Guerilla Tactics

[frogboy]

my default answer whenever I'm obviously in the tank and my opponent asks me some irrelevant question is to tell them how adorable they are and bash them

[frogboy]

Thanks. What about tokens? Am I allowed to keep Zombie tokens near my dice, lifetotal chart, etc?

are you a ringer? a friend of mine ran this once with Goblin tokens. He has a GP top eight. I didn't know what he was playing when I saw the tokens. I knew it wasn't aggressive and mulliganned accordingly. Nice Martyr of Sands, idiot.

[Vacrix]

are you a ringer? a friend of mine ran this once with Goblin tokens. He has a GP top eight. I didn't know what he was playing when I saw the tokens. I knew it wasn't aggressive and mulliganned accordingly. Nice Martyr of Sands, idiot.

What's a ringer?

[cdr]

Thanks. What about tokens? Am I allowed to keep Zombie tokens near my dice, lifetotal chart, etc?

Tokens aren't cards, so knock yourself out.

[Rico Suave]

What's a ringer?

A ringer is an extremely talented person surrounded by people who aren't nearly as good. Another term for ringer is a shark, which comes from playing pool where good players are considered shark amongst fish.

But we're not talking about good players, we're talking about really good players. The kind of players who are on levels you don't even comprehend.

The people who aren't nearly as good "think" they're good, pull of their cute guerilla tactics, and don't realize the ringer is about 10 steps ahead of them. In other words, you may think you're tricking your opponent but you're only giving them valuable information.

Of course, taking advantage of these people in a game of Magic isn't nearly as satisfying as taking advantage of them in pool or poker, where large amounts of money are bet on games. But the analogy still applies. The basic premise is that most people think they're a lot better than they really are, which mostly stems from their inability to fully grasp the entirety of the game and all of its complexity.

[Vacrix]

No I doubt I'm that good. I consider myself a pretty good storm pilot though.

[Jak]

I think people should focus more on the game than cheap and stupid little tricks to try and help themselves win. Stuff like laying out tokens, having a misleading playmat/deckbox, etc will not work against players that actually know what they are doing. You are better off focusing on the match and leave the terrible mind tricks for someone else.

Now, I am not saying all mind tricks are bad, since this is a competitive game and I will do a lot of things to get a slight edge but don't waste your time with stupid crap.

[Raptor]

I was known for playing ichorid in my area, and one day I built canadian ******** and brought it to a tournament. I had some Zombie tokens out to bluff opponents that I knew, and who are friends. They had a good laugh when I did turn 1 fetchlands and they realised I wasn't playing ichorid.

I don't usually mindtrick people, I just play the game for fun but do not show emotions of what I am drawing. I always shuffle my hand because I don't want to show that I'm manascrewed or flooded. I also shuffle it because if my opponent saw my hands I don't want to put a card into play that was not the at the same place in my hand, revealing that I've two of them.

I've won a game recently because I was playing merfolk with vial at 2 and at 3 and my opponent had a grim lavamancer and lots of creatures he was at 5 and I had a Lord of Atlantis and mutavault. I had sovereign in hand, activated vial at 2, in response, he lavamancer my LOA, I activate my vial at 3, and put sovereign into play. I topdeck a lord put it into play, activated the sovereign and my mutavault got unblockable and I swang for the win.

Of course when people ask me if I have the daze or the force, "I always have it"

[Roman Candle]

This one time I convinced my opponent that the droids I was carrying were not the droids he was looking for. Then I beat him down with Tarmogoyf.

[Forbiddian]

You don't ever want to run into someone that played like that. I watched that same friend of mine call a person for casting Time Spiral and not targeting the lands he was to untap. Don't beleive it, look it up, it's a pro tour finish. People will get annoyed after a while if you trick them with dirty stunts. Good plays are one thing, being an ass is another.

I don't mind you being a rules Nazi, but actually know the rules. Time Spiral doesn't target the lands. Your silly play is not a trick, it's just you not knowing the mechanics of the game. It's on the same level of a player swinging with creatures and then you saying, "You didn't declare that you're attacking me! You miss your attack step!"

And anyway, I don't believe you, and I didn't bother to try to look it up because no judge would possibly rule that Time Spiral has a hidden target ability that's not there. Your other stuff is just as stupid. Passing Priority is well-handled by the rules. So is most everything else that you said, and all of it would fall under Slow Play, if not actually Cheating.

So in short: Rules Nazi away, but please learn the rules before you try.

You'll find that it's actually prety hard to be a "rules Nazi."

[memnarch]

In my experience most magic players don't bluff much at all with the exception of having counter magic. Like you draw a land and already have enough so keep it in your hand to bluff counter magic. I definitely agree with Forbiddian though that noticing when your opponent looks at his or her hand can be a big tell. So bluffing can be beneficial, more so with blue I think. But ultimately you need to be paying attention to your plays because even pro players make mistakes most every game. Its not like poker where the strategy IS bluffing because Magic is just so complicated strategically and logistically that bluffing is a smaller factor. Things like knowing the players, what they play and the meta game for your sideboard is probably going to be a bigger factor. Also shuffling your sideboard into your deck and then removing 15 is a good strategy. But keeping random cards close to your side? I think that's a bad idea that's a little close to cheating and won't help you much either.

[Vacrix]

A ringer is an extremely talented person surrounded by people who aren't nearly as good. Another term for ringer is a shark, which comes from playing pool where good players are considered shark amongst fish.

But we're not talking about good players, we're talking about really good players. The kind of players who are on levels you don't even comprehend.

The people who aren't nearly as good "think" they're good, pull of their cute guerilla tactics, and don't realize the ringer is about 10 steps ahead of them. In other words, you may think you're tricking your opponent but you're only giving them valuable information.

Of course, taking advantage of these people in a game of Magic isn't nearly as satisfying as taking advantage of them in pool or poker, where large amounts of money are bet on games. But the analogy still applies. The basic premise is that most people think they're a lot better than they really are, which mostly stems from their inability to fully grasp the entirety of the game and all of its complexity.

In general I think that the mind tricks work on people who are looking for information ahead of time. Noobs are usually oblivious to what the opponent is playing anyway. I think that most experienced players try to put the opponent on a deck so they know how to play against them. I'd just rather the opponent play less conservatively. For example, if my opponent thinks I'm NOT playing combo, they might not leave mana open for Spell Pierce (or something) on the first turn and instead cast a vial. Tactics like these are unlikely to work on the virtuoso's you speak of. I still think its a tactic worth pursuing. Just like small talk within the first few turns of the game could lead the opponent to be completely off with their cabal therapy. Unlike in poker, its rarely the mechanism by which you win.

[ktkenshinx]

I think people should focus more on the game than cheap and stupid little tricks to try and help themselves win. Stuff like laying out tokens, having a misleading playmat/deckbox, etc will not work against players that actually know what they are doing. You are better off focusing on the match and leave the terrible mind tricks for someone else.

Now, I am not saying all mind tricks are bad, since this is a competitive game and I will do a lot of things to get a slight edge but don't waste your time with stupid crap.

This is somewhat misleading advice. If mind tricks aren't bad and give a slight edge, then why should players not waste their "time with stupid crap"? I understand the premise behind your post: smart players don't care about mind tricks, so why bother with them when they won't work. But you can't exactly say that and then add that they can "give a slight edge." In competitive Magic, as in all competitive things, "slight edges" are always good, provided they are legal. If they are not legal, then they are definitely not worth it.

The most interesting arguments are not the moralizing ones (and this is NOT to accuse Jak of making one; indeed, I don't think he does). Magic Moralists appeal to some higher, Kantian "categorical imperative" of game etiquette. None of us really know what that higher moral principle is, and how it works in Magic. Is Magic about being a nice guy? If yes, would you let your opponent take back a catastrophic play error? If yes again, would you let them do it in the semifinals? Or the finals? I bet a lot of Magic Moralists have a rather inconsistent moral calculus, and that is seen in this thread.

Then there are the effectiveness arguments. These are far more persuasive and currently more worthy of discussion. The way I see it, there are two such arguments as they apply to Guerilla Tactics.

1) If your opponent is bad/noob enough to fall for mind tricks, then why bother using them anyway?
1a) If you needed the mind tricks to beat a bad player, then you yourself are probably a bad player and should work on improving gameplay.
1b) If you don't need the mind tricks to beat a bad player, then why waste time with them?

2) If your opponent is good/pro enough to not be fooled by mind tricks, then why bother using them?
2a) It's better to work on your gameplay and deck piloting abilities instead of your mindtrick ones. Working on one helps you win. The other doesn't do shit.

I totally agree with the 1(a/b) sets of arguments. If your opponent is bad and you need mind tricks to win, then you really should be working on gameplay, not on being clever with the rules.

The 2(a) sets of arguments, however, are less persuasive. They operate on a fundamental assumption: good players are immune to mind tricks. While that might be a matter of ego and pride that all good players would probably attest to, but is it actually true? I do not think so.

The Profane Command Bluff[
Remember Patrick Chapins Profane Command bluff? For those of you not familiar, Chapin had a bunch of creatures in play and was in trouble. He needed to win immediately or he would probably lose on the following turn. So he slapped down an 8 mana Profane Command stating "Profane Command. You lose 6 life and all my legal targets gain fear." He then swung with everything. His opponent could not figure out a way to block and live, so he declared what blockers he could and lost the game.

The thing was, Chapin had a Chameleon Colossus in play with protection from black. His opponent assumed that the Colossus was a legal target for the Command when in reality it was not. Chapin made no rules flub and jedi mind tricked his way to a win.

Two points on this. First, Chapin is a damn good player, and his opponent was probably pretty good himself. The mind trick definitely worked here; what is to differentiate this trick from any other guerilla tactic mentioned in this thread?
Second, Chapin violated no rules. He got a ton of flak for it on the forums from the Magic Moralists, but he did nothing really wrong. This strikes me as an excellent example of a good mind trick, properly executed at a proper time.

What are your thoughts on the breakdown of arguments (1 and 2)? What are your thoughts about the differences between the morality-based arguments and the effectiveness-based arguments?

-ktkenshinx-

[Nelis]

The Profane Command Bluff[
Remember Patrick Chapins Profane Command bluff? For those of you not familiar, Chapin had a bunch of creatures in play and was in trouble. He needed to win immediately or he would probably lose on the following turn. So he slapped down an 8 mana Profane Command stating "Profane Command. You lose 6 life and all my legal targets gain fear." He then swung with everything. His opponent could not figure out a way to block and live, so he declared what blockers he could and lost the game.

The thing was, Chapin had a Chameleon Colossus in play with protection from black. His opponent assumed that the Colossus was a legal target for the Command when in reality it was not. Chapin made no rules flub and jedi mind tricked his way to a win.

Two points on this. First, Chapin is a damn good player, and his opponent was probably pretty good himself. The mind trick definitely worked here; what is to differentiate this trick from any other guerilla tactic mentioned in this thread?
Second, Chapin violated no rules. He got a ton of flak for it on the forums from the Magic Moralists, but he did nothing really wrong. This strikes me as an excellent example of a good mind trick, properly executed at a proper time.

What are your thoughts on the breakdown of arguments (1 and 2)? What are your thoughts about the differences between the morality-based arguments and the effectiveness-based arguments?

Does he not have to tell which creatures he wants to target? Seems like cheating to me but I'm no rules expert.

[ktkenshinx]

Does he not have to tell which creatures he wants to target? Seems like cheating to me but I'm no rules expert.

Technically speaking, Chapin would have to have said the following for the play to be 100% within the rules:

"I cast Profane Command with an X value of 6. Of the two choices, I choose that 'Target player loses X life' and 'X target creatures gain fear until end of turn'. I announce you as the target of the life loss. I announce Cloudthresher, Wilt-Leaf Sage, and Wilt-Leaf Sage as my targets to gain fear. I pass priority."

Imagine if every play worked out like that. Magic would be at a grinding halt, and judges would be flying around the room to get people to be less obnoxious and hurry up. Like any player in that situation, Chapin said the far easier, and far more deceptive, "Profane command. You lose 6 life and all my legal targets gain fear."

He never specified how many creatures gained fear. He never told his opponent that Colossus had fear. Indeed, by saying "legal targets", he was effectively saying that Colossus did not have fear, as anyone could see it was a highly illegal target. If his opponent had asked for clarification, Chapin would certainly have explained what had fear and what did not. Chapin did not say "I give all my creatures fear," or "All my creatures gain fear"; that would have been illegal and would have resulted in a loss.

Was it tricky? Yes. Was it cheating? No.

-ktkenshinx-

[DownSyndromeKarl]

highly illegal target

as oppose to moderately illegal, lol

I see nothing wrong with what Chapin did. Its like the other thread where someone mentioned calling Noble Hierarch as a target for Pithing Needle. If Chapin's opponent were halfway awake, they should have asked specifically what's being targeted, at which point Chapin would have to tell him. But they werent aware of the game state and thats on them.

[Vacrix]

Technically speaking, Chapin would have to have said the following for the play to be 100% within the rules:

"I cast Profane Command with an X value of 6. Of the two choices, I choose that 'Target player loses X life' and 'X target creatures gain fear until end of turn'. I announce you as the target of the life loss. I announce Cloudthresher, Wilt-Leaf Sage, and Wilt-Leaf Sage as my targets to gain fear. I pass priority."

Imagine if every play worked out like that. Magic would be at a grinding halt, and judges would be flying around the room to get people to be less obnoxious and hurry up. Like any player in that situation, Chapin said the far easier, and far more deceptive, "Profane command. You lose 6 life and all my legal targets gain fear."

He never specified how many creatures gained fear. He never told his opponent that Colossus had fear. Indeed, by saying "legal targets", he was effectively saying that Colossus did not have fear, as anyone could see it was a highly illegal target. If his opponent had asked for clarification, Chapin would certainly have explained what had fear and what did not. Chapin did not say "I give all my creatures fear," or "All my creatures gain fear"; that would have been illegal and would have resulted in a loss.

Was it tricky? Yes. Was it cheating? No.

-ktkenshinx-

Thats a pretty good idea. I guess putting a lot of pressure on a player all at once can win you the game. Sometimes while playing combo against a clearly uncomfortable opponent, I lay down my hand and ask them if they really want me to play it out. I've had an opponent fold once with a hand that was unclear whether or not I would have won. Sometimes people concede before you have completed the combo too when you really don't have it. One time I played out Belcher and my opponent conceded even though I couldn't activate it. These are just as good of tactics as tricking your opponent into mulliganing. I'll definitely be using this technique.

[(nameless one)]

Thats a pretty good idea. I guess putting a lot of pressure on a player all at once can win you the game. Sometimes while playing combo against a clearly uncomfortable opponent, I lay down my hand and ask them if they really want me to play it out. I've had an opponent fold once with a hand that was unclear whether or not I would have won. Sometimes people concede before you have completed the combo too when you really don't have it. One time I played out Belcher and my opponent conceded even though I couldn't activate it. These are just as good of tactics as tricking your opponent into mulliganing. I'll definitely be using this technique.

This. Sometime, if you play control, you can lock down a player and they will just concede even if you do not have a win condition yet. Sometimes, when I play a bad matchup, especially with asshole players, I would actually side out my win conditions for my Quinn deck in hopes of at least bring in a tie-breaker or winning from a locked game.


On the other hand, I myself do not concede unless my life is at 0 or an actual card actually tells me I have lost the game.

Back on the actual Guerilla Tactics, I myself have one. I only use one color of sleeve for all my cards. This way, if I am playing on the local store, the other players that I always play against with won't be able to tell what I am playing on game 1. I realized this when players from that local store will have a specific sleeve for a specific deck.

Also, I never playtest a deck right before the tournament. I tell everyone that its bad luck but really, I don't want the other players to know what I will be playing for that current tournament. At the same time, I would actually try to scope on what the other players are playing.

Yes, I admit that I am not a good magic player.

[Nelis]

as oppose to moderately illegal, lol

I see nothing wrong with what Chapin did. Its like the other thread where someone mentioned calling Noble Hierarch as a target for Pithing Needle. If Chapin's opponent were halfway awake, they should have asked specifically what's being targeted, at which point Chapin would have to tell him. But they werent aware of the game state and thats on them.

I dont mean to argue about the legitimicy of the Chapin play but this is not exactly the same. Because Pithing Needle targets the creature not its (mana) ability. I am allowed to say (target) Noble Hierarch with Pithing Needle but I wouldn't be allowed to say (target) Chameleon Colossus with Profane Command.

[Vacrix]

This. Sometime, if you play control, you can lock down a player and they will just concede even if you do not have a win condition yet. Sometimes, when I play a bad matchup, especially with asshole players, I would actually side out my win conditions for my Quinn deck in hopes of at least bring in a tie-breaker or winning from a locked game.


On the other hand, I myself do not concede unless my life is at 0 or an actual card actually tells me I have lost the game.

Back on the actual Guerilla Tactics, I myself have one. I only use one color of sleeve for all my cards. This way, if I am playing on the local store, the other players that I always play against with won't be able to tell what I am playing on game 1. I realized this when players from that local store will have a specific sleeve for a specific deck.

Also, I never playtest a deck right before the tournament. I tell everyone that its bad luck but really, I don't want the other players to know what I will be playing for that current tournament. At the same time, I would actually try to scope on what the other players are playing.

Yes, I admit that I am not a good magic player.

Nice. My friend actually played a deck in which he gains infinite life (Life.dec w/ Clerics)... without a win condition so that he could consistently get the life combo really quickly. Often his opponent would concede. Sometimes they would play it out though, in which lots of lols ensued.