Deceiving the Needle

[emidln]

Deliberately playing cards with misleading text to create advantage falls under Unsporting Conduct.

Deliberately misrepresenting what a card in play does is Cheating.

I would personally recommend just be being sporting and telling your opponent what the updated card text does. Is the advantage you may or may not gain worth exposing yourself to penalties?

You are free not to, but it's a narrow line to walk and if you cross it you're in trouble.

There is no misrepresentation. I always and forever announce the triggers going on the stack until my opponent badgers me to stop doing it. I vocalize all game actions and priority changes. One would hope that an opponent would at least question why I'm announcing Sylvan Library triggers if they see a colon and think Sylvan Library is an activated ability.

Isn't it my opponent's job to ask what the text is? Mine are Japanese 5th. They show a colon, but I've yet to play against a player who can read Japanese well enough to make out the card. All I'm relying on is ignorant opponents who don't bother to inquire the rules text. I see no reason why I should be penalized because my opponent makes an assumption.

[cdr]

You're sure you're not misrepresenting? Great. Just be careful that you never do.

You can be penalized because it has been decided that playing with misleading cards with the intent of confusing your opponents is Unsporting Conduct, which I completely agree with. If a judge ever catches on, you will be subject to penalties.

So you "always and forever announce the triggers", the cards are in japanese, and yet "that is why you've been playing 5th Edition"? Something doesn't really add up here. Has anyone ever actually named it with Pithing Needle when a) they can't even read it b) you have not misrepresented it even the slightest bit?

[AnwarA101]

I have a slightly different question. I was playing Iggy Pop against a Goblins opponent who decided he was going to play Pithing Needle naming LED and then asked me whether it worked. What happens here? I wasn't sure whether I was obligated to tell him that it doesn't work. Is it my job to tell him? Shouldn't he ask a judge. My response was a non-answer, where I told him that I didn't need LED to go off so it didn't matter. I went off with rituals instead. Did I do something wrong here?

[Pinder]

I have a slightly different question. I was playing Iggy Pop against a Goblins opponent who decided he was going to play Pithing Needle naming LED and then asked me whether it worked. What happens here? I wasn't sure whether I was obligated to tell him that it doesn't work. Is it my job to tell him? Shouldn't he ask a judge. My response was a non-answer, where I told him that I didn't need LED to go off so it didn't matter. I went off with rituals instead. Did I do something wrong here?

I don't think you did anything wrong there, but I would also like some clarifiation on the same question. If an opponent asks you a rules question (specifially something like 'does Needle on LED work?'), how much information are you obligated to give him/her? Or should you always default to 'ask a judge'? Of course, if you know that it doesn't work and you also know that a judge would rule that it doesn't work, isn't it just faster to tell them it doesn't work?

[Anarky87]

This reminds of GP:C where my Round 1 Goblin player brought in Needles against me Game 2 (I was playing 4c Landstill). He turn one Needles Brainstorm, I said ok. He then turn 2 Needles Rewind (why, I have no idea), and I said sure. I then Brainstormed later, he said something about Needle, and I informed him that Brainstorm was not a card with an activated ability.

Nothing like winning one of your hardest matchups on the back of stuff like that.

[etrigan]

Tell him yes, it works. It's technically true. It will stop activated abilities of LED unless they're mana abilities. It should be up to him to know that Pithing Needle doesn't work on mana abilities (it says it on the card), and to know that LED's ability is a mana ability (it says it on the card too).

If he had asked you if Pithing Needle would stop LED from generating mana, that would be something else. Otherwise I would point to 'honest answers with careful omissions'.

[Pinder]

This reminds of GP:C where my Round 1 Goblin player brought in Needles against me Game 2 (I was playing 4c Landstill). He turn one Needles Brainstorm, I said ok. He then turn 2 Needles Rewind (why, I have no idea), and I said sure. I then Brainstormed later, he said something about Needle, and I informed him that Brainstorm was not a card with an activated ability.

Nothing like winning one of your hardest matchups on the back of stuff like that.

Yeah, but that's just dumb, though. Thinking you can Needle LED and thinking you can Needle fucking Brainstorm are two completely different things. Guy deserved to lose because he couldn't read his fucking cards.

[Cait_Sith]

On the subject, how can you determine if the person is playing a card to gain an unfair advantage?

I love the art on Sylvan Library and 5th Edition has the clearest art of them all. Also, the current wording is fairly different from all the versions of Sylvan Library.

[Lego]

(specifially something like 'does Needle on LED work?')

I wonder if the intent of the question matters at all. It's pretty clear that he's asking, "Does naming Lion's Eye Diamond with Pithing Needle stop you from using LED's ability" to which the answer is clearly no, and you would be obligated to answer so (or not answer at all.) But that's not exactly what he asked (even if it's what he meant.)

[cdr]

I thought this had come up before, and sure enough it has. What's new since last year is the Player Communication Guide, which clarifies things some. Now it's quite clear that if your opponent asks "can I name", you can answer "yes".

The DVD Commentary has been posted before too - give it a read.

I have a slightly different question. I was playing Iggy Pop against a Goblins opponent who decided he was going to play Pithing Needle naming LED and then asked me whether it worked. What happens here? I wasn't sure whether I was obligated to tell him that it doesn't work. Is it my job to tell him? Shouldn't he ask a judge. My response was a non-answer, where I told him that I didn't need LED to go off so it didn't matter. I went off with rituals instead. Did I do something wrong here?

If he directly asks you "does it work?", you have three choices - "ask the judge", "no", or try to dance around it with a "you can name it" or whatnot. You have to be careful that you make only honest statements with #3.

I don't think you did anything wrong there, but I would also like some clarifiation on the same question. If an opponent asks you a rules question (specifially something like 'does Needle on LED work?'), how much information are you obligated to give him/her? Or should you always default to 'ask a judge'? Of course, if you know that it doesn't work and you also know that a judge would rule that it doesn't work, isn't it just faster to tell them it doesn't work?

Again, unless you think you can get away with an accurate but incomplete answer, tell him yourself or tell him to ask a judge. "Ask a judge" is always the safest answer, but if you're going to be accurate you can tell him yourself.

Tell him yes, it works. It's technically true. It will stop activated abilities of LED unless they're mana abilities. It should be up to him to know that Pithing Needle doesn't work on mana abilities (it says it on the card), and to know that LED's ability is a mana ability (it says it on the card too).

If he had asked you if Pithing Needle would stop LED from generating mana, that would be something else. Otherwise I would point to 'honest answers with careful omissions'.

Telling him "it works" is certainly misrepresentation - it's not true, "it works" does not stand on its own. You can say something accurate like "it will prevent non-mana activated abilities from being played", but stick specifically to statements which are obviously true.

I wonder if the intent of the question matters at all. It's pretty clear that he's asking, "Does naming Lion's Eye Diamond with Pithing Needle stop you from using LED's ability" to which the answer is clearly no, and you would be obligated to answer so (or not answer at all.) But that's not exactly what he asked (even if it's what he meant.)

Intent doesn't matter as such, but you can't answer an inexact question with an inexact answer in the hopes of fooling your opponent. If you asked a judge "does this work?", the judge should ask you what you mean by that - judges don't answer "does this work?" questions, though they will try to lead you to ask the question they can answer.

Telling your opponent "it works" knowing how he will interpret that while trying to have the fallback of "but how he interpreted 'it works' isn't how I meant 'it works'!", well, just doesn't work.

[TheCramp]

Clearly if your opponent is needing to needle your LED, you're in good shape. There is little in TES or POP that gets afected anyway. Sounds like people are playing cat and mouse in this example.

[matelml]

Clearly if your opponent is needing to needle your LED, you're in good shape. There is little in TES or POP that gets afected anyway. Sounds like people are playing cat and mouse in this example.

There is nothing in most TES decks that can be effectively Needled. In Iggy pop only the fetchlands and sometimes Street Wraith. So you are right, when you are playing one of those decks, it isn't really useful to try to confuse your opponent by saying it works.

[Cait_Sith]

You are cheating if you say it works and know it does not. This is because it does not work. You could answer: "That is a legal play;" "call a judge;" "that does not work;" or you could refuse to answer.

[Lego]

You are cheating if you say it works and know it does not. This is because it does not work. You could answer: "That is a legal play;" "call a judge;" "that does not work;" or you could refuse to answer.

That's not exactly true. Needle "works" with LED exactly as Needle works with every other card in the came. It shuts off that card's non-mana activated abilities. That's probably not what the kid is asking, but Needle does work here. You're fine saying, "Yes, Needle shuts off all of LED's non-mana activated abilities." Some players will still not understand, and name it with that information, so you're golden.