but they're trying to cover their ass after the fact, or they're still cheating but have managed to rationalize their behavior so as to convince themselves it's not really cheating. And I have a very low tolerance for rationalization.

You thought that this was shady enough to warrant making this thread and asking about it before trying it in a real event. The very fact that you felt you had to do that should give you your answer: it's shady, and quite possibly cheating. You shouldn't do it. So don't.

Best response in this thread!

Dec 30, 2012 -- 9:33PM, beyurslf wrote:

Dec 30, 2012 -- 11:38AM, zammm wrote:

I have one piece of advice for you: don't try this. Ever. Because when (not if) your opponent--or a player at the next table, or a spectator--realizes what's going on and calls me over, you and I are going to have a nice long talk that's almost certain to end with you being disqualified. You're attempting to tightrope walk on a thread two feet over a lava pit here--even if you don't quite fall you're still going to get badly burned.

Generally speaking, any time a player is trying to explain to me how what they were doing wasn't actually cheating because technically they didn't do X, or because they made sure to do Y, I'm going to be extremely skeptical to the point of outright disbelief. Those explanations being made at all means the player knows very well they're doing something shady--either they're cheating and they know it but they're trying to cover their ass after the fact, or they're still cheating but have managed to rationalize their behavior so as to convince themselves it's not really cheating. And I have a very low tolerance for rationalization.

You thought that this was shady enough to warrant making this thread and asking about it before trying it in a real event. The very fact that you felt you had to do that should give you your answer: it's shady, and quite possibly cheating. You shouldn't do it. So don't.

Best response in this thread!

Haha yah. Even if I'm not sure I agree with him, I still respect a level 2 judge's ability to lay down the law

EDIT: D_L yes thats basically my understanding of the Jackie Lee situation as well. Maybe I worded things oddly in my post but this is what I meant to imply

Cyklown: I had forgotten about the behemoth one, but now remember reading about it. Some guy said he did it because he had it done to him. Judges need to step in and clarify to the community whether this type of play is acceptable (Im not convinced it is but could be wrong, seems quite shady I agree).

I don't claim to know the reasoning behind tournament rules, but here's my take on the missed trigger idea: Magic is complex, and your opponent isn't expected to have all your cards memorized. So, to prevent him from having to look across the table at every moment to see if something has triggered "implicitly," there's a rule that says you have to let the guy know something triggered. This might have the side effect of eliminating the "skill" aspect of remembering that exalted triggers when your opponent attacks, but it has the benefit that no one has to commit to memory a list of all creatures with exalted. You can just drop the card and play smoothly, and there's no double-checking.

Similarly, I don't feel that it's your opponent's responsibility to examine Chandra's Fury when you arbitrarily reveal it. Nor is it his responsibility to have memorized its mana cost, and I don't think it's healthy for the game to shrug and say, "Well, he should have just asked what it cost."

My concern with this bluff is that your opponent may not actually realize that he conceded. He's just as likely to walk away thinking you killed him as he is to think he scooped. Most of the time, he won't be explicit about which one he thought. It's my opinion that inducing such a situation, then refusing responsibility for the resulting miscommunication (on which the bluff relies -- if the opponent is clear about why he ended the game, it can easily fall apart), is underhanded.

Dec 29, 2012 -- 10:50AM, mr.physics wrote:

Ikegami: Apparently my understanding of shortcuts is deficient, I appreciate the correction. If you are saying that tapping mana (any amount of mana) and revealing a card, is a reasonable shortcut for casting, even if you specifically state you are revealing and not casting, then I accept that this line of play is indeed illegal. This, to me, is the most convincing argument I've heard so far as to why this is illegal. I'm still not sure, as if your opponent says "I scoop" its not clear any game actions actually happened. As above, if he says "Im dead" then he is proposing a shortcut you have a clear responsibility to not accept

actually, there are several predefined shortcuts in the Tourney Rules
see Section 4.2

Dec 31, 2012 -- 7:32AM, Bowshewicz wrote:

I don't claim to know the reasoning behind tournament rules, but here's my take on the missed trigger idea: Magic is complex, and your opponent isn't expected to have all your cards memorized. So, to prevent him from having to look across the table at every moment to see if something has triggered "implicitly," there's a rule that says you have to let the guy know something triggered. This might have the side effect of eliminating the "skill" aspect of remembering that exalted triggers when your opponent attacks, but it has the benefit that no one has to commit to memory a list of all creatures with exalted. You can just drop the card and play smoothly, and there's no double-checking.

Similarly, I don't feel that it's your opponent's responsibility to examine Chandra's Fury when you arbitrarily reveal it. Nor is it his responsibility to have memorized its mana cost, and I don't think it's healthy for the game to shrug and say, "Well, he should have just asked what it cost."

My concern with this bluff is that your opponent may not actually realize that he conceded. He's just as likely to walk away thinking you killed him as he is to think he scooped. Most of the time, he won't be explicit about which one he thought. It's my opinion that inducing such a situation, then refusing responsibility for the resulting miscommunication (on which the bluff relies -- if the opponent is clear about why he ended the game, it can easily fall apart), is underhanded.

I agree that one big problem with the play is that your opponent might reasonaby not know fury costs five mana, even if you reveal it. That said, in a limited grand prix I would kind of expect my opponent to know all the common cards in a set, especially the playable ones. Also, when you reveal cards you dont have to go over what they do or how much they cost. Your opponent is expected to be able to figure those things out.

You could also ask your opponent after he scoops "did you think I was casting fury, or revealing fury?" and give him the win if he answers casting.. At that point you just have to hope your opponent is very honest. If they thought you were revealing and say casting, all that really happens is you lost a game you were going to lose anyways. If they honestly answer revealing, then I don't see how the bluff is shady.

wasn't there a dispute where one guy said, "you got the game" and the winner picked up his cards, only to have a judge called over and rule he scooped? a major part of the game as you approach a higher level of play is reading your opponent and bluffing when they try to read you, and it's very easy for players to not realize they're misrepresenting game state or to not realize that by doing so they're actually cheating.

I feel it should be important that these predefined shortcuts exist, as it helps create a division between bluffs of unknown information, which is ok, and bluffs of known information, which shouldn't be ok.

Dec 31, 2012 -- 9:57AM, NivMizzet_theFiremind wrote:

wasn't there a dispute where one guy said, "you got the game" and the winner picked up his cards, only to have a judge called over and rule he scooped? a major part of the game as you approach a higher level of play is reading your opponent and bluffing when they try to read you, and it's very easy for players to not realize they're misrepresenting game state or to not realize that by doing so they're actually cheating.

I feel it should be important that these predefined shortcuts exist, as it helps create a division between bluffs of unknown information, which is ok, and bluffs of known information, which shouldn't be ok.

wait, what? how does that make sense? (the 'you got the game' example)

EDIT: I think the known vs unknown distinction is nice because its a bright line in the sand, although how do you feel about revealing fury but not tapping? Its a bluff with known information, but it isnt illegal as far as I know

I forget exactly what he said, but the guy thought his opponent had scooped but his opponent actually didn't, and so he picked up his cards first, which are a physical representation of scooping. the judge ruled that the opponent hadn't indicating scooping, but the guy by picking up his cards did, and so instead of winning the match, the guy lost.

this was an example of how physical shortcuts were abused, but I'm pretty sure if verbal indications were more appropriately weighed, and if intent of the guy were considered that he understood the game was over already when he picked up his cards.

this I believe was an example about how one judge ruled unfairly, but this let awareness come to a needed change in future rulings.

honestly, I feel the opponent used bluffing skills that are normally appropriate in magic, to manipulate his opponent into believing something that should be free information was different than it was. the opponent should have lost the match or even be disqualified, because it was cheating.



what it comes down to, is it's important to find ways to win that are new and inovative in ways more than just reliant on the cards, but always be aware of what information is free, because misrepresenting free information is where bluffing becomes cheating.

Dec 31, 2012 -- 10:34AM, NivMizzet_theFiremind wrote:

I forget exactly what he said, but the guy thought his opponent had scooped but his opponent actually didn't, and so he picked up his cards first, which are a physical representation of scooping. the judge ruled that the opponent hadn't indicating scooping, but the guy by picking up his cards did, and so instead of winning the match, the guy lost.

this was an example of how physical shortcuts were abused, but I'm pretty sure if verbal indications were more appropriately weighed, and if intent of the guy were considered that he understood the game was over already when he picked up his cards.

this I believe was an example about how one judge ruled unfairly, but this let awareness come to a needed change in future rulings.

honestly, I feel the opponent used bluffing skills that are normally appropriate in magic, to manipulate his opponent into believing something that should be free information was different than it was. the opponent should have lost the match or even be disqualified, because it was cheating.



what it comes down to, is it's important to find ways to win that are new and inovative in ways more than just reliant on the cards, but always be aware of what information is free, because misrepresenting free information is where bluffing becomes cheating.

Thanks for the clarification. That seems like a truly terrible judge ruling. How is 'you got the game' not scooping?

I mean sure, if I have 0 cards in my library and my opponent passed the turn, says "looks like I got you" and picks up his cards, then I have no problem with a judge ruling my opponent scooped. Something like this almost happened to me once when I had gravepurge but I stopped him in time (at a prerelease).

I agree that misrepresenting free info is cheating. Maybe whats confusing is the difference between misrepresenting something, and representing something correctly but presenting it in such a way as to fool your opponent (trying to make it seem you are about to use township by tapping lands and hovering your hand over gavony township, for example)

All right, now that I've had some sleep and have the time to write a proper reply...

Dec 30, 2012 -- 1:14PM, mr.physics wrote:

I havent played at competitive REL, but I play with many who regularly do and I catch wind of some popular rulings about how things are judged there that maybe gave me the wrong impression.

Rulings stories go around all the time. Unfortunately, what often happens with rulings stories is that since most players don't have the full context or rules-knowledge necessary to properly understand or relate the incident, the stories become a giant game of telephone. Rulings from specific situations that were made for very specific reasons lose those reasons and the situation they come from, morphing over time to seem much broader and more extreme than they really were. Even firsthand accounts can miss key details and thus mislead their audience. The new trigger rules happen to be a major source of such stories at the moment, primarily because players aren't used to playing with them, which means they make more mistakes and thus more rulings are made from which such stories can potentially be drawn.

What many people don't consider when considering missed-trigger stories is that judges aren't used to enforcing the new trigger rules either. We're human; we make mistakes. The new missed trigger rules are a drastic change to trigger policy, and it's going to take time before judges become comfortable with the new policy, too. When a policy change happens, especially a radical one, a judge's first instinct is to enforce the new policy quite rigidly and harshly; it's only over time that judges become comfortable enough with the policy's place in the flow of normal gameplay that its subtleties and nuance are properly understood and enforced. In the case of the trigger rules, that means that judges are more likely to stick with the strictest possible reading of the policy and give very little room for leeway on missed triggers: Didn't announce it right away at the exact proper time? Too bad, missed.

Eventually judges will learn to properly integrate the new policy with the flow of normal gameplay (especially out-of-order sequencing), and there'll be fewer of these stories floating around. It's already starting to happen; it'll just take time.


In the case of Stab Wound, the Wound's controller marking their opponent down 2 life is pretty clearly demonstrating awareness of the trigger; based on Jackie's account, had the judge been called right away the proper ruling would likely have been that the trigger was not missed. (Though personally I would have asked the Stab Wound player to announce it verbally to make things perfectly clear and nip potential life total disputes in the bud.)

Dec 30, 2012 -- 1:14PM, mr.physics wrote:

Your post seems to indicate that if you try to use rules technicalities to get wins, you will be punished.

Know the rules and follow them, and you will reap the benefits thereof; that's just fine. Deliberately muddying the game state in an attempt to deceive your opponent into thinking you have done something you haven't and that he has lost the game when he actually hasn't? Not okay, no matter how it's rationalized.

Hopefully this will clarify something for you: doing things (moving around cards on the table, reaching for a pen, etc) to make your opponent mistakenly believe that you do or don't have the potential to do something? Fine, go right ahead. Doing things (especially game-relevant things) to make your opponent mistakenly believe that you are doing something, or have done something? No.

When thinking about your Chandra's Fury situation, ask yourself: why is your opponent conceding? I'll tell you right now it's not because you have the potential to cast the Fury. They're conceding because they believe you have just cast Chandra's Fury on them for lethal damage. They're conceding because you have caused them to mistakenly believe that you have cast something you actually didn't. And that's not okay.

(Re: Township: Setting aside Township to make your opponent think you could potentially activate Township? Okay. Tapping lands to make your opponent think you have activated it? Not okay.)

Dec 31, 2012 -- 12:17PM, zammm wrote:

Dec 30, 2012 -- 1:14PM, mr.physics wrote:

Your post seems to indicate that if you try to use rules technicalities to get wins, you will be punished.

Know the rules and follow them, and you will reap the benefits thereof; that's just fine. Deliberately muddying the game state in an attempt to deceive your opponent into thinking you have done something you haven't and that he has lost the game when he actually hasn't? Not okay, no matter how it's rationalized.

Hopefully this will clarify something for you: doing things (moving around cards on the table, reaching for a pen, etc) to make your opponent mistakenly believe that you do or don't have the potential to do something? Fine, go right ahead. Doing things (especially game-relevant things) to make your opponent mistakenly believe that you are doing something, or have done something? No.

When thinking about your Chandra's Fury situation, ask yourself: why is your opponent conceding? I'll tell you right now it's not because you have the potential to cast the Fury. They're conceding because they believe you have just cast Chandra's Fury on them for lethal damage. They're conceding because you have caused them to mistakenly believe that you have cast something you actually didn't. And that's not okay.

(Re: Township: Setting aside Township to make your opponent think you could potentially activate Township? Okay. Tapping lands to make your opponent think you have activated it? Not okay.)

I appreciate the explanation of the trigger rules. Ill take rulings I hear about in the near future on this topic with a grain of salt and not as hard and fast precedents. No plans to convince my opponent their craterhoof behemoth hasn't triggered when they play it and say 'attack for more than lethal'. Trigger, what trigger?

Re: Township. I am not sure I see what you mean here. So, if as my opponent goes to blocks I set aside township and tap lands quickly its not okay? I do not see how tapping lands would ever make my opponent think I am using the ability of township unless I say so. Did you mean tapping lands and saying 'township' because then I agree, it seems like a shortcut for 'I am using the activated ability of gavony township. '

Also, in Estratti's bluff vs Tom Martell, he goes to tap lands to bluff the second pump spell. Normally, when you tap lands, I would think you have to say 'mana floating'. By your logic, it seems like he is misrepresenting the game state by tapping mana to *cast* a spell. If he isn't casting a spell, then why isn't the mana floating?

Another situation I just read about was Love Janse using spellskite to target a kiki-jiki, mirror breaker 's ability, which was targeting a deciever exarch . In the end Janse was DQ'ed for lying, misrepresenting game state, etc, but that bluff is legitimate. LSV writes in an article that the bluff is legitimate (note that this is not what Love Janse claimed was what happened, and LSV implies Janse would not have been DQ'ed if he had brought this up). You can target any ability with spellskite. Now, when you try to resolve the ability, its countered, since kiki can only target creatures you control,  but nevertheless nothing is wrong with that play. The *only* reason you would ever make that play is to trick your opponent, hoping they don't understand the rules properly, and concede in response. When one of the highest profile people in the game of magic defends such a play, its hard to see how its wrong. Did he hope his opponent would concede because he had the potential to use spellskite to target kiki and resolve the ability, or that it was actually going to happen? It seems like a mighty fine line between this and the fury example. Both have players taking actions for no reason other than to trick their opponent that happen to be technically legal. Maybe their is a key difference, or maybe LSV is just plain wrong.

Link to article with LSV discussing the play: www.channelfireball.com/articles/initial...

Dec 31, 2012 -- 2:40PM, mr.physics wrote:

Now, when you try to resolve the ability, its countered, since kiki can only target creatures you control

no, it's not countered, it just fails to change the target of the activated ability

it's a legal play, but why would he do it?
What was his intent there?
Especially if he knew it would be ineffective?  

the only reasonable conclusion is that he was hoping that his opponent wouldn't know that it wouldn't do anything and that leads to what exactly?

our "hero" continuing the ruse by putting out a Spellskite token with haste? an obvious cheat
the game continuing with our "hero" saying "you get an exarch"? possibly
his opponent conceding based on the deception? a legal bluff as players are reasonably expected to know the rules, though maybe they miss the detail that the ability can only target non legendary creatures controlled by its controller and the legality of the bluff gets muddier

but are players reasonably expected to know your motives, particularly when what you are doing can be misconstrued as you casting a spell that you can't cast? doubtful,
or for that matter are they expected to know a small detail of a card like its mana cost? maybe, but it's an easily missed detail

I think you're still talking apples and oranges if you think the two are equivalent

Dec 31, 2012 -- 2:46PM, 2goth4U wrote:

Dec 31, 2012 -- 2:40PM, mr.physics wrote:

Now, when you try to resolve the ability, its countered, since kiki can only target creatures you control

no, it's not countered, it just fails to change the target of the activated ability

You are right its not countered, my mistake. However, I believe my point still stands. No one would make that play without trying to trick their opponent based on a rules technicality into a concession based on a play that you would be obligated as soon as it progressed any further to correct your opponents misunderstanding. However, the play itself is not illegal. To me, the player trying to use the spellskite and the player in the fury example are doing basically the same thing, with the same level of shadiness.

Is the spellskite player misrepresenting the game state with a bluff like that, I would say no.

Is the fury player misrepresenting the game state by tapping mana and explicitly saying the mana is floating? I would likewise say no.

Either
A: LSV is wrong
B: People on these boards who disagree with me are incorrect
C: I am incorrect in thinking these two situations have a lot in common when it comes to intent, etc
D: the situations are very similar, but should still be ruled differently for reason X

Edit: 2goth4u, are you arguing both A and C are true, because LSV pretty clearly states that the spellskite bluff is fine in the link I posted?

Quoting LSV "If Love had only explained that he was trying to get Estratti to concede by bluffing that the Spellskite would work, he would actually have been in the right. "

I find it hard to jump to the conclusion that the spellskite player wouldnt correct the mistake if the game had gone on. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that he was just (legally in my view) fishing for a concession.

In my opinion, both are shady, but I'd say that what you propose is further over the line than what Janse did.

Janse did get DQed so maybe the bluff was legal, maybe it wasn't, LSV might be wrong.
The play was certainly legal, but that doesn't make the bluff legal.

This is all a grey area, but the line has to fall somewhere and I think what you're proposing is crossing it.

If you insist in pursuing it, you're going to get caught and likely DQed and possibly banned.
Two judges have already given you their opinions as have other players.
What more do you need to know?

The only way you're going to find out if it's legal or not is to test the waters and see how far you get.

And if you get caught and it doesn't go your way, well you've been given ample warning

There's bold and there's stupid and sometimes the difference is really small between them.
 

I simply find it very hard to believe that Janse would have gotten DQ'ed if he had simply said "I knew the ability wouldnt do anything, but the play itself was perfectly legal and I was hoping he would concede in response, I had no intention of ever putting a spellskite into play". LSV and I may both be incorrect in this instance, but I am pretty sure LSV has greater knowledge on this subject than anyone who has posted in this thread outside possibly zammm

I guess, both examples involve taking completely pointless actions to fool your opponent into a concession. They rely on the fact that your opponent misunderstands what will happen next, but it never gets to the point where you are forced to correct them because (you hope) the game will never get to that point.

Also, LSV didn't explicitly say the play was legal, but my reading of the article found it certainly implied it (I am saying I could be wrong, and LSV would believe the spellskite bluff as I stated it is wrong). Quoting LSV "Of course, if that was his intention to begin with, he could have explained it, instead of digging himself into a deeper and deeper hole; he talked himself from *nothing* to a DQ to possibly a suspension. Had his intentions been good, he would have been fine". (emphasis mine)

Edit: You are probably 100% right that the truth is probably 'its a gray area, some judges would DQ you, others wouldnt'. Many posters have said this, and I believe them. Its not that I disagree, I just am bringing up these points because I seek to understand the rules better and know *why* this is the case. If the spellskite example is an example of acceptable play, you may feel they are a different level of crossing the line, but I hope you can see how it could at least be a potentially confusing point. Furthermore, lets say at some point I decide to become a judge to give back to the game that is a significant hobby for me. In that case, its not only relevant what I think most judges would rule, but what is the actual correct ruling (say the *correct* ruling is the ruling that most level 5 judges would make if you polled them).

If the spellskite play is illegal, then I am not confused.

And for his next trick, mr.physics will explain to his wife how (Content Removed)  with mr.winky wasn't cheating.

(ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct)   

Dec 31, 2012 -- 4:10PM, Escef wrote:

And for his next trick, mr.physics will (Content Removed) 

Classy, thank you.

Dec 31, 2012 -- 4:15PM, Strago_Magus wrote:

Dec 31, 2012 -- 4:10PM, Escef wrote:

And for his next trick, (Content Removed) 

Classy, thank you.

You're very welcome.

Dec 31, 2012 -- 4:10PM, Escef wrote:

(Content Removed) 

I am married so thank you. I am also incredibly loyal to my friends, and I think they all know this. If you do not acknowledge that the spellskite example is at least somewhat similar, then fine, we are simply seeing the game differently.

If you do not think LSV thinks the spellskite play is very legitimate from reading his article then fine, we simply had a different reading.

If you do not think that carrying on with a rules discussion is legitimate in a rules forum despite me trying to bring up relevant examples, well, you have a right to your opinion.

If you think its strange that I would want to know what the 'correct' ruling is considering I could one day want to be a judge, rather than being convinced by 'some would rule its ok, others not' then I personally would not want you as my judge, as if I were you would seemingly be telling me I can rule any way I want. I would rather have a judge who worked as hard as possible to make what they personally believed is the correct ruling.

If your best argument against me is a personal attack, rather than discussing your views on the recent points I have brought up, then if the point of this thread is a debate (its not) I would feel pretty good at that point.

If you want to explain to me how my interpretation of the rules and my examples dont apply like I think they do, I welcome you to it. There is a high probability that I am wrong and you are right.

But please, dont bring my wife into this. Thanks!

Dec 31, 2012 -- 4:24PM, mr.physics wrote:

But please, dont bring my wife intot this. Thanks!

I didn't. I was just saying that you continuously try to weasel out of things being cheating by either saying they aren't or that they are "grey areas".  If my way of going about this offends you, well, too bad. I'm not sorry, and I'm not apologizing. And now you try to hide behind your wife to shield yourself from a very frank evaluation. I didn't even know you had a wife. And I honestly am not sure now if I believe you do. Because, y'know, telling the truth about that might be a grey area, you could be saying it as a bluff.

Dec 31, 2012 -- 4:30PM, Escef wrote:

Dec 31, 2012 -- 4:24PM, mr.physics wrote:

But please, dont bring my wife intot this. Thanks!

I didn't. I was just saying that you continuously try to weasel out of things being cheating by either saying they aren't or that they are "grey areas".  If my way of going about this offends you, well, too bad. I'm not sorry, and I'm not apologizing. And now you try to hide behind your wife to shield yourself from a very frank evaluation. I didn't even know you had a wife. And I honestly am not sure now if I believe you do. Because, y'know, telling the truth about that might be a grey area, you could be saying it as a bluff.

I am not saying its not cheating. It might be. I am not sure, so I am asking the people on these boards, who generally appear to be know quite a lot about the rules. Some of the people make arguments that dont coincide with how I interpret other rules, so I ask for clarification.

If me having a different interpretation of the rules personally offends you to the point where you find it necessary to launch a personal attack, I don't need your apology, but it doesn't seem to me the best way of going about things.

If you read through my posts, I over and over again concede that the people disagreeing with me may be correct. I am not saying "I am right they are wrong". If you think me unintelligent becuase I cannot fully understand or accept their arguments, well that reasonable I supose, maybe I am just slow.

Greetings,

I have removed content from this thread. Please bare in mind that Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct

Please keep the conversation civil and above all else, fun.

Thanks,  

Dec 31, 2012 -- 4:36PM, mr.physics wrote:

If you read through my posts, I over and over again concede that the people disagreeing with me may be correct. I am not saying "I am right they are wrong".

No, what you are saying is that cheating may not be cheating if you have some kind of clever excuse. That is exactly what you have said boils down to. I'm showing you the distillate of your logic and reasoning. It's ugly, isn't it?

Dec 31, 2012 -- 4:46PM, ORC_Cerberus wrote:

Greetings,

I have removed content from this thread. Please bare in mind that Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct

Please keep the conversation civil and above all else, fun.

Thanks,  

(Content Removed) 

(ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Discussion of Moderation is against the Code of Conduct)   

Dec 31, 2012 -- 4:51PM, Escef wrote:

Dec 31, 2012 -- 4:36PM, mr.physics wrote:

If you read through my posts, I over and over again concede that the people disagreeing with me may be correct. I am not saying "I am right they are wrong".

No, what you are saying is that cheating may not be cheating if you have some kind of clever excuse. That is exactly what you have said boils down to. I'm showing you the distillate of your logic and reasoning. It's ugly, isn't it?

Look, its clear you feel the play is cheating. You have been able to get that across from your posts.

What is less clear is how you feel about the spellskite kiki-jiki example, and whether you believe that play is illegal. In the quote I pulled from LSV, he says there is nothing wrong with the play, and even uses the phrase 'good intentions'. You can check the link to make sure I am not quoting out of context.

If you think LSV is wrong, maybe you also think he is a cheater. If you think LSV is correct and the spellskite bluff is legit, but not remotely similar to the chandra example, then you are probably just thinking in a different way than I am.

If you think they are similar but I am missing key differences, then sure, you might be right thats perfectly possible, which is why I am asking what those differences might be in this forum.

Edit: While I agree its probably a good idea to moderate out all the vulgarity considering this is not a private conversation, insulting the moderators seems... unwise and uneccesary. Also potentially ironic ; ). Also, as ORC has mentioned, as this is not a private conversation, lets try to keep things civil and on topic. If you have issues with me personally due to my posts, its probably best for you to bring that up in a private message.

Dec 31, 2012 -- 4:56PM, mr.physics wrote:

What is less clear is how you feel about the spellskite kiki-jiki example, and whether you believe that play is illegal.

I didn't read it closely enough to get the information I'd need to form an opinion. But I keep seeing you using weasel verbiage. If you don't like being called on it, stop doing it. Duh. You keep saying "grey area", "open to interpretation", and "misunderstanding" when it is quite clear that the "tactics" you are speaking about in just about every hypothetical you've brought forth are dishonorable, underhanded lies that have been camouflaged in "misunderstanding" that the perpetrator himself worked to create. If one is not cheating than one does not need to create obfuscation to cover what he's doing. The rest of us understand this, you either do not or, for reasons unknown, have chosen to defend the moral low-ground while knowing full well what it is. And the distinction betwixt the two interests me not.

Dec 31, 2012 -- 2:40PM, mr.physics wrote:

Another situation I just read about was Love Janse using spellskite to target a kiki-jiki, mirror breaker 's ability, which was targeting a deciever exarch . In the end Janse was DQ'ed for lying, misrepresenting game state, etc, but that bluff is legitimate. LSV writes in an article that the bluff is legitimate (note that this is not what Love Janse claimed was what happened, and LSV implies Janse would not have been DQ'ed if he had brought this up). You can target any ability with spellskite. Now, when you try to resolve the ability, its countered, since kiki can only target creatures you control,  but nevertheless nothing is wrong with that play. The *only* reason you would ever make that play is to trick your opponent, hoping they don't understand the rules properly, and concede in response. When one of the highest profile people in the game of magic defends such a play, its hard to see how its wrong. Did he hope his opponent would concede because he had the potential to use spellskite to target kiki and resolve the ability, or that it was actually going to happen? It seems like a mighty fine line between this and the fury example. Both have players taking actions for no reason other than to trick their opponent that happen to be technically legal. Maybe their is a key difference, or maybe LSV is just plain wrong.

Link to article with LSV discussing the play: www.channelfireball.com/articles/initial...

Dec 31, 2012 -- 2:46PM, 2goth4U wrote:

it's a legal play, but why would he do it?
What was his intent there?
Especially if he knew it would be ineffective?  

the only reasonable conclusion is that he was hoping that his opponent wouldn't know that it wouldn't do anything and that leads to what exactly?

our "hero" continuing the ruse by putting out a Spellskite token with haste? an obvious cheat
the game continuing with our "hero" saying "you get an exarch"? possibly
his opponent conceding based on the deception? a legal bluff as players are reasonably expected to know the rules, though maybe they miss the detail that the ability can only target non legendary creatures controlled by its controller and the legality of the bluff gets muddier

but are players reasonably expected to know your motives, particularly when what you are doing can be misconstrued as you casting a spell that you can't cast? doubtful,
or for that matter are they expected to know a small detail of a card like its mana cost? maybe, but it's an easily missed detail

I think you're still talking apples and oranges if you think the two are equivalent

Okay, so let's say I'm the Spellskite guy, and my opponent is Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker .  Kiki-Jiki activates, targeting Deceiver Exarch , and in an attempt to bluff I use Spellskite targeting the activated ability, which is legal.  My ability resolves doing nothing, and then my opponent's ability resolves placing a Deceiver Exarch token onto the battlefield, which in turn triggers the token's ability.

Here's the part I'm a little confused on: As an honest player, I acknowledge in my mind that a Deceiver Exarch token is put onto the battlefield under my opponent's control, and if he tries to do anything with said token, I would allow it and not put up a fuss.  But is it up to me to acknowledge verbally that he gets the token upon his ability resolving?  As long as the game state doesn't get muddled up and is clear to both players (and I'm aware that simply by saying that I'm probably painting myself into a corner), tokens don't necessarily need to be physically represented by anything, especially temporary tokens.  This means that, even though he gets his token, he doesn't need to physically place anything down in order to show this token.  So if my opponent gets his token and triggers the ability, but he doesn't untap Kiki-Jiki and continue to make infinite tokens, wouldn't that be a missed trigger and too bad for him?  There's no lying involved or misrepresenting game play.  I think that, in the above article, calling the judge over was a little overkill.  Both players acknowledged that Spellskite wouldn't do anything, and I feel that the game should have just continued as normal.  But if my opponent doesn't realize that Spellskite won't end up doing anything, how is that cheating on my part?  Sure, you don't want to try this trick against a newer player, but in a competative event, I don't see how this would be cheating.  If they say, "Make infinite tokens, swing for lethal," and I scoop, nothing I did was wrong.  But if they say, "Aww, shucks, plan B," and I don't say anything, how is that cheating anymore than me not telling them that I was tapped out and they could have swung for lethal with what was on the board?

Very interesting point Strato_Magus. I believe LSV's article was written under the old trigger rules. In the case of kiki-jiki, the ability is activated, not triggered. I believe you have an obligation to actually put the token into play. However, obviously when a player combos out they arent required to put a literal 1 million pennies into play. Im also curious how this is ruled, but I dont think its a good idea not to put the token into play. If the ability resolves, the jig is up in my opinion. Others may feel differently though, and Im not a judge

EDIT: I dont play modern, but Id imagine when splinter twin players combo out they typically dont put any tokens into play. It may simply be a mutually agreed upon fact that the tokens exist, in which case... maybe the play is legal. Really you need a higher authority on that line of reasoning. People like zammm give me the impression that it would be illegal.

Dec 31, 2012 -- 4:56PM, mr.physics wrote:

While I agree its probably a good idea to moderate out all the vulgarity considering this is not a private conversation, insulting the moderators seems... unwise and uneccesary. Also potentially ironic ; ).

(Content Removed) 

(ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Discussion of Moderation is against the Code of Conduct)   

Dec 31, 2012 -- 5:19PM, mr.physics wrote:

Very interesting point Strato_Magus. I believe LSV's article was written under the old trigger rules. In the case of kiki-jiki, the ability is activated, not triggered. I believe you have an obligation to actually put the token into play. However, obviously when a player combos out they arent required to put a literal 1 million pennies into play. Im also curious how this is ruled, but I dont think its a good idea not to put the token into play. If the ability resolves, the jig is up in my opinion. Others may feel differently though, and Im not a judge

I don't think I ever refered to Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker 's ability as triggered, just Deceiver Exarch 's. 

As far as obligatorily putting a token onto the battlefield, my point is it's not my responsibility.  I as a player have a "nasty" habit of pointing out every single trigger, beneficial or not, because I like accurate game states.  But I don't have to do that for the opponent.  Technically, in my example above, I know that they get their token despite my Spellskite ability, but if they don't know and proceed as if they didn't, is it cheating on my part even though I'm not misrepresenting game state at all, or am I in the clear despite taking advantage of my opponent's ignorance?

Dec 31, 2012 -- 5:25PM, Escef wrote:

Dec 31, 2012 -- 4:56PM, mr.physics wrote:

While I agree its probably a good idea to moderate out all the vulgarity considering this is not a private conversation, insulting the moderators seems... unwise and uneccesary. Also potentially ironic ; ).

(Content Removed) 

And as you may have noticed, I am usually rather blunt and do not make a habit of pulling my proverbial punches.

No, you don't, do you?  Because you're a big man, aren't you?

Whats interesting to me about this example is that if my opponent thinks the kiki-jiki copies the spellskite he should think I would put a spellskite token into play. If he doesnt remind me about that token... well, I wouldn't expect that I would remind him about his token.

So, in my opinion, it boils down to whether he asks about the spellskite token. If he doesn't well, I have a hard time feeling sympathy for him/her

Dec 31, 2012 -- 5:32PM, Strago_Magus wrote:

No, you don't, do you?  Because you're a big man, aren't you?

It's called honesty. Most people aren't nearly as fond of it as they claim to be.

As for being a big man, I know my BMI isn't really ideal and all. I keep telling myself I should start working out again, but I keep letting other things get in the way. It's on me, and I know it.

BTW, I'm giving you an out on your attempt to bait me. Just take it. If I wanted a quarrel with you, I'd be going for it right now.

Its clear some people in this thread disagree with one another on a personal level. Please take that disagreement to the private messages, so as to avoid cluttering up the thread and possibly intimidating people who may want to post. Thanks guys. While some of you in particular may have disagreed with me, I do appreciate all honest opinions put forward.

Anyways... about how the new trigger rules complicate the spellskite situation, anyone have further thoughts in either direction?

Strato_Magus,  I can certainly understand your posts (you are on my 'side' as much as anyone it seems, and took the time to write a thoughtful and lengthy post on my topic, thanks by the way) but I feel if his comments railroad this thread, the people that lose out are the ones honestly interested in these (to my view) interesting rules interactions.

Dec 31, 2012 -- 5:49PM, Strago_Magus wrote:

Seriously?  Did you really just tell me to back down so you don't start punching me with your internet?

I told you I did not wish to fight with you. If this is all because what I said to mr.physics offended you, I apologize, Strago_Magus. I was not telling you to back down, I was walking away and advising you to do likewise. And I do so again.

And with that, Happy New year, everybody, I've someplace to be.

Dec 31, 2012 -- 2:40PM, mr.physics wrote:

Re: Township. I am not sure I see what you mean here. So, if as my opponent goes to blocks I set aside township and tap lands quickly its not okay? I do not see how tapping lands would ever make my opponent think I am using the ability of township unless I say so. Did you mean tapping lands and saying 'township' because then I agree, it seems like a shortcut for 'I am using the activated ability of gavony township. '

Also, in Estratti's bluff vs Tom Martell, he goes to tap lands to bluff the second pump spell. Normally, when you tap lands, I would think you have to say 'mana floating'. By your logic, it seems like he is misrepresenting the game state by tapping mana to *cast* a spell. If he isn't casting a spell, then why isn't the mana floating?

Estratti didn't actually tap the lands--he made as if to tap them for a moment, but put them back untapped--just as he would if he had decided against doing something. (For anyone reading who haven't seen the play, it's on Youtube here.) That's perfectly fine--at no point is the game state unclear or misrepresented. Mana isn't floating because he never tapped the lands and never cast anything.

Dec 31, 2012 -- 2:40PM, mr.physics wrote:

Another situation I just read about was Love Janse using spellskite to target a kiki-jiki, mirror breaker 's ability, which was targeting a deciever exarch . In the end Janse was DQ'ed for lying, misrepresenting game state, etc, but that bluff is legitimate. LSV writes in an article that the bluff is legitimate (note that this is not what Love Janse claimed was what happened, and LSV implies Janse would not have been DQ'ed if he had brought this up). You can target any ability with spellskite. Now, when you try to resolve the ability, its countered, since kiki can only target creatures you control,  but nevertheless nothing is wrong with that play. The *only* reason you would ever make that play is to trick your opponent, hoping they don't understand the rules properly, and concede in response. When one of the highest profile people in the game of magic defends such a play, its hard to see how its wrong. Did he hope his opponent would concede because he had the potential to use spellskite to target kiki and resolve the ability, or that it was actually going to happen? It seems like a mighty fine line between this and the fury example. Both have players taking actions for no reason other than to trick their opponent that happen to be technically legal. Maybe their is a key difference, or maybe LSV is just plain wrong.

As LSV describes, Love Janse's play seems fine. (except for...well, everything that happened after the judge was called.) He (presumably) took a legal action in the hopes that his opponent would prematurely concede, thinking that he couldn't win because Janse would fizzle his combo every time. Janse hoped that the opponent's inferior rules knowledge would lead to him mistakenly thinking he was unable to win. Fine. (Now, depending on what he did if his opponent didn't concede it might have become not-fine very, very fast. If the opponent didn't concede he would have had to remind the opponent to get his Exarch token.) But that's not what's going on in the Fury situation. With the Fury you're taking a legal action with the intent of decieving your opponent into conceding, yes, but in this case the opponent would be conceding because he thinks you have actually done something you haven't.

In the Spellskite situation, the game state is clear: there is a Kiki-Jiki activation on the stack and a Spellskite activation on the stack targeting Kiki-Jiki. Both players would agree on this. In the Fury situation, the game state is unclear: your opponent thinks there is a Fury on the stack when there actually is none. That's the difference.

zammm: Watched the youtube video and see what you mean about the Estratti example. It still seems like it would have been fine (though a terrible bluff) if he had left the mana tapped and said it was floating.

It seems we agree on the spellskite play, of course no argument that lying to a judge is a DQ, and LSV's description does make what Janse did sound pretty hilarious (not that deceit is hilarious, but just how ridiculous the lie was)

In the fury play, you imply its clearly different because the opponent thinks the fury is on the stack. Its much less clear to me my opponent thinks fury is on the stack, because at no point does the fury player announce a target. I just looked it up and this doesnt mean the spell isnt on the stack because it goes announce(put on stack), choose modes(not relevant here), then choose targets. Actually now that I've looked it up, I realize I never knew how to cast a spell before! For the non-judges out there it goes

announce:
choose modes:
targets:
Divide effects:
Total Costs:
Activate Mana Abilites:
Pay all Costs:


I would highly recommend reading this article to anyone unclear on how to actually cast spells, it helped me a lot: www.gatheringmagic.com/do-you-really-kno...

This totally was different than how I thought and apparently if you cast momentous fall with 5 green floating sacrificing omnath, locus of mana you can gain 6, draw 6. I would definitely not have thought that possible. If your opponent does this and gains 2 draws 2 you dont have to correct them, as that is also a legal play.

Now, typically all these steps are kind of done at once, certainly a player wouldnt announce a spell then wait 5 seconds before choosing targets (at least in the case of casting a spell like chandra's fury ). If you claim to be revealing and then dont choose targets, or indicate you are using floating mana, then I am not sure how your opponent would believe you have cast it if they understand the rules if you wait a reasonable period of time. Players may reorder some of these steps as a shortcut, but certainly they must choose a target. To me, this seems like its taking advantage of your opponents lack of rules knowledge, similar to spellskite example.

As an aside, the ordering of the steps is a bit confusing to me, as you pay the costs at the end.

What is confusing to me is that if you cast your spells correctly (unlike how Ive cast them all my life), you dont have to pay costs when you announce the spell. Previously, it has been stated that revealing a card without casting or paying mana it is ok, as your opponent didnt think you are casting the spell. Now, this is less clear to me. If you don't have to pay the mana at that point, when you reveal without tapping, how does your opponent know you aren't casting?

If I flash my opponent a game winning burn spell on his turn when I can't cast it, it seems very reasonable I am doing this simply to put him out of his misery, and avoid slow rolling him. If I don't think he can counter or gain life, I save the time of him going deep into the tank. It also has a potential in-game benefit, as now if he doesn't concede he could reasonably be considered slow-playing. However, can my opponent now suddenly concede, then argue that he thought I was casting the spell and get my DQ'ed?

Long story short, for the above reasons it seems like revealing without tapping should definitely be legal, to prevent the DQ of people revealing game winning spells to speed up play. Nevertheless, it seems like the rules could DQ this person for falsely representing they could cast a spell when they could not.

Back to the spellskite example, LSVs explanation was written under the old trigger rules. Under the new trigger rules some strange things seem to happen. It would seem to me that when a exarch-kiki player combos, they wouldnt bother to physically represent the tokens with anything, understandable since they may be making a million tokens. Say you have gained a million life, if the kiki player tries to combo, you cant say 'all well and good, but if you want to beat me, Im going to need to see those tokens to choose blockers... go find a million tokens.

However, if its an agreed upon shortcut to not actually put the tokens into play (say, any game 2 in a mirror match, or a game 1 if you say to your opponent when it becomes clear you are playing twin, "hey I forgot my million tokens and I see you forgot yours, so when either of us combo is it alright if I dont represent the tokens physically?), then suddenly its confusing as you could reasonably think that your opponent puts an exarch into play, and simply missed the untap trigger. If your opponent protests that they thought you had copied spellskite, then I would ask why didn't they ask me where my spellskite token was? If they think they didn't have to... then all fine and good, you felt the same way.

EDIT: It seems like after some time, the player should ask where the exarch token is. I dont actually play modern, but it seems to me like putting at least 1 exarch token into play is a good idea. Anyone know what shortcuts people usually use with this combo in actual tournaments?

If you don't have to pay the mana at that point, when you reveal without tapping, how does your opponent know you aren't casting?

You don't complete the casting process. That's how they know. If you don't even so much as move to tap your lands, no-one's going to think you've paid for the spell, and if you haven't paid for the spell you haven't cast it. Your opponent doesn't have to respond until after you've finished casting the spell, so until you have it doesn't matter if they don't know if you are or aren't casting it. They'll know you've cast it when you've finished the process - including paying costs, so tapping some of those pretty lands.

However, can my opponent now suddenly concede, then argue that he thought I was casting the spell and get my DQ'ed?

If you didn't tap any lands for the spell, he'd be hard pressed to convince a judge that he thought you were casting it. We don't assume players are foolish enough to try and get away with casting 5 mana spells without activating any mana abilities.

Nevertheless, it seems like the rules could DQ this person for falsely representing they could cast a spell when they could not.

No tapped lands (or mana floating from other effects or anything) - we're not going to think a player tried to cast a spell unless they've explicitly said they're trying to cast it. They haven't done enough of the spellcasting process, and again, we're not going to assume they're so foolish that they're trying to cast a 5 mana spell they have no mana for.

If they tap 4 lands and reveal the card though, entirely different story. They've done all they need to to represent a spell cast - activated mana abilities and shown the card. While they could certainly be clearer about things, the target is the other player in almost every circumstance. It's too close to a spell cast, so unless you're completely 100% unambiguous in how you're representing it (ie. "I'm only revealing this card to you, I'm not actually casting it"), it wouldn't be unfair for you to be DQ'd for cheating.



Haven't been keeping up with the thread so I don't know about this Exarch-Twin combo business, but as for the Chandra's Fury scenario that one still seems pretty clear to me. 

I disagree with Jaxson. Even if you don't touch your lands, the only objective you could have is to misrepresent the game-state so that your opponent will think you have the mana. That is, if you reveal on your turn.

Revealing on your opponent's turn is very different. You could draw a land and play it. You could do a lot of things. If it's the opponent's turn, no confusion possible, and you're just trying to use his low moral to gain a win. That wouldn't look problematic in my eyes.

I'd love my opponent to try to explain to a judge why he wants me to get the million tokens. That is quite clearly a violation of the rules, either Slow Play or Unsportmanlike Conduct or something. Shorcuts have to be agreed, but if your opponent is being unreasonable (like making you go through the motions of a tri- Fiend Hunter infinite combo), it won't go well for him.

If you activate Spellskite's ability targeting Kiki-Jiki's, when the ability resolves and your opponent does nothing, I'm prety sure you can't tell yourself "well he's shortcutting by putting no token", because he would have to announce it. You have to tell him "your token enters the battlefield". That one I'm not perfectly sure, though.

The issue if they don't tap their lands though is that they haven't done anything technically wrong. It's obvious they haven't attempted to cast the spell because they haven't paid any costs, at all - as opposed to tapping the lands and making it look like they've paid the cost, but actually knowingly paying an incorrect cost. In the not-tapping case, they're not trying to misrepresent the gamestate; they're trying to trick their opponent into thinking the game is up, and thus getting a concession out of them. Underhanded, for sure, but not cheating. Of course, because they're being underhanded they're walking a fine line, and the clearer they walk on the 'safe' side of the line, the further they get from tricking their opponent successfully (ie. if they made it crystal clear and said "I'm not casting this card, I'm just revealing it" then their trick isn't going to work very well).

To be honest I haven't been keeping up with every post, so I don't know if someone has made a strong argument as to why revealing-without-tapping would be considered cheating.

In the tapping case though, they've done what under most circumstances would be considered a spell cast (activating mana abilities and showing the card), so there's no issue with a judge ruling that as an intentional game rule violation, and thus cheating. Though I think we all agree on that one anyway.



Edit: to expand on the not having done anything wrong idea if they haven't tapped their lands, let's consider a grossly simplified 'actions for casting a spell', for Chandra's Fury .

1. Move card from hand to 'stack' (ie. make visible)
2. Pay costs
3. Select targets

3 can even be ignored most of the time, as in 99% of cases it's going to target the opponent, and 99% of players are aware of this. If it's one of those rare occasions where a player wants to target themselves with it, they'll mention this during targetting. So I wouldn't consider a player not explicitly announcing the target when casting Chandra's Fury as having failed to cast the spell properly.

1 and 2, however, are pretty darn important, and both need to be completed to cast the spell. 1, I think, can be said to have been done simply with the reveal, even if the card isn't taken out of the hand. However, 2 can't be done via inaction; at least not for any cards that cost mana. If there's no mana floating, the player is going to have to activate mana abilities. And if they don't, they obviously haven't paid any costs, and as such the cast hasn't been completed. Even though I wish I could call it cheating, and hope someone has a good justification for thinking so, I feel that "I obviously wasn't trying to cast it, I didn't pay any costs at all; I was just trying to trick him into thinking I might be able to win and thus concede" is actually sound.

All in all though, perhaps I'm just too lenient. :-3



Another edit: on second thought, if they reveal the card, don't tap their lands, but do something else to make it seem like a spell cast - like revealing it at the end of their opponent turn and saying "gg?" (some players don't bother to tap lands at EoT if they're just casting the one spell and tapping out to do so, as they're about to untap anyway), then that'd still be cheating. Even if it were revealed during a main phase but lands weren't tapped, their opponent could make the argument that "it appeared to be the last spell cast of the game, so it seemed like they just forewent tapping lands as the game was about to end anyway". Throw in that it's definitely an underhanded tactic and the player who did it was about to lose anyway, and it's reasonable to get DQ'd for it.

I'm now of the opinion that it's very much a case by case sort of scenario, but if you're not careful enough and you try it at all I could see a player being justifiably DQ'd. Probably not worth the risk at all.

Dec 31, 2012 -- 7:56PM, zammm wrote:

Janse hoped that the opponent's inferior rules knowledge would lead to him mistakenly thinking he was unable to win. Fine. (Now, depending on what he did if his opponent didn't concede it might have become not-fine very, very fast. If the opponent didn't concede he would have had to remind the opponent to get his Exarch token.)

So are you saying that, even if we'd spent the entire game pretending that tokens are there when they really haven't been represented by anything physical whatsoever, and I try to do the whole Spellskite thing, and my opponent assumes that they don't get their token, I'm still obligated to verbally tell them that they have their token?

It seems to me that, if that were the case, it's also cheating if my opponent activates a Centaur's Herald but doesn't physically represent the Centaur token, which makes them eventually forget that they have one and they never use it to attack or block, and I win.  It's not like the game state is being misrepresented.  If it came down to my opponent saying, "Oh no, I don't have any creatures left," I would remind them that they have that token, but how is it my fault that they forgot that they have the token?  How is this different than someone forgetting that they have a Rogue's Passage right in-bloody-front of them which could have sealed the victory, but they panicked and ended up losing because they didn't think?

Jan 1, 2013 -- 9:54AM, JaxsonBateman wrote:

Another edit: on second thought, if they reveal the card, don't tap their lands, but do something else to make it seem like a spell cast - like revealing it at the end of their opponent turn and saying "gg?" (some players don't bother to tap lands at EoT if they're just casting the one spell and tapping out to do so, as they're about to untap anyway), then that'd still be cheating. Even if it were revealed during a main phase but lands weren't tapped, their opponent could make the argument that "it appeared to be the last spell cast of the game, so it seemed like they just forewent tapping lands as the game was about to end anyway". Throw in that it's definitely an underhanded tactic and the player who did it was about to lose anyway, and it's reasonable to get DQ'd for it.

That's what the discussion was about

Jan 1, 2013 -- 11:12AM, Strago_Magus wrote:

So are you saying that, even if we'd spent the entire game pretending that tokens are there when they really haven't been represented by anything physical whatsoever, and I try to do the whole Spellskite thing, and my opponent assumes that they don't get their token, I'm still obligated to verbally tell them that they have their token?

Because your opponent has to at least acknowledge that there's an invisible token put on the battlefield. If he says "I put a token" and forget about it, it entered the battlefield. If they say nothing, nothing happenned. For example, if you control, say, Awakening Zone and aren't representing the tokens physically, if they don't call at their upkeep that they get a token, it's a missed trigger. You couldn't say "well, we don't represent tokens physically, so I put one on the battlefield each turn".

Activated abilities (like Kiki-Jiki's) are by definition not missable: the fact that it's been activated in the first place means that its effect has been acknowledged and will happen. "Get a token Exarch, miss the ETB trigger for the token" is a line of play that's theoretically possible under the missed trigger rules in this case, but "get no token at all" is not.

Jan 1, 2013 -- 12:21PM, SadisticMystic wrote:

Activated abilities (like Kiki-Jiki's) are by definition not missable: the fact that it's been activated in the first place means that its effect has been acknowledged and will happen. "Get a token Exarch, miss the ETB trigger for the token" is a line of play that's theoretically possible under the missed trigger rules in this case, but "get no token at all" is not.

Right.  The issue isn't not getting a token; the issue is that an ignorant opponent ("ignorant" not being an insult) doesn't realize that they still get their token so they don't put one onto the battlefield, figuratively or otherwise.  Do I have an obligation to say, "Don't forget you still get your token despite my bluff that's not really a bluff after all because I still have to tell you that you get your token"?

Jan 1, 2013 -- 12:57PM, Strago_Magus wrote:

Jan 1, 2013 -- 12:21PM, SadisticMystic wrote:

Activated abilities (like Kiki-Jiki's) are by definition not missable: the fact that it's been activated in the first place means that its effect has been acknowledged and will happen. "Get a token Exarch, miss the ETB trigger for the token" is a line of play that's theoretically possible under the missed trigger rules in this case, but "get no token at all" is not.

Right.  The issue isn't not getting a token; the issue is that an ignorant opponent ("ignorant" not being an insult) doesn't realize that they still get their token so they don't put one onto the battlefield, figuratively or otherwise.  Do I have an obligation to say, "Don't forget you still get your token despite my bluff that's not really a bluff after all because I still have to tell you that you get your token"?

If you don't, you've let a mistake last and since it's intentionnal, it's Cheating.

Jan 1, 2013 -- 5:32AM, mr.physics wrote:

zammm: Watched the youtube video and see what you mean about the Estratti example. It still seems like it would have been fine (though a terrible bluff) if he had left the mana tapped and said it was floating.

It wouldn't have worked at all, since mana empties from players' mana pools between steps.

Jan 1, 2013 -- 5:32AM, mr.physics wrote:

In the fury play, you imply its clearly different because the opponent thinks the fury is on the stack. Its much less clear to me my opponent thinks fury is on the stack, because at no point does the fury player announce a target.

That's a ridiculous and irrelevant rationalization. By that kind of technical standard, it's quite likely that nobody in the history of the game has ever actually cast a spell. Nobody goes through all the technically correct procedures when playing. Ever.

Think about it. Imagine that in your next M13 draft you go red and pick up a Fury. In your first match you play against a white deck with loads of X/1s. On your fifth turn you tap five lands, reveal a Chandra's Fury from your hand and smile, saying nothing. Do you really think your opponent is going to wait for you to formally announce the spell, put it onto the stack, choose targets, pay mana, wait for responses, and only then resolve it? No. He's going to sigh, pick up all his X/1s to drop them in the graveyard, and reduce his life total by 4. (Maybe after reading the card or having you read it, if he's not actually familiar with it.)

And if you then tell him that you haven't actually cast the spell yet because you haven't declared it or selected a target or paid mana, he's going to look at you like you're insane.

Someone posted a situation in another thread that helped clarify 'assumed targeting' situations. I also agree that reveal + tapping = casting. The other person convinced me that 'assumed targeting' applies in a wide variety of situations. What confused me about 'assumed targeting' was cavern of souls . I remember initially their was a big discussion leading to a rules change regarding whether you had to announce cavern or whether it was assumed. If someone has 22 mana (tron deck), kozilek, butcher of truth , and remand , its not obvious they want to make their spell uncounterable because they might want to kozilek-remand-kozilek, but now if they use cavern they are out of luck unless they specifically state how they tap, despite the fact that if they try to cast remand on their own kozilek its obvious what they were trying to do.

Another situation that confused me was if you fail to state targets when casting sign in blood with both players at 2 life. If you announce sign and smile, pausing briefly, is your opponent allowed to saw 'resolves' after the brief pause and argue that you just died? I mean, nobody puts sign in their deck to deal 2 unless they are up against elderscale wurm . The 'smile' could reasonably be you knowing you have lethal. My opponents dont typically smile because they resolved an inspiration. However, assumed targeting seems to indicate that the 'rules-lawyering' player wins out here, but I could be wrong.

I appreciate your clarification about technical play. Like I said, I havent actually played a more competitive event, I only here about people casting craterhoof, gesturing to their board, and swinging only to have their opponent claim their was no trigger. Now, its true that what is probably happening here is that I only hear about the unusual rulings which aren't the norm, which is severely skewing my perspective. As you have mentioned, the new trigger rules are currently often being very strictly and technically enforced precisely because they are new, despite the rules as a whole having a more 'common sense' approach.

Basically, everyone on these boards is going 'use common sense' and a lot of the actual rulings I've heard of did not match that. It could be that the only reason these rulings were discussed in articles was precisely because they were controversial. In which case, I stand corrected.

After hearing about some actual rulings, its becoming more clear that 'reveal + tap = cast' regardless of whatever else you say. I agree that not declaring targets is a technicality, and not enough to make your opponent think you had not cast the spell. I was wondering if: 'explicitly saying revealing + explicitly mention mana floating + not declaring target + keeping the card in your hand = cast' and the short answer is yes. Yes it does mean cast. Now, Ive never played magic any differently than this, but I wasn't sure if at competitive REL a more technical as opposed to 'common sense' approach to the rules applies, but it seems like the rules at FNM and a pro tour arent all that different except you might expect people to let you take back plays occasionally at an FNM and the trigger rules become very different. Since everyone has been in a bit of a tizzy involving the trigger rules (understandable as its a major change I suppose) it appears I developed an incorrect opinion of how magic was played at a higher level. My mistake.

I think the biggest thing you're missing here is that in most cases if a player is doing something outside the norm - like using Cavern of Souls for instead of colored mana, or casting Sign in Blood on an opponent - they'll almost always say what they're doing. They won't just gesture or assume the opponent knows.

I could never imagine casting Sign in Blood , regardless of the gamestate, and not saying I was targetting my opponent if that's what I was doing. I actually recall a game a year or two ago where one player had the opponent on two life. He cast two Sign in Bloods on himself, and then realised his opponent would die from it - so when he cast the third (all in the same turn mind you), he explicitly said, "Sign in Blood on you". Because it's not normally who you'd target.

Jan 2, 2013 -- 6:42AM, JaxsonBateman wrote:

I think the biggest thing you're missing here is that in most cases if a player is doing something outside the norm - like using Cavern of Souls for instead of colored mana, or casting Sign in Blood on an opponent - they'll almost always say what they're doing. They won't just gesture or assume the opponent knows.

I could never imagine casting Sign in Blood , regardless of the gamestate, and not saying I was targetting my opponent if that's what I was doing. I actually recall a game a year or two ago where one player had the opponent on two life. He cast two Sign in Bloods on himself, and then realised his opponent would die from it - so when he cast the third (all in the same turn mind you), he explicitly said, "Sign in Blood on you". Because it's not normally who you'd target.

I agree its clear here. Thats a lot of signs. I could imagine a player casting sign with his opponent at 2 and asking 'good game' and his opponent responding 'resolves, good game, your at 0?'

I agree that if I were to ever cast sign, Id always target. Casting targeted card draw on my opponent was one of the first 'advanced' plays I learned in magic. I tried MTGO back when there was a free trial and 5 starter decks. I eventually gravitated towards the blue one as it seemed to involve the most playskill, and eventually I realized that due to the extremely low power level of the decks, one of the best ways to win was to simply play extremely defensively and then use the one targeted card draw spell in your deck on your opponent.

Of course, one of the best parts of MTGO is an elimination of rules confusion, so none of these situations come up. Its interesting to me that on MTGO you aren't allowed to intentionally reveal as far as I know, despite it being allowed in paper.

I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.

Discussion of moderation in the forums, and posting inappropriate content are also violations.

You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct

Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.



Please bear in mind that we have a very wide range of people who come here to participate, and a negative atmosphere can drive away a lot of people, even people who were not themselves attacked



If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.

Jan 1, 2013 -- 11:11PM, zammm wrote:

Think about it. Imagine that in your next M13 draft you go red and pick up a Fury. In your first match you play against a white deck with loads of X/1s. On your fifth turn you tap five lands, reveal a Chandra's Fury from your hand and smile, saying nothing. Do you really think your opponent is going to wait for you to formally announce the spell, put it onto the stack, choose targets, pay mana, wait for responses, and only then resolve it? No. He's going to sigh, pick up all his X/1s to drop them in the graveyard, and reduce his life total by 4. (Maybe after reading the card or having you read it, if he's not actually familiar with it.)

I do this all the time, especially against older, more experienced players.  Magic should be a social game, and the players who sit across from me silently who tap their mana and point a card at one of mine really get on my nerves.  I sit and stare at them until they say something to me.  Turning creatures sideways and staring at me only causes me to lean back in my chair with my hands behind my head smiling at them slightly.  Yes, I know that they're attacking, but come on, I don't play Magic just to sit across from someone with no interaction whatsoever.  I will wait to hear what the targets are.

Jan 2, 2013 -- 7:57PM, Strago_Magus wrote:

I do this all the time, especially against older, more experienced players.  Magic should be a social game, and the players who sit across from me silently who tap their mana and point a card at one of mine really get on my nerves.  I sit and stare at them until they say something to me.  Turning creatures sideways and staring at me only causes me to lean back in my chair with my hands behind my head smiling at them slightly.  Yes, I know that they're attacking, but come on, I don't play Magic just to sit across from someone with no interaction whatsoever.  I will wait to hear what the targets are.

This makes me want to play you and refuse to speak to see how long it takes for you to break. That or to see what the judge says when he comes to our table at the end of the round and sees that game one hasn't progressed for forty-five minutes.

The issue here, mr.physics, is that you are making your actions unclear on purpose. You are expecting your opponent to assume you have the means to cast it when you do this action (be it that you have more lands than you actually have, or that the cost is lower than it really is), thus you have acted in order to misrepresent the game state to your opponent (whether he falls for it or not).

@mr.physics:

The answer you are looking for is subjective, and will vary from judge to judge. An objective answer does not exist -- especially on a forum, where the scenario is theoretical and certain details are missing (which is an important distinction from details being missed). But this forum is still an important analogue to the real thing, as the judge will not have complete information when he comes over.

The important thing to take away is that, although there are certain facts put down in the tournament rules, each player has a slightly different interpretation of those facts. The consensus among the players (and a few judges) here seems to be that your actions would be deemed cheating, so there's a good chance that it would be ruled that way in an actual game. If your personal interpretation differs, perhaps you would do well to become a judge so that you can push to change the consensus. There really is no "right" answer.

The tournament rules are aware of their subjectivity, so there is a rule in place to allow you to appeal any call to the head judge. This is not because the head judge is expected to have a "better grasp" of the rules. All judges at all levels should understand them fully. When there are conflicts of this sort, the head judge will arbitrate.

@PurpleFive: Initally I was arguing that I wasnt trying to misrepresent the game state, I was hoping to represent it correctly and hope my opponent leapt to an incorrect conclusion in a way that was not my fault. In the spellskite-kiki-jiki example, you use spellskite in a perfectly legal way in the hope your opponent wont realize what happens next and concedes. In the spellskite example, you are completely in your rights to target kiki's ability, even though your sole purpose is to 'misrepresent' the game state to your opponent in a 'legal' way. What has been argued here, and has changed my opinion, are various facts about 'assumed targeting' and general judging opinion that reveal+tap=cast regardless of what else is going on, and hence while it is very difficult to recreate the spellskite example in the fury case. One can imagine, however, if MTGO had a 'reveal' option. In that case, it would certainly be possible to tap 4 and reveal, and certainly a player online wouldnt complain that you should get a DQ if they fall for this. In real life, its very difficult to get your opponent to understand your opponent thinks you are revealing when your not. You could ask, after your opponent scoops "when I said I was revealing fury, did you think I was casting or revealing". If they answer casting, then you say, hey, thats not what was happening, you win that game. If they answer revealing you say "alright just making sure". 

@Bowsheicz
I agree and appreciate the response. I think what I maybe should have clarified at the onset of this discussion is that this exact situation is extremely unlikely to actually come up, what I really care about is what is going through a judge's mind when they make these kinds of decisions, and to better understand judging philosophy through the use of a specific example. The idea was to make the situation intentionally open ended so that I could get responses like 'well, doing this is okay for this and this reason, but what you actually did was this, and I would consider that cheating for this and this reason.'

"I was hoping to represent it correctly and hope my opponent leapt to an incorrect conclusion in a way that was not my fault."
You're playing with words, here. Your goal is that your way of putting things is misleading enough to cause your opponent to misinterpret the gamestate, but you don't want to take the risk of being DQ-ed.
It is a borderline way of thinking that leads to a deteriored tournament experience, and that is a good enough reason to penalize it.

You do not have to always promote fair-play, but you should avoid borderline actions ("the rules don't forbid it, so I'll do it"). That is the main point I wish to get through.

Jan 3, 2013 -- 9:19AM, PurpleFive wrote:

"I was hoping to represent it correctly and hope my opponent leapt to an incorrect conclusion in a way that was not my fault."
You're playing with words, here. Your goal is that your way of putting things is misleading enough to cause your opponent to misinterpret the gamestate, but you don't want to take the risk of being DQ-ed.
It is a borderline way of thinking that leads to a deteriored tournament experience, and that is a good enough reason to penalize it.

You do not have to always promote fair-play, but you should avoid borderline actions ("the rules don't forbid it, so I'll do it"). That is the main point I wish to get through.

My perspective is this: if you didn't take any illegal game actions and if your opponent doesn't think you've taken any illegal game actions, even after the situation is clearly explained in more detail, you are fine. Mind games are okay, more than okay. Legitimate mind games are an important part of the game at a high level of play, and the ability to successfully pull off legitimate mind games or bluff is extremely important. Many of the best magic players are also successful poker players. The Estratti bluff is a perfect example of one such 'legal' bluff, and many pros view it as the best play of the year.

The issue in the fury example is that even if you say you are revealing and do your best to avoid actions that would imply you are casting a spell (other than tapping and declaring floating, which is legitimate action), your opponent may still believe you are actually casting it. If your opponent believes you are casting and you know that, you are obligated to point it out. If you think their is a reasonable possibility your opponent thinks you are casting, you also have a responsibility to point it out.

Now, if your opponent falls for the 'bluff' and says 'I scoop' I agree its still not clear what happened. If you then ask your opponent 'did you think I was revealing or casting that spell' and they respond, 'I thought you were revealing' then I don't see how tricking your opponent in this manner is cheating. If they respond 'I thought you were casting' you can say, 'I said I was revealing, but its clear now that there was some legitimate confusion that was not cleared up. I was never casting and I concede the game, this is your win'. In this way, you don't gain any advantage over the people that were confused about the game state, the only people you have an advantage over are the people were their is no confusion about the game state, exactly as it should be in my opinion. I completely agree that you should not seek to create confusion about what is actually happening and gain advantage of it.

If your opponent forgets you have gavony township, you have 0 cards in hand and 4 other lands none of which produce white, and they go to blocks you can tap 4 lands and say 'float 4' and hope they concede. The only reason you'd do this is to make your opponent think you were about to use township, but I dont see how you have cheated or done anything shady in that case. If you also tap township and say 'floating all' and then reach for a pile of marbles, then you've cheated. In this case 'floating all' implies you that every land you have tapped for mana, you tapped for mana' but I agree this is a technicality. By reaching for counters, even if you never put them on your guys, you've represented you are actually using township and thats cheating.

Edit: With regards to 'borderline actions', I agree that if a reasonable % of judge's think you shouldnt do a play, dont do it. At FNM, there may be legal plays you shouldnt make because they are against the spirit of the tournament. I agree there are things you can do at competitive REL you shouldnt do, (i.e., repeatedly telling your opponent just how much you need to use the restroom in the hopes this will distract them from their triggers) but those things are covered by the rules under unsportsmanlike conduct. If some confusion comes up (a player says' esper charm targeting me') then you can simply call a judge. Getting wins off 'rules-lawyering' is part of the game (I'm not talking about FNM or prerelease type events here). If my opponent is aware of their pyreheart wolf trigger but dont announce it, the only reason Id call a judge is to hope he rules I can single block, but the act of calling a judge and hoping he'll side with you isn't shady. Calling a judge if your opponent casts harrow and then puts in his graveyard before finding lands is perfectly fine. Sure, the judge will rule for your opponent in this case, but I dont think youve done anything 'shady'. Obviously you should only call a judge if you think their is a significant chance they will rule in your favor, and you should never call a judge if their is a known 'correct' ruling in the hopes they make a mistake (so, if you know about the harrow ruling, dont call the judge)

Basically, any 'borderline' cases should be in a judge's hands, and you should work to ensure the game state is mutually understood by both players. As long as you do that and act in a sportmanlike way, then I think your good.