Definition A person intentionally and knowingly violates or misrepresents rules, procedures, personal information, or any other relevant tournament information. Note that Fraud, like most cheating, is determined by an investigation and will often appear on the surface as a Game Play Error or Tournament Error. Additionally, it is Fraud if a player (or teammate) notices an offense in his or her match and does not immediately call attention to it. A player who intentionally forgets triggers he or she controls is guilty of Fraud, even if the trigger is a lapsing ability. However, ignoring opponent’s missed triggers is not Fraud. A player must be aware that he or she has committed an error in representation in order for the infraction to be Fraud. For example, a player targeting a black creature with Terror has not committed Fraud if he or she forgot that Terror can’t target black creatures, even though the action (casting Terror) was intentional and illegal. It is Fraud if a judge believes he or she was aware and hoping that his or her opponent would miss it. One does not need to be a player in a game to commit Fraud. In particular, teammates observing a game are expected to point out problems and call a judge to help if required.
It's a slippery slope, but I could see a DQ for your actions. You misrepresented that you were casting it - illegally, no less. A Judge could reasonably find that your opponent reasonably thought you were casting it. Trying to convince the Judge that you weren't based on symantics of "I was bluffing him" is likely not going to work out for you, but if nobody notices your play and the opponent fails to notice, you'll get the win.
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?"
revealing cards = good revealing cards + tapping mana explicitly stating the amount of mana + explicitly stating you are revealing = good revealing cards + tapping mana = cheating
Estratti's bluff is actually a fourth situation: "tapping mana" on its own. You mentioned that there was no way to miscontrue his action as an actual cast. And it's true -- there's no way that tapping mana can be considered a cast, unless your opponent fills in the blanks for you. That might seem insignificant, but it's actually the substance of the fine line between being underhanded and being clever.
he or she was aware and hoping that his or her opponent would miss it.
I fear that this is too vague for the good of the game. Actually, since you can ignore your opponent's undeclared triggers, it almost feels like the game rules are contradicting themselves.
I completely agree that Estratti's play is certainly very different from what I am suggesting, and certainly legitimate, whereas the line I am suggesting is not necessarily. To be clear, as I have repeated numberous times on this thread, the intent of the bluff I am suggesting is to show you have the spell and make your opponent believe you have the means you cast the spell. Not to make your opponent believe you have actually cast the spell.
Obviously tapping four mana, slamming chandra's fury, and getting 'wins' when your opponent doesnt notice is simply fraud, no debate whatsoever about that.
Revealing fury and hoping your opponent concedes I learned (earlier in this thread) is legitimate.
Tapping lands and hoping my opponent quits before I reveal the burn spell is legitimate, but clearly never going to happen. If you believe your opponent makes mistakes while stressed, I suppose you could do this to raise their blood pressure and hope they make a mistake because of it is allowable, but that is going pretty deep....
I guess... do you believe tapping lands + revealing card + explicitly saying you are revealing it = cheating?
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?
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?"
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.
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
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'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.
Yeah... Until next game, where it'll be right back.
Seriously, there's no way to deal with Rancor in any format. It should be banned, except Gleemax is a lobbyist for the Rancor party, so that'll never happen.
You can't ban rancor, it just returns to your deck.
You might want to actually talk to the Flavor & Storyline Board people... since, you know, our whole reason for playing Magic is the flavor. I'm willing to bet you'll get a lot more interest there than in General.
Indeed, both posters down there would be thrilled.
When talks about banning Jace first started, I was thinking that I would see him banned come June 20th. But as I think more about it, I don't really think that Jace is the problem anymore. Sure his power level leaves very little to the imagination (opening Jace is like opening a refrigerator box with a naked girl on the inside), and sure his price does have a strong impact on what players choose to play (playing Jace is like being intimate with a woman and she doesn't charge you in the morning), but it is not the source of all the problems in Standard.
How do people think saving room to print more abilities on cards is dumbing down the game?
Do you really think, say, Akroma would ever be printed if she said, "Akroma can block by creatures with this ability and cannot be blocked by creatures without this ability. If a creature without this ability would deal combat damage by Akroma would be destroyed, prevent all combat damage that creature would deal to Akroma this combat. Attacking does not cause Akroma to tap. If Akroma is blocked and deals lethal damage, it deals the remainder of its damage to the defending player. Akroma may attack and use abilities that require tapping in the casting cost the turn it enters the battlefield. Akroma cannot be damaged, enchanted, equipped, blocked or targeted by black or red sources" rather than her "dumbed down" wording she has? No freaking way. Keywording and shorthand allows them to make complicated cards easy to play with, allowing them to be printed in the first place.
1. cast frankie peanuts 2. ask opponent "will you concede the game this turn"? if they say yes, you win; if they say no, play a staying power 3. subsequently ask "will you attack this turn"? and "will you cast a spell this turn"? (using a Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir for the second question if necessary) to ensure they can't disrupt the combo 4. donate them a platinum angel 5. play a mox lotus and braingeyser them for every card in their library. play an opalescence and donate them a glorious anthem and a blacker lotus , then play enchanted evening . play and activate a mindslaver and then donate them a fastbond and the mox lotus (returning one of the donates to your hand with eternal witness or whatever) 6. during their turn, play every permanent in their hand (playing lands with fastbond) then (as yourself) cast mirrorweave on the blacker lotus, so every permanent becomes a copy of it. proceed to tear up every card they control, and hopefully do it before they notice that they aren't bound by staying power's ability anymore and can concede
Dark Ritual being overpowered is determined more by what is done with it than the card itself.
True, but the fact that it enables so many ridiculous things is pretty telling. It's like, sure I can use a shotgun as a bludgeoning instrument, but that doesn't make it not a shotgun.
Shortly before Serra died, she transferred her spark into an angel whose full name was Asha Avacyn Bolas. Her dragon father groomed her for her positions in Alara and Innistrad, and she's also been getting help from her uncle Ugin in the form of Urza, who was resurrected as Marit Lage to be the avatar as which she projects herself into material realms. Grieslbrand is a split personality who sometimes wanders the planes disguised as a human woman named Liliana Vess.
Everyone's life would be easier if players would, instead of coming to the 'net for help with a deck, just netdeck and be done with it. And I'm not talking about some Top 8 lists, for the Casualists, too, can benefit from netdecking. I've netdecked plenty of decks from the Casual Play forums from users such as Mown, Raedien, Floopfoot, and a few others. I snatched straight the heck out of my web browser. Yes, people, your original idea fell victim to a savage netdecker. You have been assimiliated.
Suppose I wanted a Zombie deck. Why on earth would I spend time searching Gatherer for a decent list of Zombie cards when Raedien already did it for me? Taking time to be creative or waiting on people on the forums to tell you why your deck sucks or 'go to Casual forums' is a disasterous waste of time (to me).
That being said, Magic was ruined back in Alpha when they added all that rules and cards [Debutantes avert your eyes]. My friends and I still like playing it the "pure" way (Basically we go into the woods and hit eachother with wiffle bats while shouting made up obscenities. You know, the way Garfield wanted it to be played).
Don't worry about it. I've come up with a list of changes to fix EDH.
-First off, there's no commander. -The minimum deck size is 60 cards, and each deck can have up to four of each card, save basic lands and relentless rats. Also decks have no color identity. -Starting life total is 20.
Here's a clever play you can try yourself: -Convince friend to run relentless rats.dec in legacy tournament -Get a deck with lots of mill, yixlid jailer, and humility -Drop humility and jailer, wait for him to dump his hand, mill him out -All his rats now have no abilities. Call a judge because he's playing an illegal deck with more than 4 of a single card. -Get him/her banned from competitive magic play
L, is for the leather gloves you weaaaar. O, is for the organs that guy could spaaaare. V, is very very, extraordinay. E, is for every vagrant i butchered in a wine cellar befooooore.
The outer layer of the Magic: the Gathering box, the carton, or crust, is fairly thin and light, and contains largely aluminosilcates.
Within that lies the middle layer, consisting of the familiar booster pack. Although solid, the booster packs' high temperatures allow them to acutally move around within the booster box. This flow, sometimes called convection, is cited by frustrated box mappers as one of WOTC's most genious uses of thermodynamics since the Ravnica block.
No one knows what lies at the core of the booster box, but scientists theorize that it must be especially dense in order to make up for the large amount of fluff distributed amongst the booster packs.
I imagine [Ajani 3's] second ability involves him hurling the creature at your opponent Brion Stoutarm style, then the guy is just like "Okay, that may have worked, but don't- GOD DAMN IT!" as he does it again because cats don't give a **** :33.
Its like that one time Elves broke out in a field of Jund. Elves became a resurgent hit, then died off again once Jund adapted to the rest of the field of G/W that it required mass removal that inherently pooped on Elves too.
Submit to the menace. Delver can, and will blot out the sun.
"I remember my days as a youth at Tolarian Academy ." "Wow, small multiverse, I actually went there too." "WAIT, DON'T- Well ****, there's $200,000 in student loans well spent."
And flavor goes out the window when you cast a second copy of a planeswalker right after the first one dies, so...
"Hey Nissa, I need a favor." "You just asked me for a 'favor' like thirty seconds ago, and it turned out to be having Sarkhan Transmogrify my only follower into a dragon like 5 times -which dickery aside also violates some laws of causality - and then you let me get beaten over the head by that hedron crab." "...I'll give you " "...Well all right then."
GM, I don't think Dill is better than you. I KNOW it. Even if he wakes up every morning, clubs a baby seal, steals all the TV remotes from within a block's radius of his house and then robs hungry orphans of their food he'd be better than you, for the simple reason that he learns from his mistakes.
What would they have to fight about? Like, all I can think of now is Gideon going "Hey, long-ears! I'm gathering a group of 'Walkers together to fight some tentacle monsters.....you want in?" and Tamiyo going "Ew! Hentai no bakka Gideon-desu desu!" and flying away.
I open 4 packs just to be on the safe side. Not only do I get more cards than everyone else, but I also get to spend the rest of the night off. Win Win.
MaRo has a thing for people opening boosters with bad cards. But since he can only get so many bad cards printed in each set, he has found a devious way of getting more bad cards into circulation: He makes entire print sheets with just bad rares, then puts them onto the assembly line. He proceeds to wring his hands and twirl his evil mustache that he grew for twirling purposes as a lightning bolt strikes in the background. Afterwards, he goes to make sure that the good cards are only opened by everyone's friends, and that we all only get to open bad cards. He does this by memorising each booster, than switching them around accordingly. Whenever someone complains about a card, he immediately jumps out from behind a chair to yell "WELL, IT'S NOT FOR YOU!" before merging back into the shadows in order to devise new ways in which he can screw over players, then claim that he has valid reasons for doing so.
Mark Rosewater is sitting in a seemingly innocuous cable TV van, outside of Bankaimastery's house. Sitting nearby are two hardened criminal hackers, fresh out of prison, and filled with resentment at their lack of physical fitness. "Have you managed to hack his brainwaves yet? The set deadline's coming up fast." "We're almost through. It should be coming up on the screen any second." The hacker presses a button, and Kevin's thoughts flash onto the screen. Mark and the hackers stare in amazement at the sheer beauty, the elegance, and the raw truth of what they see. It's like the ending to 2001: A Space Odyssey. Brilliant light shines across the screen, the truth of existence is made clear to them, and they despair at their own foolishness, their own ignorance, their own inadequacy. And then they steal his ideas. As they return back to R&D, Mark sneers at a haggard old man chained to a cast-iron sphere. The man looks up from his laborious task of breaking rocks in the dungeon of Wizards of the Coast headquarters, and asks a question: "Kevin, my greatest student. He - he's all right, isn't he? You didn't hurt him?" Mark deals him a weighty blow with his boot. "Know your place, Richard. Get back to work."
I'm only opposed to it because it bears so little relation to how people actually play the game. The example of Miracles is actually a much better one then the Clone example I was trying to use.
From the game's perspective, the card can move instantly from face down in the library to revealed in the hand and that's fine for the rules. But in real life, we can't actually do that, so the card spends a good bit of time in locations that are neither where that player's library is nor where that player's hand is. And that's fine for real life. What I don't want is the disconnect to be explicitly codified. Along the lines of
183664.697 A game of Magic as laid out by these rules exists only as a pure Platonic ideal, utterly unrealizable by fallible mortals limited by the confines of physicality and the ravages of evil and sin.
183664.698 The cake is a lie, too.
I know it's true, but I don't want the rules to actually straight-up tell me that.
Pfft this cant be serious can it? If it is please delete your account OP. Its not even close to ban worthy, considering what JTMS and stoneforge had to accomplish to get banned i see the WotC selling magic to aquire Pokemon before that ever happens.
I'm trying to imagine sorin markov as a gym leader in one of those pokemon games which you have to beat him to get his badge... somehow I imagine that he would stab you in the chest with his sword before giving you the badge, even if you beat his pokemon....
Personally, I'd be fine with tea time but then I'm not gonna waste the mana summoning Emrakul, the Aeons Torn . He always takes all the sugar, drinks the whole pot of Earl Grey and doesn't even say thank you. SO. RUDE.
Break the Card is a regular thread in the Cards and Combo Forum. Quite simply, the participants are given a Johnnystatic card (e.g. Xenograft ) and are asked to build a deck around it. The winner and honorable mentions are sigged below. Get brewing!
This week's Break the Card was based around Xenograft . Thread : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27681049/Break_the_card_:_Xenograft?pg=1
Winner : Axterix with his Vampdrazi deck. Finalist : Vektor480 with his Ally/Golem/Plant deck. Honorable mentions : Zammm for the Turntimber Ranger combo and TinGorilla for suggesting Sarkhan the Mad .
Here's the link to the Mindlock Orb contest : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27697565/Break_the_Card_:_Mindlock_Orb?sdb=1&pg=last#497536269
Here's the link to Break the Card : Bludgeon Brawl : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27715169/Break_the_Card_:_Bludgeon_Brawl?sdb=1&pg=last#498208797
Winner : Vektor and his Grab the World deck. Finalist : Crandor with his Awesome Aliteration deck. Honorable mentions : RP Jesus with his Wat deck and Zix200 with his Signet Renewal deck.
This week was Followed Footsteps : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27748677/Break_the_Card_:_Followed_Footsteps?pg=1
Winner : Tevish_Szat with his Exponential Growth deck. Honorable mentions : Zix with his Carbon Copies deck and Escef with his Fungus of Speed and Time deck.
This week's card was Jace's Archivist : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28063377/Break_the_Card_:_Jaces_Archivist.
Finalists : Jentaru with his "Consecration of the Draw" deck and HereticSmitty with his "ADHD: The deck" deck. Winner : JaxsonBateman with his "The Archives Are Endless!" deck.
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.
: Regenerate.
