Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 66 of 66

Thread: Intentional misleading?

  1. #61
    Member
    Offler's Avatar
    Join Date

    Sep 2009
    Location

    Bratislava, Slovak republic
    Posts

    674

    Re: Intentional misleading?

    Quote Originally Posted by Esper3k View Post
    You're correct in that you name the card upon resolution of the spell.

    However, just like in the above example with Pithing Needle, if you cast it and immediately name a card, if your opponent does not respond, you are bound by what you named.
    In general ... if a card require to name something upon resolution (its not a target, mode, alternate cost) its a common shortcut to name something when playing the card. However once situation changes by any means it is legal to change the choice at time when card start to resolve.

    Does this work also with Clone effects? Choosing a target is done "As comes into play" which to me looks similar to "upon resolution". I am in community full of Lightning bolts and those people usually believe that clone will enter battlefield as 0/0 creature because original creature is no longer on the battlefield. Generally community here believes that removal solves any sort of trouble...

    Edit: I am also asking because of changed wording...

  2. #62

    Re: Intentional misleading?

    Quote Originally Posted by Offler View Post
    Does this work also with Clone effects? Choosing a target is done "As comes into play" which to me looks similar to "upon resolution". I am in community full of Lightning bolts and those people usually believe that clone will enter battlefield as 0/0 creature because original creature is no longer on the battlefield. Generally community here believes that removal solves any sort of trouble...
    Yes, just like anything else you can make a choice while casting it and are bound by it unless there's a response - so long as you aren't trying to mislead your opponent into thinking it's targeted or something.
    “It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.
    -David DeLaney

  3. #63
    Member

    Join Date

    Jun 2004
    Location

    Madison, WI
    Posts

    1,601

    Re: Intentional misleading?

    Quote Originally Posted by alderon666 View Post
    I have one last thing to say about this.

    I just remembered the infamous Profane Command play by Patrick Chapin. He had Profane Command in hand and some creatures in play, including a Chameleon Colossus. But to win he needed all his creatures to get through, but for obvious reasons you can't give fear to Chameleon Colossus. So he just said: "You lose X life and I give fear to all my creatures that are valid targets." (or something like it). His opponent scooped even tough if blocked the Colossus he wouldn't lose.

    Article for reference

    Patrick there clearly intended to mislead his opponent into thinking that his Changeling had gained Fear, but as he worded it according to the rules the judges stood by him. Isn't this the same?
    Chapin is a briliant theorist and deckbuilder and I would never try and take away from that, but he's also a giant douchebag. Remember GP: Chicago where he rules lawyered his opponent about not announcing the Counterbalance trigger? And how the judge got it wrong and sided with Chapin even though the trigger *has* to go on the stack (not a may)? Yeah. Saying that Chapin did it does not give it positive moral weight.
    Quote Originally Posted by Draener View Post
    You know who thinks it's sweet to play against 8 different decks in an 8 round tournament? People who don't like to win, or people that play combo. This is not EDH; Legacy is a competitive environment, and it should reward skill - more so than it does.
    Quote Originally Posted by Borealis View Post
    Plow their Mom every chance you get!

  4. #64

    Re: Intentional misleading?

    Quote Originally Posted by SpikeyMikey View Post
    Chapin is a briliant theorist and deckbuilder and I would never try and take away from that, but he's also a giant douchebag. Remember GP: Chicago where he rules lawyered his opponent about not announcing the Counterbalance trigger? And how the judge got it wrong and sided with Chapin even though the trigger *has* to go on the stack (not a may)? Yeah. Saying that Chapin did it does not give it positive moral weight.
    Sorry but you're not Argumentum ad hominem-ing your way out of this one. Chapin might be all that you said, but on the Counterbalance case the judges took back their initial decision and corrected it. On the Profane Command case they stood with their decision and the article I posted was written by a judge enforcing their position, that it was a legal play.

  5. #65
    Member
    Malchar's Avatar
    Join Date

    Sep 2007
    Location

    Roseville, MN
    Posts

    946

    Re: Intentional misleading?

    Quote Originally Posted by alderon666 View Post
    On the Profane Command case they stood with their decision and the article I posted was written by a judge enforcing their position, that it was a legal play.
    I'll try to summarize the thread so that we don't continue arguing in circles. Everyone agrees that all of the "trick" plays in the thread are technically legal. Also, lots of people think that they are somewhat cheesy. Some people like the cheesy plays, some people don't.

  6. #66

    Re: Intentional misleading?

    A fine summary. I think we've gotten about all we can out of this at the moment.
    “It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.
    -David DeLaney

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)