Intentional misleading?

[Skeggi]

LCL 2011 - Torneo Final: Final. Miquel Alcoriza (UWr Stoneblade) vs. Alberto Manchado (Canadian)
http://manainfinito.com/videos/lcl-2011-torneo-final-final-miquel-alcoriza-uwr-stoneblade-vs-alberto-manchado-canadian


Questionable play by Alberto Manchado at 5:55. Miquel Alcoriza has a Jace with 5 loyalty. Alberto plays a Lightning Bolt directly on Jace, so Jace drops to 2. The second Lightning Bolt, he targets Alberto, who wants to write down the lifeloss, but then Miquel starts 'playing correctly' by redirecting the damage to Jace. Miquel wants to counter, but is pointed out it's already too late. Now Alberto also knows Miquel has a Force of Will with a blue spell in his hand of 2 cards.

Is this allowed? Looks like he had full intent to mislead his opponent.

[Sloshthedark]

I seems to me he played the bolt in same way as the first one but did not announce target clearly, opponent said its OK and understood it as targeting him... since he confirmed the damage the guy claims its too late...

otherwise I remember a thread here about making notes and as i recall the outcome was that notes are personal and writing down anything, life included, cannot be taken as confirming the damage/spell resolution

[klaus]

That's a tricky one - curious to get a thorough answer!

[Skeggi]

I seems to me he played the bolt in same way as the first one but did not announce target clearly, opponent said its OK and understood it as targeting him... since he confirmed the damage the guy claims its too late...
No it's different. A Lightning Bolt cannot target a Planeswalker. You have to target the player, then redirect the damage to the Planeswalker. But usually, people just target the Planeswalker instead of going the 'correct' route. In this case, Alberto exploits this by immediately implying the redirection with his first Lightning Bolt, but with his second explicitly targetting his opponent. The opponent shrugs and is willing to take the three damage, but when he's going to write the damage down Alberto indicates he wants to redirect the damage to Jace. Miquel then decides he wants to counter the Lightning Bolt, but is too late.

Alberto explicitly abuses a 'Jedi mind trick' here to let Miquel not counter the second bolt:

1. First bolt immediately targets Jace and resolves
2. Second bolt targets opponent, but damage gets redirected to Jace.

In this scenario, the second play of Lightning Bolt is correct, but the first is intentionally cut short to cause confusion.

[PeAcH]

Just a quick note: Miquel is the one playing Blade (left) and Alberto plays RUG (right) :)

As Skeggi mentions, first bolt uses a shortcut whilst second one does not.

For me it´s not a "Mind Trick" but another thing...

If you play the first bolt incorrectly and then the second one with another target what are you trying to accomplish? To fool you opponent trying to make him think you did not know how this worked to gain advantage of this once you let him know you do?

[Skeggi]

Just a quick note: Miquel is the one playing Blade (left) and Alberto plays RUG (right) :)
Oops, I'll correct that.


If you play the first bolt incorrectly and then the second one with another target what are you trying to accomplish? To fool you opponent trying to make him think you did not know how this worked to gain advantage of this once you let him know you do?
I think we're saying the same thing.

[PeAcH]

Yes, I was just agreeing with you :smile:

[SpikeyMikey]

Just a quick note: Miquel is the one playing Blade (left) and Alberto plays RUG (right) :)

As Skeggi mentions, first bolt uses a shortcut whilst second one does not.

For me it´s not a "Mind Trick" but another thing...

If you play the first bolt incorrectly and then the second one with another target what are you trying to accomplish? To fool you opponent trying to make him think you did not know how this worked to gain advantage of this once you let him know you do?

If you target me with Bolt and redirect to Jace, the second time you target me, I counter. But since the first time you shortcut it and the second time you target me, I assume you mean to deal 3 to me, not to redirect. It is definitely an intentionally misleading play.

[cdr]

It comes down to whether a shortcut was being used with the second Bolt, which would depend a lot on what was said. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any sound.

If Alberto for instance merely pointed the Bolt at Miquel and did not say anything, the game should be backed up to the Lightning Bolt being on the stack - Miquel completely reasonably interpreted the second Bolt as a shortcut of "Bolt, deal damage to you".

If Alberto did not leave any room for a shortcut and said something like "Bolt, targeting you" then the game should not be backed up.

[Skeggi]

There is sound (soft, but it's there), but apparently Google Tanslate doesn't work with youtube videos :wink:. Can someone translate please? When Alberto casts the second Bolt he clearly says something, but my Spanish doesn't go any further than "dos cervezas por favor". Edit: I believe he says "a ti" which means "to you".

You speak of backing up the game in certain situations; but I have the distinct feeling that Alberto is trying to mislead his opponent. Is this allowed? I thought it could be considered as cheating. Alberto doesn't say anything when casting the first Bolt, he just points with it at Jace. With the second Bolt I think he explicitly says he's targetting his opponent, letting Miquel walk in a trap which he set by shortcutting the first Bolt. That doesn't seem right to me. If you're allowed to use shortcuts when redirecting damage to a Planeswalker, shouldn't you be consistent and not misuse this to mislead your opponent?

Edit: this is what I dug up from Tournament Rules, section 4.2 Tournament Shortcuts (http://www.wizards.com/ContentResources/Wizards/WPN/Main/Documents/Magic_The_Gathering_Tournament_Rules_PDF1.pdf):

A player is not allowed to use a previously undeclared tournament shortcut, or to modify an in-use tournament shortcut without announcing the modification, in order to create ambiguity in the game.

Certain conventional tournament shortcuts used in Magic are detailed below. If a player wishes to deviate from
these, he or she should be explicit about doing so. Note that some of these are exceptions to the policy above in
that they do cause non-explicit priority passes.

A player who chooses a planeswalker as the target of a spell or ability that would deal damage is assumed to be targeting the planeswalker’s controller and redirecting the damage on resolution. The player must adhere to that choice unless an opponent responds.

He initially used the shortcut to target Jace. After that, he broke the shortcut, but that should only be done if you wish to deviate from it.

So how is this not cheating?

[Trentemoller]

This is for sure a legal play, I like it!

You cannot target a planeswalker, you have to redirect it. There is a conventional and legal shortcut though, by "targeting" the planeswalker. This is allowed and it means that if the bolt resolves you have to redirect it to the planeswalker. On the other hand, if you target a player, once it resolves you have the choice if you want to redirect it. Both are legal and the first one is used a lot but by no means neccesary. If you do the shortcut first you are in no way obliged to use that shortcut every time. Bolting your opponent and then redirecting is completely legal :)

[cdr]

There is sound (soft, but it's there), but apparently Google Tanslate doesn't work with youtube videos :wink:. Can someone translate please? When Alberto casts the second Bolt he clearly says something, but my Spanish doesn't go any further than "dos cervezas por favor". Edit: I believe he says "a ti" which means "to you".

You speak of backing up the game in certain situations; but I have the distinct feeling that Alberto is trying to mislead his opponent. Is this allowed? I thought it could be considered as cheating. Alberto doesn't say anything when casting the first Bolt, he just points with it at Jace. With the second Bolt I think he explicitly says he's targetting his opponent, letting Miquel walk in a trap which he set by shortcutting the first Bolt. That doesn't seem right to me. If you're allowed to use shortcuts when redirecting damage to a Planeswalker, shouldn't you be consistent and not misuse this to mislead your opponent?

There's legal ways to mislead your opponent and not-legal ways.

In this case, you can legally use a shortcut for one thing and then not use a shortcut for another thing. This may be what Alberto is trying to do, but when you're doing something like that you have to be very clear that a shortcut is not being invoked. "Target you" would be clear, "To you" would not.


Edit: this is what I dug up from Tournament Rules, section 4.2 Tournament Shortcuts (http://www.wizards.com/ContentResources/Wizards/WPN/Main/Documents/Magic_The_Gathering_Tournament_Rules_PDF1.pdf):

Using shortcuts to create ambiguity is not allowed, but there's no penalty for it. In extreme cases it could be Fraud, but usually just a strong caution from the judge not to try that.



He initially used the shortcut to target Jace. After that, he broke the shortcut, but that should only be done if you wish to deviate from it.

So how is this not cheating?

He used a shortcut to declare his intent to redirect to Jace upon resolution (and he is bound by that unless his opponent responds). The second time he could not break a shortcut, just announce normally and his opponent allowed the spell to resolve. That may or may not be what happened, I can't hear the audio and my Magic spanish is not very good anyway.

It's not cheating, but it's skirting the border of legality.

[honestabe]

I see nothing wrong with it. The guy didn't break the rules, he just used a mind trick

[TsumiBand]

I have to say I don't like it, if only because it involves a crappy aspect of burning out Planeswalkers.

Have you ever looked at the interaction between Player A playing Lightning Bolt targeting Player B, who controls a Planeswalker and has a Healing Salve in hand? It's really unintuitive. It's small wonder that a player could use a shortcut to confuse the issue, as the issue is already confused.

Barring this, I don't think there is such a thing as an acceptable shortcut that involves game actions at a certain REL. It's one thing to say "Land, go" and not pass priority back and forth for the phases you've 'skipped over' during your turn; it's another to cast a spell that is declared with an illegal target and call it a 'shortcut'. It's not Two Explores bad, but it shouldn't be happening.

[Skeggi]

First, thanks for your elaborate answer cdr, it certainly clears alot of things up. However, I've also asked the same question on another forum and a judge over there said Alberto perhaps should have been handed a DQ.

This is his (freely translated, because it's in Dutch) reasoning:


Apparently Alberto knows exactly how to play by the rules. If he doesn't do this with the intention to gain an advantage it's cheating.

The argument against this is that bolt #1 is played through an acceptable shortcut, namely:

* A player who chooses a planeswalker as the target of a spell or ability that would deal damage is assumed to be targeting the planeswalker’s controller and redirecting the damage on resolution. The player must adhere to that choice unless an opponent responds.

With his second Bolt he's clearly deviating from the earlier used shortcut.

* A player is not allowed to use a previously undeclared tournament shortcut, or to modify an in-use tournament shortcut without announcing the modification, in order to create ambiguity in the game.

This is what he does.

For me it's the question whether he intentionally did this to gain advantage (cheating) or something else is going on. These kind of scenario's are difficult to judge if you weren't there or didn't talk to the guy. For me this is enough to start an investigation.

This is basically what I was trying to say. What do you think of this cdr? If Alberto intentionally tried to gain an advantage by not following his previous shortcut, was he cheating?

In terms of the spirit of the game: you may think this is a cool way to outwit your opponents but I think it's ruining the game. I believe the intent of the game is to outwit your opponent by making smart plays, not tricking your opponent into some bureaucratic rule loophole.

[cdr]

This is basically what I was trying to say. What do you think of this cdr? If Alberto intentionally tried to gain an advantage by not following his previous shortcut, was he cheating?

In terms of the spirit of the game: you may think this is a cool way to outwit your opponents but I think it's ruining the game. I believe the intent of the game is to outwit your opponent by making smart plays, not tricking your opponent into some bureaucratic rule loophole.

Jumping to "DQ" is a stretch. Fraud requires knowing, intentional misrepresentation of rules/procedure. Fraud would require that he used a different shortcut on the second Bolt and then misrepresented to his opponent that it was too late to counter, knowing that it in fact was not too late. Unlikely. Investigate certainly, though.

Part of the issue, maybe, is that there's no penalty for abuse of shortcuts - it's nothing or it's Fraud/DQ. That makes some judges uncomfortable.

I can't see anything wrong per the rules with switching from using a shortcut to not using a shortcut - which again may not have been what happened here. Most likely outcome I think would be caution the guy and back the game up, but can't know without being there.

[PeAcH]

Yesterday, I talked with the people who attended the tournament and saw the match and got confirmed the situation was felt live as depicted here by Skeggi.

Unfortunately, the tournament was Invitation Only, so it was not open to all the public and thus not sanctioned. And there was no Judge to be able to provide all the entry in prizes for the players.

It´s supposed that having the best 32 players of a League with a monthly attendance of more than 100 players should be a sinonym of having everybody playing by the rules and avoiding this situations.

Next year we will try our best to have a Judge in the finals.

From the spirit of the game pov, it´s sad to have to see this situation (or Mind Trick as called by other people) in the Finals of this tournament.

I really thank the Dutch Judge comment on the issue and thank him for clarifying this. Much appreciated.

Finally, thanks Skeggi for pointing this out and doing the research.

[Malchar]

If the player with the Jace actually knew the rules of the game, nothing would have gone wrong. We shouldn't have to bend over backwards to accommodate players that don't know how to play, especially at high-level tournaments.

[honestabe]

If the player with the Jace actually knew the rules of the game, nothing would have gone wrong. We shouldn't have to bend over backwards to accommodate players that don't know how to play, especially at high-level tournaments.

This.

The guy with the Jace didn't know the rules and lost. Tough shit. Don't fall for it next time.

[Skeggi]

I wouldn't question his playskills or knowledge of the rules. The guy is in the final of a 32 player event, chances are it tired him out a bit, making him less sharp and more vulnerable to mind tricks.

[Julian23]

I wouldn't question his playskills or knowledge of the rules. The guy is in the final of a 32 player event, chances are it tired him out a bit, making him less sharp and more vulnerable to mind tricks.

Which is a fair way to lose in my book. Mental / Physical durability play a big role in doing well in big tournaments.

[Skeggi]

No argument there :smile:

[PeAcH]

@honestabe

"This guy" has won the 2011 LCV (one of the oldest Vintage leagues in the World with more than 7 years history) after 12 tournaments during the year (for the second time in 4 years).

Apart from winning the Final tournament of the top32 best players of the largest Monthly Legacy league in the World (with a regular attendance of more than 100 people).

Apart from being among the best and more respected Eternal players in Spain.

It seems he deserves more credit than that.



The guy with the Jace didn't know the rules and lost.

Nope. He won.

And the discussion is not about this but wether the short-cut non short-cut issue is intentional missleading or not.

[ReinVos]

The mistake is that wizards allows a shortcut like this to happen. Targeting a planeswalker is an illegal play and should be corrected on the spot.

In this scenario, you can't really penalize the guy for abusing the shortcut. But I also feel you can't really put all the ''blame'' on the guy who let the Bolt resolve. It's a really thin line. That's why I feel Wizards is the one in error, by not stating clear rules regarding redirecting damage to planeswalkers. I think this example proves why the shortcut isn't acceptable, you should always target the player first.

I believe competitive Magic (which is a great game for breaking language barriers) should be protected from things like this happening. It should be clear what's going on at all times.

This goes beyond a jedi mindtrick. Let's imagine the guy is completely clear in his gameplay. Let's imagine the conversation at the table:

''I'm going to tap mana to cast a Lightning Bolt. As you can see I'm targeting Jace, but what I really mean is redirecting the damage from you to him. I'm using a shortcut to make gameplay easier.''

''Alright, fair enough. It resolves.''

''Now I'm going to tap mana to cast another Lightning Bolt, this time I'm targeting you.''

''Alright, resolves. Let me just write that down...''

''Let me stop you right there, I'll choose to redirect the damage to Jace. I suddenly decided it's worth going through the extra trouble of first targeting the player.''

''Wait what? Alright, then I'll cast Force of Will pitching this blue card to counter it.

''But you already let it resolve...''

''So now you're just using shortcuts whenever you feel like it? I really think you should have pointed out that you're not using the shortcut anymore.''

''Your Jace is dead, buddy.''

''I'm not your buddy, friend.''

''I'm not you friend, guy.''

''I'm not your guy, buddy.''

This conversation would never end.

So even if the player abusing the shortcut was very clear in what he was doing, it would still be very easy to just fall for it. I think this problem can only be fixed by having more clear rules regarding this.

[cdr]

The mistake is that wizards allows a shortcut like this to happen. Targeting a planeswalker is an illegal play and should be corrected on the spot.

There are "clear rules about this" - targeting a planeswalker is a shortcut defined in the rules, in fact.

• A player who chooses a planeswalker as the target of a spell or ability that would deal damage is assumed to be targeting the planeswalker’s controller and redirecting the damage on resolution. The player must adhere to that choice unless an opponent responds.

Shortcuts are a good thing. As the rules say, "Tournament shortcuts are essential for the smooth play of a game, as they allow players to play in a clear fashion without getting bogged down in the minutia of the rules."

What people are objecting to is changing shortcuts without warning - which is definitely not legal - or using a shortcut and then stopping, which is in theory legal.

[TsumiBand]

There are "clear rules about this" - targeting a planeswalker is a shortcut defined in the rules, in fact.

• A player who chooses a planeswalker as the target of a spell or ability that would deal damage is assumed to be targeting the planeswalker’s controller and redirecting the damage on resolution. The player must adhere to that choice unless an opponent responds.

Shortcuts are a good thing. As the rules say, "Tournament shortcuts are essential for the smooth play of a game, as they allow players to play in a clear fashion without getting bogged down in the minutia of the rules."

What people are objecting to is changing shortcuts without warning - which is definitely not legal - or using a shortcut and then stopping, which is in theory legal.

Honestly I blame the card type Planeswalker and the rules surrounding them for shenanigans of this order to exist at all. The fact that they sort of act as singularities in the rulebook, bending rules around them so that they work as they should, is real dumb.

It's like how they removed the (walls can't attack) garbage from the Comp Rules, because they didn't want there to be any implicit rules surrounding a creature type. But now we have Planeswalkers, which don't entirely jive with most of the "target creature or player" rules in the game, so they have to work in goofy ways.

Imagine a different outcome of that first play:

Player A - "Bolt your Jace."
Player B - "In response, Healing Salve, targeting me. Any responses? *Player A says no* I'll prevent the next 3 damage dealt to me, and apply the replacement effects so that the damage dealt to me by the Lightning Bolt you actually targeted me with but apparently wish to redirect to Jace is negated before it can be redirected."

Waaay dumber than "It's a Wall. It just can't attack."

I just can't wait for them to start printing burn spells that target "target creature, player or planeswalker" or even better, "target permanent", so this stops being an issue and Lightning Bolt gets power crept out of the game and Burn.dec hits critical mass and ruins the world for generations to come. Ok the last bit will probably never happen, but probably the first. And it's because of shitty rules like this, and Wizards' tendency to creep ever closer towards an "Explicit > Implicit" Magic.

[Skeggi]

I just can't wait for them to start printing burn spells that target "target creature, player or planeswalker" or even better, "target permanent", so this stops being an issue and Lightning Bolt gets power crept out of the game and Burn.dec hits critical mass and ruins the world for generations to come. Ok the last bit will probably never happen, but probably the first. And it's because of shitty rules like this, and Wizards' tendency to creep ever closer towards an "Explicit > Implicit" Magic.

Actually they did it right at the first go:

http://magiccards.info/scans/en/be/163.jpg

I totally agree, the rulings to make Planeswalkers "work" are counterintuitive. They just bent them in a cetain way that they didn't have to errata every direct damage spell printed. While I love Planeswalkers and the extra aspect they bring to the game, I just wish they chose to go for the errata's instead of this awkward rule.


There are "clear rules about this" - targeting a planeswalker is a shortcut defined in the rules, in fact.
It's funny how Wizards basically admits how counterintuitive the redirection of damage to Planeswalkers is by allowing the shortcut.

[Neuad]

By my understanding Lightning Bolt has to resolve before it is redirected to Jace, and cannot legally target Jace.

If I say 'on your endstep Lightning Bolt you' and you say 'Okay' or 'Jace or I?', that is passing priority and letting the spell resolve, thus be redirected to Jace without another chance to counter it.

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding something

[cdr]

By my understanding Lightning Bolt has to resolve before it is redirected to Jace, and cannot legally target Jace.

By 'targeting' Jace, you are saying "I'm targeting you, and if you don't respond, I am redirecting the damage to Jace".


If I say 'on your endstep Lightning Bolt you' and you say 'Okay' or 'Jace or I?', that is passing priority and letting the spell resolve, thus be redirected to Jace without another chance to counter it.

Yes, "okay" or such is passing priority to let the spell resolve.

It does depend on how that is to be interpreted; "you" could be interpreted as "target you and deal damage to you", especially if previous shortcuts are involved. "Target you" is unambiguous, "you" is not. If your opponent misinterprets an ambiguous shortcut, the game gets backed up to the point of misunderstanding.

[lordofthepit]

Related question. Can I cast a Cabal Therapy, Pithing Needle, or Meddling Mage naming an irrelevant card, and ask my opponent "does it resolve"? If it does resolve, can I actually change the card I name, or am I obligated to use the card I initially renamed when I should have been choosing a target player without specifying a card?

[cdr]

Related question. Can I cast a Cabal Therapy, Pithing Needle, or Meddling Mage naming an irrelevant card, and ask my opponent "does it resolve"? If it does resolve, can I actually change the card I name, or am I obligated to use the card I initially renamed when I should have been choosing a target player without specifying a card?

If you declare something about a spell on announcement that's actually part of resolution, you are bound to your choice - unless your opponent responds. If your opponent responds, you can change.

[lordofthepit]

If you declare something about a spell on announcement that's actually part of resolution, you are bound to your choice - unless your opponent responds. If your opponent responds, you can change.

Thanks for the explanation.

[Skeggi]

This is a part of the twitter conversation I had with Matt Tabak (http://www.gatheringmagic.com/matt-tabak-succeeds-mark-gottlieb-rules-manager/) regarding this topic:


@joostbollen If he did it on purpose, he'd have a very difficult time convincing me it wasn't cheating.


@TabakRules Can you accuse him of cheating if he did it on purpose based on section 4.2 of the Tournament Rules, or on a different rule?


@joostbollen MTR 4.2 covers it. He deviated from an in-use shortcut. If on purpose for adv, cheating. If not, warning for TE-PCV (IPG 4.7).

[Julian23]

So one judge says cheating? How come cdr then comes to the conclusion of a backup? Didn't he just say that there's no penalty for deviating from a shortcut?

Sorry if I missed something, but I would be really shocked if - after all - two competent judges came to two vastly different resolutions of this problem.

[Skeggi]

In all fairness, Matt Tabak isn't a judge anymore, but now the Rules Manager for Wizards, he used to be a level 3 though I think. This is how the conversation ended:


@TabakRules Thanks! This ruling apparently is unclear among judges as various judges provide different answers, even within the same level.


@joostbollen Well, I'm not a judge at all anymore. :) There's room for interpretation there.


So different judges can have a different outcome? Shouldn't the rules be clear to validate the DCI?

My last question isn't really relevant to the original point and Matt hasn't replied to it. I guess that's the thing with all the rulings: they're subject to the interpretation of the judge, some rules are just more clear in general than others I guess.

The important thing I get from this, is that the Rules Manager of Wizards says that this behavior is punishable if the judge wishes to do so, and he points at two rules the judge can use as argumentation.

[cdr]

So one judge says cheating? How come cdr then comes to the conclusion of a backup? Didn't he just say that there's no penalty for deviating from a shortcut?

Sorry if I missed something, but I would be really shocked if - after all - two competent judges came to two vastly different resolutions of this problem.

It happens more than you might think, at least with less well defined things. Skeggi stumbled upon something of an edge case. Most things are well defined.

It comes down to whether you consider ceasing to use a shortcut "deviating from a shortcut" - I'm not sure it should be, but it's possible I'm on the wrong side of policy.

(I should note that Tabak is not currently a judge, though he was before and is a smart guy - he's the rules manager, dealing primarily with game rules)

[Skeggi]

My last question isn't really relevant to the original point and Matt hasn't replied to it. I guess that's the thing with all the rulings: they're subject to the interpretation of the judge, some rules are just more clear in general than others I guess.

Matt replied to my final question:


@joostbollen Impossible to codify the nuances of human behavior. Judges often have to use judgment to establish player's intent, knowledge.

With this in mind, there are always bordercases like this where judges might interpret the rules differently. Just keep in mind you might get a judge who thinks it is cheating and he does have the necessary rules to back up his claim. So if someone does this to me in a tournament I'll definately call for a judge.

[Misplayer]

If you declare something about a spell on announcement that's actually part of resolution, you are bound to your choice - unless your opponent responds. If your opponent responds, you can change.

Getting a bit off-topic, but I want to confirm the following:

Opponent has Flooded Strand and Polluted Delta in play, you cast Pithing Needle and immediately name "Flooded Strand" without giving your opponent an opportunity to respond. Your opponent says "wait, in response, I'll crack Flooded Strand". Because they responded, you are now free to name "Polluted Delta" upon resolution. Is this accurate?

That's probably not a very relevant example, but a similar situation where you say "Sensei's Divining Top", your opponent taps down their Wasteland to look in response, then switches their Top, then Fetches it away (all in response to Needle), could ruffle some feathers when you officially name "Wasteland" upon resolution. This is considered a legal 'mind trick', correct?

Thanks in advance

[Tao]

Good that it was ruled this way. A did not use a Shortcut when he targeted B and B had absolutely no reason to assume that A did. B can take a gamble and hope that A accidently gave away to much information to safe his Force of Will but if B wants Jace to live then he has to just play it safe.

B was either unaware of the rules (that he can't counter once the PW is targeted) or he tried to be abusive and failed. Either way, this is 100% B's own mistake and he is the only one to blame.

[Esper3k]

Getting a bit off-topic, but I want to confirm the following:

Opponent has Flooded Strand and Polluted Delta in play, you cast Pithing Needle and immediately name "Flooded Strand" without giving your opponent an opportunity to respond. Your opponent says "wait, in response, I'll crack Flooded Strand". Because they responded, you are now free to name "Polluted Delta" upon resolution. Is this accurate?

That's probably not a very relevant example, but a similar situation where you say "Sensei's Divining Top", your opponent taps down their Wasteland to look in response, then switches their Top, then Fetches it away (all in response to Needle), could ruffle some feathers when you officially name "Wasteland" upon resolution. This is considered a legal 'mind trick', correct?

Thanks in advance

Yes, this is true as far as I know.

Other relevant Legacy examples would be using Cabal Therapy or Meddling Mage in the same way.

[cdr]

Getting a bit off-topic, but I want to confirm the following:

Opponent has Flooded Strand and Polluted Delta in play, you cast Pithing Needle and immediately name "Flooded Strand" without giving your opponent an opportunity to respond. Your opponent says "wait, in response, I'll crack Flooded Strand". Because they responded, you are now free to name "Polluted Delta" upon resolution. Is this accurate?

That's probably not a very relevant example, but a similar situation where you say "Sensei's Divining Top", your opponent taps down their Wasteland to look in response, then switches their Top, then Fetches it away (all in response to Needle), could ruffle some feathers when you officially name "Wasteland" upon resolution. This is considered a legal 'mind trick', correct?

Thanks in advance

Yes, you can certainly do that.

[Offler]

I have re-read the Cabal Therapy.

To be clear announcing a name of card is expected upon resolution before revealing hand. Correct?

Whatever player say when the spell is being cast is then irrelevant unless the spell will start to resolve. Really nice mind trick...

But what if player casts it announcing a card, i answer that I dont do anything. Spell then start to resolve. Can he change his mind at this point before the hand is revealed?

[Esper3k]

I have re-read the Cabal Therapy.

To be clear announcing a name of card is expected upon resolution before revealing hand. Correct?

Whatever player say when the spell is being cast is then irrelevant unless the spell will start to resolve. Really nice mind trick...

But what if player casts it announcing a card, i answer that I dont do anything. Spell then start to resolve. Can he change his mind at this point before the hand is revealed?

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.

[Koby]

I have re-read the Cabal Therapy.

To be clear announcing a name of card is expected upon resolution before revealing hand. Correct?

Whatever player say when the spell is being cast is then irrelevant unless the spell will start to resolve. Really nice mind trick...

But what if player casts it announcing a card, i answer that I dont do anything. Spell then start to resolve. Can he change his mind at this point before the hand is revealed?

For cards that ask a player to name a card upon resolution will only be chosen upon resolution. Oftentimes you can shortcut this by stating the card immediately. The opponent still has a chance to respond regardless of the chosen card; but if both players pass priority and have no responses the shortcut is locked in.

The situation is different if the opponent has responses; in which case the card is chosen upon final resolution of the spell; whether it is the same card or differently.

[brattin]

I remember Clique used to cause problems, when people didn't know about the card as much as they do now--you say "Clique, does it resolve?" and they say "yes, please look at my hand" and you write down the cards in their hand and then say "I choose to target myself". I've been told this used to be legal, albeit unsportsmanlike, and that it isn't any more. Is that the case?

Also, say I cast Therapy targeting them and immediately name FoW. They brainstorm, ostensibly hiding their force of will, and then show me their hand before I have a chance to ask if it resolves so I can name something else.

I guess in general, what do you do in a situation where an opponent takes a shortcut for you (possibly because of something you said)? The sportsmanlike move is to say "hold on, I'm not looking at your hand, I'm actually going to name Show and Tell", but is it legal to look at their hand and then name something you see?

[Esper3k]

I remember Clique used to cause problems, when people didn't know about the card as much as they do now--you say "Clique, does it resolve?" and they say "yes, please look at my hand" and you write down the cards in their hand and then say "I choose to target myself". I've been told this used to be legal, albeit unsportsmanlike, and that it isn't any more. Is that the case?

Also, say I cast Therapy targeting them and immediately name FoW. They brainstorm, ostensibly hiding their force of will, and then show me their hand before I have a chance to ask if it resolves so I can name something else.

I guess in general, what do you do in a situation where an opponent takes a shortcut for you (possibly because of something you said)? The sportsmanlike move is to say "hold on, I'm not looking at your hand, I'm actually going to name Show and Tell", but is it legal to look at their hand and then name something you see?

If your opponent wants to show his hand to you, there's nothing in the rules against that :)

[alderon666]

In my opinion there nothing wrong with the Lightning Bolt play.

I don't see how not using a shortcut to do something could be an illegal play.

I could see a problem if he pointed the second bolt at Jace and then after it resolved said: "3 to you, I choose if it'll be redirected only upon resolution". But actually not using a shortcut and doing things the long way is completely fine for me.

Sorry, Jace play just was outplayed. I support that kind of play 100%. I knowing the rules is a huge part of the game, and testing your opponent for it is a valid way of gaining advantage.

[Skeggi]

I don't see how not using a shortcut to do something could be an illegal play.
RTFT, you might find out.

[alderon666]

RTFT, you might find out.

Way to gain my lifetime animosity with one line.


Is naming the card with Cabal Therapy upon casting similar to this scenario? Because I believe that after you pointed at Jace with the Bolt you can't make it damage the player instead. You're basically giving away free information and locking yourself to a choice.

Wouldn't playing a Therapy and instantly naming Force of Will and then playing another one normally be "breaking" the rules?

[Koby]

The player could receive warnings for misplaying or mis-representing what the card does (in the case of Cabal Therapy). Especially if they change their choice. There is even an example of this in the Level 1 judge test with Oblivion Ring.

[cdr]

The player could receive warnings for misplaying or mis-representing what the card does (in the case of Cabal Therapy). Especially if they change their choice. There is even an example of this in the Level 1 judge test with Oblivion Ring.

This is incorrect. Naming things on announcement that should be named on resolution (eg with Cabal Therapy) is entirely legal and supported by the tournament rules.

You can't misrepresent cards or rules, but that is not misrepresentation - that's a shortcut. It's only misrepresentation if the player knows he's doing something incorrect and does it with the intent to mislead his opponent about how things actually work.



Is naming the card with Cabal Therapy upon casting similar to this scenario? Because I believe that after you pointed at Jace with the Bolt you can't make it damage the player instead. You're basically giving away free information and locking yourself to a choice.

It's exactly the same as eg naming a card with Cabal Therapy. You're locked into redirecting to the planeswalker unless the opponent repsonds.


Wouldn't playing a Therapy and instantly naming Force of Will and then playing another one normally be "breaking" the rules?

That's actually a pretty sharp observation.

[alderon666]

I can see the rule previously mentioned being appliable when it strips away from a player options or understanding of what's going on in the game. At all times the opponent knew what was going on and had full information of the situation.

The first Bolt was implied to be targetting him and locked to be redirected to Jace.

The second Bolt was clearly targeted at him, but it is implied that he had the choice to redirect it to Jace. Nothing that happened previously in the game indicated otherwise.

It is surely possible that he did the whole Bolt action just to confuse his opponent and test his knowledge of the rules. But he didn't use any shady actions to do so, and for that reason I see no problem at all.

[Malchar]

If you simply learn the rules and know how cards work, then it's impossible to be taken advantage of. At a constructed tournament, everyone has to come with a deck already made. You should also come with full knowledge of the game rules, which are freely available online. You have unlimited opportunity to learn how to play the game before you show up to a tournament. If you're using planeswalkers in your deck then you should know how they interact with lightning bolt. If you plan to use brainstorm to hide things from cabal therapy then you should find out how this interaction works ahead of time.

It's wrong for the opponent to cheat by abusing your lack of rules knowledge, but this is difficult to prove, and it's much much easier to avoid the problem entirely by learning the rules ahead of time. The fact is that in each of these cases, if both players knew the rules, then no one would have been taken advantage of.

[TsumiBand]

I like the discussion re: Cabal Therapy, since it seems like being able to declare the card in advance makes Therapy much better than it already is. That card has always functionally said, "Name a card that wrecks you. Target player doesn't have it in their hand." Being able to name a card you don't want them to have, only to have them respond by Brainstorming it away and then naming something else, seems like a really good way to make sure target opponent doesn't have their best TWO cards in hand.

Don't get me wrong, I don't pass priority through untap-upkeep-draw or declare combat with no creatures, but there's a difference in my mind between "shortcutting through doing nothing" and "shortcutting through game actions". I don't see a reason to ever NOT play in a way where you get to *explicitly* say, "I'm going to do this," and then have the opponent say, "Oh well, then I'm going to respond like THIS," and then you get to say, "Actually ah, no. I actually wanted to do THIS."

[cdr]

I like the discussion re: Cabal Therapy, since it seems like being able to declare the card in advance makes Therapy much better than it already is. That card has always functionally said, "Name a card that wrecks you. Target player doesn't have it in their hand." Being able to name a card you don't want them to have, only to have them respond by Brainstorming it away and then naming something else, seems like a really good way to make sure target opponent doesn't have their best TWO cards in hand.

This isn't the place for strategy (read: if you disagree, probably best to discuss in a different thread), but it seems like if your opponent knows what you're doing they can just let it resolve with the locked-in choice and let you take whatever not-best card you named. Or they can respond and know that you can change your selection now and act accordingly. Basically, it would only "work" against someone not familiar with shortcut rules and probably only once.

[SpikeyMikey]

I can see the rule previously mentioned being appliable when it strips away from a player options or understanding of what's going on in the game. At all times the opponent knew what was going on and had full information of the situation.

The first Bolt was implied to be targetting him and locked to be redirected to Jace.

The second Bolt was clearly targeted at him, but it is implied that he had the choice to redirect it to Jace. Nothing that happened previously in the game indicated otherwise.

It is surely possible that he did the whole Bolt action just to confuse his opponent and test his knowledge of the rules. But he didn't use any shady actions to do so, and for that reason I see no problem at all.

The way he played it may have been correct by the rules but it's fairly obvious that his intent was to mislead his opponent as to what he was doing. To my mind, that's a douchebag move. It reminds me of a match I saw about 12 years ago where this guy named Kenneth said, "Well, I think that's probably game." Then when his opponent started picking his cards up, he bullied the kid into a loss telling the opponent that he (the opponent) had just scooped. Kenneth said he hadn't conceded, merely commented on the game state, and therefore his opponent conceded to him by picking up his cards. That's what I think of when I read this. You're not "outplaying" your opponent in this situation. You're rules lawyering them.

[alderon666]

The way he played it may have been correct by the rules but it's fairly obvious that his intent was to mislead his opponent as to what he was doing. To my mind, that's a douchebag move. It reminds me of a match I saw about 12 years ago where this guy named Kenneth said, "Well, I think that's probably game." Then when his opponent started picking his cards up, he bullied the kid into a loss telling the opponent that he (the opponent) had just scooped. Kenneth said he hadn't conceded, merely commented on the game state, and therefore his opponent conceded to him by picking up his cards. That's what I think of when I read this. You're not "outplaying" your opponent in this situation. You're rules lawyering them.

I don't like that comparison at all. In your example one player made the other believe something had happened when it hadn't (game concession). On the Bolt example nothing of that sort happened, all the players knew what was going on at all times. No one said "When I want to Bolt your Jace I will always point my Bolt at it". It was more like "This Bolt that I'm playing is targetting you, but I will redirect it to Jace if it resolves".

I can see, for example, the "don't change your shortcuts" rule being applied on this example: Everytime I want to pass the turn I just wave my hand towards my opponent in a very expressive manner. I do that for 2 games in a row and then on game 3 I do it again, and when my opponent draws I say "What are you doing? I didn't pass the turn".

But forcing me to take the same shortcut everytime because I used it once doesn't make sense. In the example instead of waving I could just say "I pass all priorities of all my steps until the end of my turn" or the infamous "Go".

I think what I'm trying to say is, if you created a shortcut you can't make it mean something else. But you can do the same thing in a different way.

[SpikeyMikey]

You're still rules lawyering. It's pretty clear what the *intent* is there. The intent was to mislead the opponent into thinking that the first bolt was going to Jace and the second bolt was going to his face. Had he done it correctly both times, without the shortcut, the second Bolt would not have resolved. He knew this and mislead his opponent into believing that the second bolt was going to the dome. While he didn't do anything wrong from a procedural standpoint, it was still shady.

[alderon666]

You're still rules lawyering. It's pretty clear what the *intent* is there. The intent was to mislead the opponent into thinking that the first bolt was going to Jace and the second bolt was going to his face. Had he done it correctly both times, without the shortcut, the second Bolt would not have resolved. He knew this and mislead his opponent into believing that the second bolt was going to the dome. While he didn't do anything wrong from a procedural standpoint, it was still shady.

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 (http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/the-riki-rules-%E2%80%93-profane-bluffs/)

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?

[Namida]

The difference here to me is that I feel even a less than vigilant opponent would be able to understand through Chapin's choice of words that he had at least one illegal target. In the scenario highlighted in this thread, I feel like you would need to be downright paranoid to have the foresight required to assume your opponent would attempt to deceive you by announcing one play with a shortcut, and then immediately deviating from that shortcut.

[Offler]

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...

[cdr]

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.

[SpikeyMikey]

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 (http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/the-riki-rules-%E2%80%93-profane-bluffs/)

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.

[alderon666]

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.

[Malchar]

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.

[cdr]

A fine summary. I think we've gotten about all we can out of this at the moment.