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.
The U.S. Army: The best job in the world, working with some of the best people in the world, for one of the worst employers you could ever imagine.
Here's a shout out for Scholars' Books & Games in Bridgewater, MA, and for Paladin's Place in Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany where I was stationed for two years. Support your FLGS!
Attacking the darkness since 1987, turning creatures sideways since 1994.
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.
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.
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)
The U.S. Army: The best job in the world, working with some of the best people in the world, for one of the worst employers you could ever imagine.
Here's a shout out for Scholars' Books & Games in Bridgewater, MA, and for Paladin's Place in Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany where I was stationed for two years. Support your FLGS!
Attacking the darkness since 1987, turning creatures sideways since 1994.
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
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?
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
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.
The U.S. Army: The best job in the world, working with some of the best people in the world, for one of the worst employers you could ever imagine.
Here's a shout out for Scholars' Books & Games in Bridgewater, MA, and for Paladin's Place in Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany where I was stationed for two years. Support your FLGS!
Attacking the darkness since 1987, turning creatures sideways since 1994.
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.
