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.
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.
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)
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.)
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.)
And so people say to me, "How do I know if a word is real?" You know, anyone who's read a children's book knows that love makes things real. If you love a word, use it! That makes it real. Being in the dictionary is an artificial distinction; it doesn't make the word any more real than any other word. If you love a word, it becomes real. --Erin McKean, Redefining the Dictionary
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.
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
MtG Rules Advisor & Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJ DJ Vortex
DCI Certified Rules Advisor from July 14, 2009 to July 14, 2012 DCI #5209514320
Wit found in Rules Q&A
RPJesus: "Man, screw the rules, I'll play a game of 2HG Archenemy Planechase Emperor EDH draft yet. Once I figure out the rules for it..." Chaikov: "Of course, casual Magic may be played any way your Pokemon group agrees on..." and "It's not logic. It's Magic!" GainsBanding: "I only play online. The Magic Online shuffler is AWESOME!" Ikegami: "one might think [adult cats] would make excellent tokens. The issue, though, is that they are very hard to exile. They return to the battlefield more often than an undying creature." Astarael7: "Does 121.1 imply that players are supposed to wear their poison counters?" Bimmerbot: "If you move the wrong way and [the poison counters] fall, it's a game rule violation" Helluminatus: "Just remember, if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but the oracle text says creature - Bunny , then by god, it's a bunny." MadCow21: "Who are you and what have you done with the real Chaikov?"
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.
MtG Rules Advisor & Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJ DJ Vortex
DCI Certified Rules Advisor from July 14, 2009 to July 14, 2012 DCI #5209514320
Wit found in Rules Q&A
RPJesus: "Man, screw the rules, I'll play a game of 2HG Archenemy Planechase Emperor EDH draft yet. Once I figure out the rules for it..." Chaikov: "Of course, casual Magic may be played any way your Pokemon group agrees on..." and "It's not logic. It's Magic!" GainsBanding: "I only play online. The Magic Online shuffler is AWESOME!" Ikegami: "one might think [adult cats] would make excellent tokens. The issue, though, is that they are very hard to exile. They return to the battlefield more often than an undying creature." Astarael7: "Does 121.1 imply that players are supposed to wear their poison counters?" Bimmerbot: "If you move the wrong way and [the poison counters] fall, it's a game rule violation" Helluminatus: "Just remember, if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but the oracle text says creature - Bunny , then by god, it's a bunny." MadCow21: "Who are you and what have you done with the real Chaikov?"
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.
~ 
~ 
~ 
~ 
