Question about a Cabal Therapy trick

[Asthereal]

A user posted this comment about Cabal Therapy:

... hell you can even trick them out by casting therapy, Instantly naming a card to provoke a response (spell pierce likely) and make a New choice on resulution.

Is this allowed? Or do you have to stick with the initial card you named?

[Tempus]

A user posted this comment about Cabal Therapy:

Is this allowed? Or do you have to stick with the initial card you named?

It is allowed. When you name a card before the spell resolves you only have to stick to your choice, when your opponent lets it resolve without doing something.

[Asthereal]

That's nasty. Can you give a reference to a rule that shows it works like that?
(Just in case I try it once and people start complaining. )

[Julian23]

To be honest, it's a play with negative expected value once you start playing against better people. You give your opponent the choice of either holding you to the card you just named or responding.

When naming "the right card" to provoke a response by your opponent, it would have been better to NOT provoke a response. When you name the wrong card, your Cabal Therapy will just fizzle whereas in case you had remained silent there would have been a chance for your opponent to "waste" a counterspell on a Therapy that would not have hit in the first place.

Si tacuises, philosophus mansises.

[Esper3k]

That's nasty. Can you give a reference to a rule that shows it works like that?
(Just in case I try it once and people start complaining. )

I can't remember the exact rule, but iirc, it's because since you name the card upon resolution of the spell, you're essentially asking your opponent if it's ok to shortcut.

To be honest, it's a play with negative expected value once you start playing against better people. You give your opponent the choice of either holding you to the card you just named or responding.

When naming "the right card" to provoke a response by your opponent, it would have been better to NOT provoke a response. When you name the wrong card, your Cabal Therapy will just fizzle whereas in case you had remained silent there would have been a chance for your opponent to "waste" a counterspell on a Therapy that would not have hit in the first place.

Si tacuises, philosophus mansises.

^^^ This. While the "trick" may work against worse players, I do agree that giving good players more information is just a worse idea in the long run.

[Ryoku]

Ok, I think I've got this...

From Comp Rules:

716.2. Taking a shortcut follows the following procedure.

716.2a At any point in the game, the player with priority may suggest a shortcut by describing a
sequence of game choices, for all players, that may be legally taken based on the current game
state and the predictable results of the sequence of choices. This sequence may be a nonrepetitive
series of choices, a loop that repeats a specified number of times, multiple loops, or
nested loops, and may even cross multiple turns. It can’t include conditional actions, where the
outcome of a game event determines the next action a player takes. The ending point of this
sequence must be a place where a player has priority, though it need not be the player proposing
the shortcut.

716.2b Each other player, in turn order starting after the player who suggested the shortcut, may
either accept the proposed sequence, or shorten it by naming a place where he or she will make
a game choice that’s different than what’s been proposed. (The player doesn’t need to specify at
this time what the new choice will be.) This place becomes the new ending point of the
proposed sequence.

716.2c Once the last player has either accepted or shortened the shortcut proposal, the shortcut is
taken. The game advances to the last proposed ending point, with all game choices contained in
the shortcut proposal having been taken. If the shortcut was shortened from the original
proposal, the player who now has priority must make a different game choice than what was
originally proposed for that player.

So, by casting Cabal Therapy and naming a card immediately, a player is proposing a shortcut of "I cast cabal therapy, you pass priority, and as it resolves, I name this card." However, when the other player decides to respond, they are interrupting the shortcut, which will cut it short-- the player will not have to stick to any action after that point.

[Lemnear]

To be honest, it's a play with negative expected value once you start playing against better people. You give your opponent the choice of either holding you to the card you just named or responding.

When naming "the right card" to provoke a response by your opponent, it would have been better to NOT provoke a response. When you name the wrong card, your Cabal Therapy will just fizzle whereas in case you had remained silent there would have been a chance for your opponent to "waste" a counterspell on a Therapy that would not have hit in the first place.

Si tacuises, philosophus mansises.

I did bring up the example of a revealed sample Hand of 2x Spell Pierce, Brainstorm and FoW with 2 untapped Lands via Gitaxian Probe, casting Therapy and snap-calling FoW which likely provokes the casting of Brainstorm to hide FoW on top of the Library. The Therapy is renamed to "Spell Pierce" then.

At this point I can't see myself giving any valuable additional Information, Esper3k. FoW is always harder to dodge than taxing counters. "The long run" is a empty phrase if you clear the Hand off 3 counterspells for a Single Black mana and Turn the Opponent into a Goldfisch for your Combo deck

[Asthereal]

Concluding:
1. It is legal; we just propose a shortcut to accellerate the game play.
2. It can be a suboptimal play, because we give information to the opponent, that he/she otherwise would not have had.

Thanks guys! :)

[Esper3k]

I did bring up the example of a revealed sample Hand of 2x Spell Pierce, Brainstorm and FoW with 2 untapped Lands via Gitaxian Probe, casting Therapy and snap-calling FoW which likely provokes the casting of Brainstorm to hide FoW on top of the Library. The Therapy is renamed to "Spell Pierce" then.

At this point I can't see myself giving any valuable additional Information, Esper3k. FoW is always harder to dodge than taxing counters. "The long run" is a empty phrase if you clear the Hand off 3 counterspells for a Single Black mana and Turn the Opponent into a Goldfisch for your Combo deck

Yes, but if they wanted to next level you back, they can Brainstorm in response and hide the Spell Pierces (say they had another non-Spell Pierce blue spell).

Or they can just allow Cabal Therapy on FoW to resolve on FoW and have double Spell Pierce available still.

The situation you listed is still the best case situation to try the trick and again, it's still not that good because you're still giving your opponent extra information.

[Lemnear]

Yes, but if they wanted to next level you back, they can Brainstorm in response and hide the Spell Pierces (say they had another non-Spell Pierce blue spell).

Or they can just allow Cabal Therapy on FoW to resolve on FoW and have double Spell Pierce available still.

The situation you listed is still the best case situation to try the trick and again, it's still not that good because you're still giving your opponent extra information.

If they allow FoW to be discarded you still got a good value because you CAN outplay taxing Counters unlike FoW. Hiding Spell Pierces on top vs. Combo makes no sense especially with the FoW being the announced Therapy Target. Therefore hiding the pierces, drawing a random Blue spell Off Brainstorm and HOPING that you choose to Switch the announced target is an insane loose play I doubt to ever happen in a real tournament because choosing FoW sends a Message about your available mana and the "Trick" is still not widely known

[Esper3k]

If they allow FoW to be discarded you still got a good value because you CAN outplay taxing Counters unlike FoW. Hiding Spell Pierces on top vs. Combo makes no sense especially with the FoW being the announced Therapy Target. Therefore hiding the pierces, drawing a random Blue spell Off Brainstorm and HOPING that you choose to Switch the announced target is an insane loose play I doubt to ever happen in a real tournament because choosing FoW sends a Message about your available mana and the "Trick" is still not widely known

The thing is, the trick is actually pretty widely known and I would expect most higher level players to be aware of this.

Given that they know you've seen their hand and if they're anticipating the switch, I could see someone indeed next leveling you and just making your Therapy whiff.

Against most combo decks (I'm assuming you're playing Storm since you have both Probe + Therapy), double Spell Pierce (ie, +4 mana) can be worse to play around than a single Force of Will. One Silence/Chant or Duress will take care of the Force whereas you effectively need two protection spells or get lucky and get another Therapy to take care of the double Spell Pierces.

Again, you're talking about the best possible situation for the "trick" and it's still not proven that even using the trick is better than just casting Therapy on them, asking them if it resolves, then seeing what they do. By naming a card up front, you're giving your opponent more information for their decision as opposed to as little info as possible.

Finally, what your opponent really should've done is just Spell Pierced the Therapy and been done with it.

[cdr]

As a (late) reminder, this subforum really isn't for strategy discussion.

The play under discussion is one of the default tournament shortcuts defined in the Tournament Rules. The list of default shortcuts (MTR section 4.2) is very much worth reading for tournament players. These shortcuts do not have to be established; they are default and assumed.

* If a player casts a spell or activates an ability and announces choices for it that are not normally made until resolution, the player must adhere to those choices unless an opponent responds to that spell or ability. If an opponent inquires about choices made during resolution, that player is assumed to be passing priority and allowing that spell or ability to resolve.

[Arsenal]

While technically legal, I feel like that type of play goes against the spirit of fair play.

[Lemnear]

While technically legal, I feel like that type of play goes against the spirit of fair play.

It stongly does! However the game's leading faces have a history of cheating and shady plays. I expect every player repeatable Top performing, being a master in those disciplines

[nedleeds]

It stongly does! However the game's leading faces have a history of cheating and shady plays. I expect every player repeatable Top performing, being a master in those disciplines

[cdr]

I'm not going to get into a discussion, but there is zippo "shady" about knowing the rules of the game. If you're playing in a competitive event, you ought to have an idea of how the standard shortcuts work.

[Asthereal]

I'm not going to get into a discussion, but there is zippo "shady" about knowing the rules of the game. If you're playing in a competitive event, you ought to have an idea of how the standard shortcuts work.

I think you are right. I play this game for fun, but I do enter competitive events often (because all Legacy events appear to have a rule enforcement level 'competitive'). If I make mistakes, or get outplayed, because of rules that do exist but I was unaware of, that completely fine. I learn, my opponent proves he is better than me. All is as it should be.

[Julian23]

To be honest, I feel awesome when my opponent asks me whether Stinkweed Imp had Deathtouch and I say "no".
Still, I wish judges would make Legacy events at my local store REL Regular instead of Competitive because I feel that pulling legal tricks on my opponents who just happen to play Legacy ever other month to be unhealthy for the community. Those tournaments are just tournaments; real testing is done in private sessions so I don't need my small tournaments to be cutthroat. Just as something to think about for your local tournaments.

[cdr]

To be honest, I feel awesome when my opponent asks me whether Stinkweed Imp had Deathtouch and I say "no".
Still, I wish judges would make Legacy events at my local store REL Regular instead of Competitive because I feel that pulling legal tricks on my opponents who just happen to play Legacy ever other month to be unhealthy for the community. Those tournaments are just tournaments; real testing is done in private sessions so I don't need my small tournaments to be cutthroat. Just as something to think about for your local tournaments.

I think it depends on the playerbase for the tournaments; you may well be right for your local events. If the players who attended the tournaments were mainly competitive players looking to test for bigger tournaments I'd run competitive; if they were more casual or non-legacy players just playing because it was at their store, I'd run regular.

[Koby]

I think it depends on the playerbase for the tournaments; you may well be right for your local events. If the players who attended the tournaments were mainly competitive players looking to test for bigger tournaments I'd run competitive; if they were more casual or non-legacy players just playing because it was at their store, I'd run regular.

Likewise, if the prize payout is a big enough incentive to bring people out, and to care about finishing well, then Competitive REL is also appropriate. Typically, store credit events should be Regular as they tend to be more of a "live playtesting" session.