Cheating or clever use of the rules?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bed Decks Palyer

That's how small kids play Magic, don't you now? :laugh:

---

When I started playing in 09 I didn't understand the stack or how counters worked so I didn't play blue. I didn't think my reaction time was good enough to counter a spell! Lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan

Nonsense. There is absolutely no rule in the books against playing into a chalice or counterbalance. For all you know, this guy is filling up his graveyard for a tarmogoyf he intends to cast later. Or he could be building up storm. And even if there is absolutely no other rational explanation than that he speculates on the stupidity/forgetfulness/sloppy play of the opponent, that is absolutely okay in my book. This is no different from the famous 'fear for all legal targets' Profane Command play in that GP top 8 a few years ago. If you can only win the game when your opponent misplays, then speculate on the misplay. A chalice trigger is HIS responsability.

---

There is one hell of a difference! In the example given (OP) he just ignores the possible Chalice trigger and tries to force resolution by catching his opponent off guard and creating irreversible gamestates with a reasoning like "Sorry, you didn't say anything and I'm already searching my Library! Can't we not just carry on Judge, because HE forgot to say anything IN TIME?!"

Again: this is not about building storm or filling the GY; it's about IGNORING the rules!


What about those:

1) Put fetch to GY. Pick up Library. "Stifle? Nah, too late! I usually write down my lifeloss after fetching..."
2) Slam 4 Rituals on the table against a Counterbalance-Top "you respond with SDT? That must mean that the first 3 Rituals resolved! Haha!"
3) Cadt infernal, hold priority, move LED to GY, pickup Library "counter? You didn't say anything between casting infernal and Breaking LED! Forget that!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davelin

100% agreed, suggesting that intentionally playing into a Chalice is cheating is absurd.

---

Intentionally playing into a chalice hoping your opponent will miss the trigger. Take it out of context and it means nothing. When your opponent is at 3 and has a chalice at 1 should you flash the lightning bolt and say good game? You can most likely win if the player is not focusing on the game or is stressed out but it is not good sportsmanship and should not be considered "okay".

If you notice a non optional trigger is missed you should say something to keep the game playing like it was designed a "may" trigger is completely up to the owner of the trigger.

I find that if you try to force three game effects in a one second window, and your opponent tells you to hold it after the normal human reaction time, just about every judge on the planet will do what he can to rewind the clock. If your opponent tells you about the trigger during a next turn, he'll be too late, but not if he reacts at a normal pace. The gamestate can normally be rewinded then, even if the guy tried to force several actions in it. I replied to a post which said that playing into a chalice and hoping that the other guy doesn't notice the trigger in itself is cheating. I disagreed with that thesis. Forcing several actions in a second with the intention of creating a gamestate that can't be rewinded EVEN IF THE GUY REPLIES IN A NORMAL HUMAN PACE is different. And in those cases, the judge will normally do what he can to turn it back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

There is one hell of a difference! In the example given (OP) he just ignores the possible Chalice trigger and tries to force resolution by catching his opponent off guard and creating irreversible gamestates with a reasoning like "Sorry, you didn't say anything and I'm already searching my Library! Can't we not just carry on Judge, because HE forgot to say anything IN TIME?!"

Again: this is not about building storm or filling the GY; it's about IGNORING the rules!


What about those:

1) Put fetch to GY. Pick up Library. "Stifle? Nah, too late! I usually write down my lifeloss after fetching..."
2) Slam 4 Rituals on the table against a Counterbalance-Top "you respond with SDT? That must mean that the first 3 Rituals resolved! Haha!"
3) Cadt infernal, hold priority, move LED to GY, pickup Library "counter? You didn't say anything between casting infernal and Breaking LED! Forget that!"

---

EDIT: your three examples:

1) faulty use of the stack, that in itself is wrong
2) you can't play more than one spell at once, that's something without a grey area
3) see 1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan

I find that if you try to force three game effects in a one second window, and your opponent tells you to hold it after the normal human reaction time, just about every judge on the planet will do what he can to rewind the clock. If your opponent tells you about the trigger during a next turn, he'll be too late, but not if he reacts at a normal pace. The gamestate can normally be rewinded then, even if the guy tried to force several actions in it. I replied to a post which said that playing into a chalice and hoping that the other guy doesn't notice the trigger in itself is cheating. I disagreed with that thesis. Forcing several actions in a second with the intention of creating a gamestate that can't be rewinded EVEN IF THE GUY REPLIES IN A NORMAL HUMAN PACE is different. And in those cases, the judge will normally do what he can to turn it back.



EDIT: your three examples:

1) faulty use of the stack, that in itself is wrong
2) you can't play more than one spell at once, that's something without a grey area
3) see 1

---

@your edit:
Faulty use of the stack VS. ignoring the stack ... choose one ... doesn't matter


You can't turn back the actions once he browse through his Library. What do you want to do? Let him shuffle and hand out a warning? A warning is a resonable cost for a deck that plays 4 SDT + 4 BS but only ~4 Fetchlands as shuffle effects (+4 Crop Rotation lol)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lavafrogg

Intentionally playing into a chalice hoping your opponent will miss the trigger. Take it out of context and it means nothing. When your opponent is at 3 and has a chalice at 1 should you flash the lightning bolt and say good game? You can most likely win if the player is not focusing on the game or is stressed out but it is not good sportsmanship and should not be considered "okay".

If you notice a non optional trigger is missed you should say something to keep the game playing like it was designed a "may" trigger is completely up to the owner of the trigger.

---

Let's separate two things here. Intentionally playing into a Chalice isn't cheating, however doing so and giving your opponent no chance to respond certainly is. That goes with anything, if I resolve a Green Sun Zenith quickly without giving my opponent a chance to do something is against the rules (assuming that a Silence hasn't been resolved, etc.)

To take your example if I play a bolt and you say "shoot, good game" and scoop your cards, I'm not required to tell you that your chalice countered my bolt. Likewise I'm not going to tell you that your creature with reach can block my flyer if you say "I wish I had something that can block your flyer" during the beginning of combat. It your Chalice/Counterbalance/etc., so it's your responsibility to keep track of it. I'm speaking within the context of a Competitive REL here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

@your edit:
Faulty use of the stack VS. ignoring the stack ... choose one ... doesn't matter


You can't turn back the actions once he browse through his Library. What do you want to do? Let him shuffle and hand out a warning? A warning is a resonable cost for a deck that plays 4 SDT + 4 BS but only ~4 Fetchlands as shuffle effects (+4 Crop Rotation lol)

---

Chalice puts triggers on the stack. Playing your spell, then passing priority without telling the opponent what he can do suffices here imo. It's up to your opponent to put that trigger on the stack. That was the situation I replied to. The fetchland example is a very different situation. Each of the given examples hinges on that crucial element: passing priority. The opponent should be given the chance to put his trigger on the stack, but it's up to him to actually think about it. If you want to take a chance and gamble that he'll forget the trigger, that's ok in my book. You'll either win big, or, more likely, look like a noob and fail. I really don't know how to put it simpler than that.

As I said before: the real issue here is that WotC made an action that was once punishable by DQ a 100% legitimate play — and people dislike it and don't want to accept it. I don't like it either, but when I'm sitting down for a tournament, that's not the time to discuss policies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koby

Based on the description the OP provided (nevermind if it actually happened, let's assume it's accurate); how would the ruling not be Game loss for the Crop Rotation player?

---

Very simple. It would not be a GL because it would be a DQ for Cheating. The player has been informed that they cannot circumvent Chalice by just "doing stuff really fast". They took an illegal action. They are obviously aware that what they are doing is illegal (and at Comp REL, I would already be working with the assumption that the player is aware of this and would need a lot of evidence to convince me that they're just ridiculously uneducated). They are attempting to gain an advantage. That is textbook UC: Cheating. If I thought that the player missed Chalice being in play, I would give them a warning for Looking at Extra Cards and have them shuffle the unknown portion of the deck (that is, anything that should be unknown, the position of cards put back with Brainstorm or spun to the bottom with Jace +2 would be maintained) and then caution them to communicate better with the opponent on the resolution of spells and abilities. The moment that I heard that the player had already done this before, I would find another judge to watch the players while I went to get the Head Judge.

This is not worthy of a 4-page discussion. As written in the OP (and I'm discussing it as written in the OP, as actual events may have varied), this case was born, raised, lives and works in cheatytown. There is no gray area here. Do not attempt something like this at a tournament, you WILL be disqualified and there may be a suspension involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megadeus

The fact that his opponent was registering the chalice triggers right after he was casting the spells makes it pretty clear his opponent knew what was going on

---

Yeah, this seems very intentional and shady.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koby

Based on the description the OP provided (nevermind if it actually happened, let's assume it's accurate); how would the ruling not be Game loss for the Crop Rotation player?

---

Definitely cheating with intent, seems like at least a game-loss, possibly a trip to Dairy Queen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan

Nonsense. There is absolutely no rule in the books against playing into a chalice or counterbalance. For all you know, this guy is filling up his graveyard for a tarmogoyf he intends to cast later. Or he could be building up storm. And even if there is absolutely no other rational explanation than that he speculates on the stupidity/forgetfulness/sloppy play of the opponent, that is absolutely okay in my book. This is no different from the famous 'fear for all legal targets' Profane Command play in that GP top 8 a few years ago. If you can only win the game when your opponent misplays, then speculate on the misplay. A chalice trigger is HIS responsability.

---

In this instance though -- the player is acting as though their spells are just resolving and using speed as a means of pushing the game-state past the point of no return.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by original post

Jeremiah: Brainstorm -> reach for deck quickly and pick up his first card without seeing it yet when his opponent stops him.
Opponent: Chalice for once counters it
Jeremiah looks at the judge nearby who was watching and asks "If I picked it up faster would I have resolved the brainstorm?"
Judge looks at him funny as he's clearly in an awkward position and I believe tells him "No, that's not ok"
Jeremiah tosses his brainstorm in the bin and passes

Two turns later Jeremiah rips a Crop Rotation that could potentially save him from immediate death. He casts it, then picks his deck up so fast that nobody could tell him to stop before he was already digging for cards. He clearly did this intentionally and ended up resolving that with (I believe) a warning afterward. He lost the match anyway but I had never seen a situation like this before. At least half of this tournament was aware of what happened and we all kept an eye out for his shenanigans throughout the day but despite him scrubbing out of the event and never actually playing against me, I still felt "cheated" just watching it happen.

---

I used to play against a guy who did the opposite of this; he would declare misrepresented game-states constantly just to rewind time and replay poor attack phases.

I know people want to try and parse this stuff and try to legitimize certain lines of play, and there's a lot of 'compelling' arguments that make rules lawyers sound like Jedi Knights, and this is all just part of a good player's bag of tricks, and so on. Unfortunately, trying to put too fine a point on whether the line is, is like trying to define the difference between art and pornography; no I can't give you a hard definition, but 'I know it when I see it'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TsumiBand

I know people want to try and parse this stuff and try to legitimize certain lines of play, and there's a lot of 'compelling' arguments that make rules lawyers sound like Jedi Knights, and this is all just part of a good player's bag of tricks, and so on. Unfortunately, trying to put too fine a point on whether the line is, is like trying to define the difference between art and pornography; no I can't give you a hard definition, but 'I know it when I see it'.

---

This is where you are wrong. The good "Jedi Knight" will make his opponent allow the resolution of his spell and retrieve verbal confirmation - that's the beauty of the Jedi Mind trick: it makes your opponent do something, he doesnt want. Rock Lee's action were something completly different and if you feel people are in any way defending what he did, you misread basically 99% of what was discussed here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julian23

Rock Lee's action were something completly different and if you feel people are in any way defending what he did, you misread basically 99% of what was discussed here.

---

Welcome to the internet.

I agree it's completely cheating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julian23

This is where you are wrong. The good "Jedi Knight" will make his opponent allow the resolution of his spell and retrieve verbal confirmation - that's the beauty of the Jedi Mind trick: it makes your opponent do something, he doesnt want. Rock Lee's action were something completly different and if you feel people are in any way defending what he did, you misread basically 99% of what was discussed here.

---

Blimey, I miss one post, and now I've misread the whole thing? Would you have me post a +1 every time I agree with someone?

I didn't see Stan's earlier rebuke. That's my bad. Let's not act as though I've misgauged the entire tone of the thread though, yeah?

The action, as described, is cheating. one guy presents you a personal account of what happened, where he himself admits the judge staff reacted to it. You've got one guy giving an eye-witness account, in which he claims two things: a forum member is a cheater, and the judge sucks. Bold claims. Concluding out of that that the forum member is a cheater is quite a leap of faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan

The action, as described, is cheating. one guy presents you a personal account of what happened, where he himself admits the judge staff reacted to it. You've got one guy giving an eye-witness account, in which he claims two things: a forum member is a cheater, and the judge sucks. Bold claims. Concluding out of that that the forum member is a cheater is quite a leap of faith.

---

Yep. The actions described in the OP are cheating, and should probably result in a DQ, but I cannot comment on whether they occurred as represented, or if they represent any sort of trend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan

The action, as described, is cheating. one guy presents you a personal account of what happened, where he himself admits the judge staff reacted to it. You've got one guy giving an eye-witness account, in which he claims two things: a forum member is a cheater, and the judge sucks. Bold claims. Concluding out of that that the forum member is a cheater is quite a leap of faith.

---

I think we are past conclusions and have hit at "This is what I see as being the issues that players face and have to be aware of" stage. Also I am seeing a swapping of notes on past personal experiences of cheaters, all of which I find to be useful to read so I can keep more of an eye out.

Sent from my mobile.

I know everyone is coming out and calling Rock Lee a cheater based on the OP's information, but I'm reserving judgement until I get all of the facts here - including Jeremiah's. (I'm not calling Norm a liar, I would just like to hear both sides of the story before reserving judgement on what could potentially be considered serious and permanent defamation of character.)

If that's how it actually went down, then that's truly unfortunate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alphastryk

Definitely cheating with intent, seems like at least a game-loss, possibly a trip to Dairy Queen.

---

Just to clear up what seems to be a fairly common misconception. A judge doesn't decide to give a warning, or a game loss, or a match loss or a DQ for an infraction. There are set infractions. An action falls into a category of infractions or it doesn't. There are still gray areas around the lines, judgement calls to be made, but it's not "kinda cheating" or "cheating with intent" or "almost certainly Cheaty McCheaterton". An action either falls under the definition of 'Unsporting Conduct: Cheating' or it's not cheating. Additionally, we don't make up the level of penalty given for an infraction. I don't say "well, this was cheating, but it's minor cheating, so I'm giving a Game Loss instead of issuing a DQ." The penalty for Cheating is disqualifaction without prize. There are infractions with possible downgrades. There is an upgrade path for repeated infractions. But there is *always* a set penalty for an infraction and it is the penalty that should be issued 95% of the time or more. Deviating from the prescribed penalty is something that should be done very, very rarely.

Not that I can give you guys homework (but I would if I could!), but it would definitely be a good idea for everyone here to read the IPG (Infraction Procedure Guide) and be familiar with it. Not just because it will help you avoid infractions but because it will also help you identify opponent's infractions. Judges are there to make tournaments flow more smoothly. We're not there to hand out punishments, that just happens to be one aspect of the job. Our main job is to handle logistical challenges (fancy way of saying "post pairings, push in chairs and pick up trash"), answer rules questions and fix broken gamestates. Knowing when to call a judge and then actually CALLING THE JUDGE are important to maintaining a smoothly flowing tournament and also in helping us catch people who are engaging in unwanted behavior on a repeated basis.

Hollywood is right. We need all the facts before we brand somebody with the scarlet letter. I don't know the player in question but I think that the OP overstepped his bounds by calling him out by name before a proper investigation could be conducted. Not a lawyer or anything bit it seems that it could be grounds for a libel/defamation of character lawsuit.