Revoker/Needle cheating?

[Megadeus]

Say I have a Phyrexian Revoker or a Pithing Needle out. I name something that, it doesnt actually affect in any meaningful way. For example, I revoker naming Bridge from Below. If my opponent sacrifices a dude with a bridge in the yard to a therapy or whatever, but doesn't make a zombie, am I cheating by not telling him that Revoker does nothing and he is missing his trigger? Or is this simply unsporting? Or is it "next-leveling"?

[JDK]

If you don't actually say that your Needle/Revoker is prohibiting his unaffacted cards to trigger/work, there is nothing wrong with it, as long as you don't violate the rules (GRV) or tell him lies about information you are obliged to tell the truth about. If he just assumes his cards are shut down, it's his fault.

[JPoJohnson]

Or is this simply unsporting? Or is it "next-leveling"?

Just these. Nothing wrong with doing it at a major event... At a local event on any level of competitive-ness I would feel bad doing it. I've always felt like locals are more for having a good time and doing your best VS going ham.

[damionblackgear]

If it's a "May" you can continue as though they've opted to select not to use the trigger. If they call a judge, you can say that (s)he missed the trigger. I do agree that this is kind of a prick thing to do at more casual tournaments.

If it's a "Must", I'd advise you say something because it's cheating if you don't and know. If you missed it (accidentally), call when you notice and expect the judges to be more upset that they have to write something on your slip than actually being called to it.

[Esper3k]

If it's a "May" you can continue as though they've opted to select not to use the trigger. If they call a judge, you can say that (s)he missed the trigger. I do agree that this is kind of a prick thing to do at more casual tournaments.

If it's a "Must", I'd advise you say something because it's cheating if you don't and know. If you missed it (accidentally), call when you notice and expect the judges to be more upset that they have to write something on your slip than actually being called to it.

You aren't responsible for your opponent's mandatory triggers anymore - they are the some person responsible for them.

[Megadeus]

You aren't responsible for your opponent's mandatory triggers anymore - they are the some person responsible for them.

This. Yes, at a more casual tournament it is a bit different,but I am thinking more for larger tournaments. I figured, since they are responsible, if they think Revoker would shut it down, they would "miss" the trigger.

[cdr]

Rules knowledge is a skill advantage in Magic. You can certainly mislead with rules-legal actions, but you can't otherwise lie or mislead. If they ask you whether something works, you have to answer correctly or call a judge to answer.

[Julian23]

A friend of mine once named Peacekeeper with Phyrexian Revoker when he had no maindeck removal for it in his Affinity deck. A truely masterful play in my eyes.

[Megadeus]

Does that prevent them from having the ability to pay the cost? Our did it just make his opponent think that?

[damionblackgear]

You aren't responsible for your opponent's mandatory triggers anymore - they are the some person responsible for them.

Too many changes. Lets just go back to pre-6th and be done with it. :wink:

[nevilshute]

A friend of mine once named Peacekeeper with Phyrexian Revoker when he had no maindeck removal for it in his Affinity deck. A truely masterful play in my eyes.

What was he playing at? Making his opponent think Peacekeeper no longer worked and therefor not bothering to pay the upkeep to keep it around? Did it work? :smile:

[Julian23]

He did this play several times and most often his opponent's were confused and called a judge for help from what I know.

But what it's about is trying to squeeze out every legal edge you can get. I'm sure somebody somewhere would actually fall for it.

I for example always ask "Who HAS TO start?" when my opponent wins the die roll. It's mostly just a source of amusement but this one time, my opponent allowed me start game3 of the Merfolk Mirror. Out of all matchups...yeah :-)

[nevilshute]

He did this play several times and most often his opponent's were confused and called a judge for help from what I know.

But what it's about is trying to squeeze out every legal edge you can get. I'm sure somebody somewhere would actually fall for it.

I for example always ask "Who HAS TO start?" when my opponent wins the die roll. It's mostly just a source of amusement but this one time, my opponent allowed me start game3 of the Merfolk Mirror. Out of all matchups...yeah :-)

This might be a case of getting lost in translation, and if so I apologize. But how would phrasing the question like that result in your opponent letting you start?

[Julian23]

This might be a case of getting lost in translation, and if so I apologize. But how would phrasing the question like that result in your opponent letting you start?

You and your brother meet a an old women. She shows you a green pill and promises one of you great power and lots of wealth, while the other will lose all his hair. She tells you that she will be back tomorrow.

You and your brother roll a die; you win.

The next morning, the old lady comes back and asks: "Who has to eat the green pill?" .


Notice how you would feel completly different about the exact same question if it was phrased "Who gets to eat the green pill?"

[nevilshute]

Haha. So okay, you're playing a guy and you win game 2 and while shuffling for game 3 you ask your opponent (with an ominous tone of voice) "who has to start?" And your opponent panics and says "you" before dropping his deck due to shaky hands. Awesome :smile:

[Malakai]

Rules knowledge is a skill advantage in Magic. You can certainly mislead with rules-legal actions, but you can't otherwise lie or mislead. If they ask you whether something works, you have to answer correctly or call a judge to answer.

Can I say that I don't know, when I do in fact know?

[cdr]

Can I say that I don't know, when I do in fact know?

You can, but it's a good idea to tell opponent to call a judge if they want to make sure. You don't want even the preception of attempting to take advantage of illegal play, if your opponent goes through with something illegal.

It's usually best to ask a judge anyway unless you're absolutely sure.

[Julian23]

You can, but it's a good idea to tell opponent to call a judge if they want to make sure. You don't want even the preception of attempting to take advantage of illegal play, if your opponent goes through with something illegal.

It's usually best to ask a judge anyway unless you're absolutely sure.

That one Beta-Duals, all-Japanese Foil guy I ran into at the Bazaar of Moxen Vintage event was "absolutely sure" he could cycle his Rebuild from the graveyard after casting Yagwmoth's Will when it was his only out after fizzling hard on cantrips. Since I don't play a lot of Vintage, I told him that I wasn't too sure about that and we should probably call a judge.

"No, no judge! I am a Vintage expert!!" — Ok, definitely calling a judge now, lol.

[Megadeus]

Basically the moral of the story is: If you have any question about the interactions between cards, call a judge.

[johanessen]

That one Beta-Duals, all-Japanese Foil guy I ran into at the Bazaar of Moxen Vintage event was "absolutely sure" he could cycle his Rebuild from the graveyard after casting Yagwmoth's Will when it was his only out after fizzling hard on cantrips. Since I don't play a lot of Vintage, I told him that I wasn't too sure about that and we should probably call a judge.

"No, no judge! I am a Vintage expert!!" — Ok, definitely calling a judge now, lol.

Well, in fact asking a judge is also not determinating. In a competitive tournament of above 100 players my oponent played Lake of the dead and -"in response to the trigger effect, he wanted to sac his only swamp to add :b::b::b::b: to pool"-. I said he could not do this, we called a judge and he approved the play. So........

[Megadeus]

I think we are theoretically assuming that the judge isn't an idiot. Should have appealed to the head judge. If that shit works, I'm buying 1000 Lotus Vale's right now.

[sjmcc13]

Well, in fact asking a judge is also not determinating. In a competitive tournament of above 100 players my oponent played Lake of the dead and -"in response to the trigger effect, he wanted to sac his only swamp to add :b::b::b::b: to pool"-. I said he could not do this, we called a judge and he approved the play. So........ Ya, that has not worked for a decade or more...

You would think a judge would know that for old cards you really need to look up and read the oracle text.
Was this an actual DCI judge, or just someone acting as one at that tournament?

[cdr]

Judges can of course get things wrong on occasion, from inexperience, lack of familiarity with the format, or whatever, which is why you can appeal to the HJ. If something doesn't sound right, appeal.

A judge is still far more likely to be correct than your opponent.

[Offler]

That one Beta-Duals, all-Japanese Foil guy I ran into at the Bazaar of Moxen Vintage event was "absolutely sure" he could cycle his Rebuild from the graveyard after casting Yagwmoth's Will when it was his only out after fizzling hard on cantrips. Since I don't play a lot of Vintage, I told him that I wasn't too sure about that and we should probably call a judge.

"No, no judge! I am a Vintage expert!!" — Ok, definitely calling a judge now, lol.

These are mind games I usually dont support on our small EDH group when i am making tournament.

Example:
a) Rolling a die...
Our local rules states that the one who wins the roll begins. Usually he has the choice to begin, or not but its typical in duels, but not much usable in 4 player FFA.

b) People may create teams by how they are sitting around the table. So I came up with a rule which states that direction of the play is determined by the player who is sitting next to the winner and rolled higher number when compared to the other.

[Julian23]

These are mind games I usually dont support on our small EDH group when i am making tournament.

You should notice that there's a difference between playing for fun and playing competitively for often several hundreds of Euros.

[nedleeds]

These are mind games I usually dont support on our small EDH group when i am making tournament.

Example:
a) Rolling a die...
Our local rules states that the one who wins the roll begins. Usually he has the choice to begin, or not but its typical in duels, but not much usable in 4 player FFA.

b) People may create teams by how they are sitting around the table. So I came up with a rule which states that direction of the play is determined by the player who is sitting next to the winner and rolled higher number when compared to the other.

Wut?

http://www.casualplayers.org/

[Offler]

Long story short - ex-judge master-class cheater, banned for sanctioned tournaments near our playgroup with no sense for casual. :)

If we want to play EDH only a bit competetive (lets say prize for 20 euro) we need a judge and quite strict rules (for a casual format), just because of him.
If we want to play casual only, then without him.
And if we want to play pub/fun casual - like then mostly out of the club. Most people here dont have sense for EDH politics at all :)

[Megadeus]

Probably why Edh is a horrible format. "Politics" are stupid.

[MaximumC]

Ya, that has not worked for a decade or more...

You would think a judge would know that for old cards you really need to look up and read the oracle text.
Was this an actual DCI judge, or just someone acting as one at that tournament?

Still, I would forgive the guy. The errata on this whole family of cards is completely contrary to the printed text, like a clear 180 degrees from what it actually says, so unless you've been carefully checking Oracle text on everything you play, you could miss it. Unlikely this was an intentional problem.

(Also, this particular errata is horsepoop. Sure, Lotus Vale and Ruins are broken so keep em nerfed. But why oh why would you nerf the Alliance lands, too?)

[lilevo]

Locally you should tell your opponent also if you know it doesn't work why do it? if you plan on attending a big event you shouldn't count on your opponent not knowing the rules. Every time I play Tabernacle at a local event I explain how the creatures get the ability same goes for Chains I always explain it. There is no need to make the match into a "gotcha!" game.

[troopatroop]

Then you're not doing everything you can to win. There is value in those "gotcha!" moments. Ethically, I actually endorse them.

The people who are Jedi mind tricking everyone are working alot harder than those who don't. It's a mindset, refuse to lose, ever.

[T-101]

I think we are theoretically assuming that the judge isn't an idiot. Should have appealed to the head judge. If that shit works, I'm buying 1000 Lotus Vale's right now.

Assuming that a judge is not an idiot is a pretty far leap of faith. In the last year, I've dealt with so many judges that know barely enough to land L1, that I'm nearly in auto-appeal mode... or just not playing in an event when certain people are judging.

Back on topic, though.

@OP (regarding Revoker on Bridge). This is very muddy water.

If your opponent just assumes that you have 'turned off' his Bridge from Below, and starts not putting Zombies into play when he should, then you are safe. You don't have to notify him, or clarify anything.

If he asks you anything about it, and you give him false information, you can get a loss.

Imagine you Revoke his Bridge, and he says, "Oh man, that sucks! So now they don't make Zombies?" You nod, or say, 'I think so,' or even if he tries to put a zombie in, and you point to your Revoker, you might be found to be misrepresenting the rules (which carries penalties).

If you just stonewall him, and say nothing, you're fine. Scumbaggy? Debatable. Legal? Certainly.

[Julian23]

If he asks you anything about it, and you give him false information, you can get a loss.

Wrong. You will get disqualified and most likely suspended for several months if not a year. But it's 100% in your control not to have that happen to you. Don't cheat and you are fine.

If you think you can't walk what you make look like a thin line (which in my opinion it is not), stay away from leading your opponent into bad plays, but be aware that you are now playing worse than you could be.

[Megadeus]

I would never lie about how the interaction works. But ifmy opponent simply assumes it and didn't do anything is the question. Obviously I'm not lying if they ask.

[ESG]

You and your brother meet a an old women. She shows you a green pill and promises one of you great power and lots of wealth, while the other will lose all his hair. She tells you that she will be back tomorrow.

You and your brother roll a die; you win.

The next morning, the old lady comes back and asks: "Who has to eat the green pill?" .


Notice how you would feel completly different about the exact same question if it was phrased "Who gets to eat the green pill?"

Julian, you're the best.

[AggroControl]

Well, in fact asking a judge is also not determinating. In a competitive tournament of above 100 players my oponent played Lake of the dead and -"in response to the trigger effect, he wanted to sac his only swamp to add :b::b::b::b: to pool"-. I said he could not do this, we called a judge and he approved the play. So........

If you know the oracle text on a card and you're sure you have it right you should ask the judge to look it up. It's a huge problem with the number of cards in play and I often will just cede the point if I'm not 100% sure on a card. I don't want the judge looking at me cross-eyed the next time he comes to my table.

I'd have been pretty pissed on that one though. The "If X would enter the battlefield do Y and put X onto the battlefield" is a pretty standard oracle change on many cards of that type at this point.

[TsumiBand]

God god dammit I hate these Jedi mind trick-y threads :)

Misrepresentation is never the right play because if your opponent is not a dumbass, you're effed. So anything that approaches that is just a poor decision, whether via action or inaction.

It's like this in every game. As an example, there's about a 45 second clip from a Scrabble documentary that pretty much sums up my thoughts on the subject (in both Scrabble AND MtG).

Watch starting @ 1:04:00, if the time index thing doesn't work.


http://youtu.be/xyjS0Xdzrlc?t=1h4m

As for "Revoker naming something-with-no-activated-abilities", isn't that just tantamount to throwing away Revoker's ability? You can say "not if it wins you the game", but if anyone actually caught it, then you'd be the one getting a questionable write-up in a tourney report while the rest of the interwebs goes "lulz that noob said what card with Revoker?"

I mean isn't there something to be recognized about a hollow line of play like that? The problem is that someone somewhere knows better. It's not about strategy at that point; you try to pull a fast one on the wrong person, and you really just devalue your own play by not naming something relevant. The wrong play isn't ever the right play, just because it worked out previously.

[iamajellydonut]

Misrepresentation is never the right play because if your opponent is not a dumbass, you're effed. So anything that approaches that is just a poor decision, whether via action or inaction.

Good luck thinking of something to name against Dredge past turn one if they're not playing Griselbrand.

[sjmcc13]

Good luck thinking of something to name against Dredge past turn one if they're not playing Griselbrand.

Cephalid Coliseum for needle, LED for Revoker.
Putrid Imp if they might need it as a discard outlet.

[TsumiBand]

Yeah there's almost always SOMEthing, and if there isn't then it doesn't matter anyway. I will assume that my meaning is plain without constructing strawmen for or against; obviously if it's NoActivatedAbilities.dec then there is nothing to name anyway. That's not what I'm even talking about here

[Megadeus]

What if your only out however is to name bridge and hope your opponent doesn't get it? Sure most of the time it won't work, but hey, if it's my only chance, I may as well try right?

[TsumiBand]

There's a blurb in the DCI rules about taking game actions which cause your opponent to miss triggered abilities being A Bad Thing. It seems aimed at fast play, but plays that are in line with the aforementioned may be subject to scrutiny.
And it isn't an out! Because the minute you have an opponent that doesn't confuse her left hand for her right, or a trigger for an activation, the gig is up. It's one thing if there are no legit Revoker targets, it's another to legitimize the line of play.

[Julian23]

What you, TsumiBand, are missing is that we are talking about scenarios where your opponent making a mistake is your only out. If you are not even trying to take advantage of these situations because you are giving full credit to your opponent to make the right play, you are costing yourself EV in the long run.

[TsumiBand]

What you, TsumiBand, are missing is that we are talking about scenarios where your opponent making a mistake is your only out. If you are not even trying to take advantage of these situations because you are giving full credit to your opponent to make the right play, you are costing yourself EV in the long run.

Maybe I wasn't clear when I said "sooner or later that trick isn't going to work" but I guess I thought it was understood. You're hoping the opponent whiffs, so you misplay a card in the hopes that they also misplay. Of course it's not illegal to do so, but you're still tossing the card's potential out the window and hoping that your opponent is not hip to the difference between activated and triggered abilities.

Like I said, it is one thing if you legitimately have no actual cards to name, it's no different than having Path to Exile in your deck against something utterly creatureless. I get that. It's another thing to play a useless permanent and hope the opponent is an asparagus.

Misplaying and hoping the opponent doesn't notice has an upside and a downside. I've been in situations where my opponent got much further than they should have because they counted on this being A Thing. Specific example - someone had made it to the last round of the Ravnica prerelease with a Boros/g deck by convincing his opponents that Frenzied Goblin could just target all their dudes instead of simply triggering the one time. I knew better, and when I called him out on it -- and now, this I can't verify, but it was one of those "you're a real dick and I can see it in your braces" moments -- the look on my opponent's face and the tone of their voice when they said, "Oh I didn't realize". Bull shit -- he knew better, and I knew he knew, and he knew I knew what he'd done, and we also both knew very well that it wasn't as if there was anything that could be done about it. I did not win that match, but it doesn't matter.

So, clearly the Needle/Revoker situations are not in the same vein as this, because it is legal to name whatever card you want as long as it meets the restrictions on the card in question. I guess I don't see the reasoning in doing this because it operates on the idea that you're underestimating your opponent. You're hoping they don't get it. That means you have decided your opponent is worse than they actually are. Stealing the occasional game doesn't make it a sound line of play. I don't think this is that strange.

[Megadeus]

Well, as we all hopefully know, dredge is not a deck that many decks can interact with in game one. So a lot of the time "misplaying" a revoker to name a card that out doesn't actually shut off may be your ONLY play that can even possibly get you a win. Sure your opponent could not be an idiot and just kill you, but it was going to happen either way. By not playing the revoker, you have reduced your slim chance of winning to literal 0. So why not try? By your reasoning, if my opponent has enough lethal on the board to kill me, I shouldn't even try to bluff that I have something because a good player would just beat me anyway. If I've learned anything, it's that players are sometimes worse than what I assume they are.

[TsumiBand]

There's a huge difference between bluffing an answer and playing Revoker on something it can't touch. Going further there's a big difference between unknown information (the bluff) and known information (Revoker on Bridge is just RTFC, the cards speak for themselves).

[Megadeus]

Sure, but sometimes, people don't RTFC. And if it is my only out, whether it is the "wrong" play or not, if it is your only form of interaction I am trying it

[amalek0]

TLDR: While we can all agree that needle or revoker naming bridge from below doesn't work, and we can all agree that it is a generally low-EV play to make in a competitive environment where people generally know what their cards DO, there is conflict over whether doing so to bluff your opponent into missing their own triggers is considered a line of play, or just dumbassery. Personally, my opinion is that it doesn't matter what you name with revoker, you're just going to throw him in front of the first attacking token or ichorid to block the damage and exile those damn bridges ASAP anyway.

[Julian23]

can all agree that it is a generally low-EV play to make in a competitive environmen

I can not agree on that. It's +EV compared to not doing it in a situation where you opponent screwing up is your only out.

[Megadeus]

Julian gets it. It isn't about "ev". It's about itbeing your only out in a tough situation and whether or not it would be cheating or not.

[Julian23]

Lake of the Dead doesn't have a triggered ability, it has an replacement effect. It won't enter the battlefield if you don't sacrifice a Swamp before it enters.

[Tylert]

Lake of the Dead doesn't have a triggered ability, it has an replacement effect. It won't enter the battlefield if you don't sacrifice a Swamp before it enters.

Ok, should have checked "gatherer" I guess :)

[Dice_Box]

Ok, should have checked "gatherer" I guess :)

Its always my first stop.

[Tylert]

Its always my first stop.

I find it to be not reliable. sometimes you find the card you want sometimes not... I think there is something wrojng with languages in that program.
However it's blocked at work... (As magic card info which is the second source i know that has the card's rule text as it is written in gatherer).

[TsumiBand]

Sometimes Gatherer just bails on things that it shouldn't; I keep seeing cards in the wrong colors when I say "exclude non-selected" and it doesn't deal well with its own escape characters or boolean operators.

Like, say I had some thematically pleasing deck I wanted to build that is centered around Elephants and Devils (I don't know why; it's just two random creature types). A simple search with Gatherer would ideally just look like "elephant OR devil" with a check in "Types", right -- but just to make it work, you have to type "OR elephant OR devil". Which is not difficult or beyond a reasonable workaround, but it is unintuitive and lame. Forget about && and ||, you will crash the page right quick. Are your inputs not fully sanitized, Gatherer? O_o

[Julian23]

I don't know why people even use Gatherer. magiccards.info (http://magiccards.info/search.html) is easier to use, more reliable and more stable than anything produced by Wizards. It's also loading super quickly.

[Meekrab]

I don't know why people even use Gatherer. magiccards.info (http://magiccards.info/search.html) is easier to use, more reliable and more stable than anything produced by Wizards. It's also loading super quickly.
magiccards.info still lists Extended as a format....

[TsumiBand]

magiccards.info still lists Extended as a format....

Well, as long as FNM has "Invent Your Own Format" as an option, I don't really see a problem with that.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

I wanted to build a deck that is centered around Elephants and Devils.
I'd love to build a deck centered around Kipling West, but there are only two hits... :frown:
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=4544&type=card http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=4484&type=card
I'm serious.