Technically you weren't lying. As far as you could tell with the information you had available, you were not able to win. It wasn't until later on as you were in the midst of the turn with more information that you realized you could win, meaning you didn't lie as you truthfully thought you could not win that turn.
In any card game “damn, I can’t win this turn/hand” is the oldest bluff in the book. Should have told the kid his shoes were untied and refrigerator was running while you’re at it
I don't understand why the table got salty over it, they allowed a bunch of actions leading to a win under the impression that ''I can't win''. If you had a response and chose not to take it: That's on you.
If I’m at a competitive tournament and my opponent says unprovoked “damn it, I can’t win next turn” I’ll immediately assume he can win next turn. Come on, people.
that is so obvious that they probably said that with the intention of you assuming and playing around them being able to win next turn, so they probably can indeed not win next turn!
@@VictorTaelin But its also so obvious that they said it with the intention of making you assume and play around them being able to win because they cannot win that you could play safe assuming they cant win when they actually can win and win you because you were cautious.
Seriously. Lying in that way is kind of a dead giveaway, especially since he noted that no one had asked if he could win and he freely gave that info. I'm calling that bluff every time.
Imagine if it was illegal to lie in the given case: "I can't win this turn." - "I resign. Hey, judge, my opponent lied, therefore the match goes to me!"
That's what the Yugioh community was talking about when this happened. According to Konami, telling yur opponent you have something you don't might influence their play, so it's illegal at all play official events. Curiously, asking what your opponent has in hand isn't technically against the rules, but can still get you penalized with unsportsmanlike conduct.
@@makingadjustments Why did you say that here? Did you actually read the comments above, or did you just find a comment near the top to ride the coattails of?
@@randommaster06 Yeah yugioh's policy on lying is insane from a magic player's perspective. I don't know how your tournament's don't devolve into "who can get their opponent to dq themselves first"
@@JuniperHatesTwitterlikeHandles The boring answer is bad prize support. Most people don't want to get banned to win a few packs. The funny answer is that the plays have ADHD and know that they won't be able to find another game that lets them do 20 things in the first turn if they get banned from Yugioh.
There is a separate rule clarifying that you win if your opponent resigns, regardless of the game state. Like you can resign even if you have a platinum angel.
As someone who plays Yugioh and Magic, it's funny comparing these rules to Yugioh's rules, especially the rules on private information. In Yugioh, not only are you not allowed to tell your opponent false information about the contents of a hidden zone, you're not allowed to tell them TRUE information about hidden zones.
@@attackoncardboard There's a very powerful card in Yugioh called Nibiru. It's a huge meteor that you can summon from hand on your opponent's turn if they've summoned 5 other monsters, wiping their board. Because of the presence of Nibiru in the metagame, it breaks the rules for Players to say "this is the fourth summon right?" or to count the summons on their fingers, or to otherwise publicly count summons. Because either you have Nibiru in your hand, and you're cheating, or you don't have Nibiru in your hand, and you're cheating.
@@attackoncardboard How about a good ruling then, something that Magic should really look to copy. Yugioh has extremely strict rules against rule-sharking, which is when you use the minutia rules of the game to gain an advantage, instead of using it to properly represent the gamestate. If a judge catches this, the player attempted to rules-shark is given a warning, and the gamestate is retroactively fixed to account for propper information as much as possible. A good example of this would be the famous Borborygmos + Pithing Needle incident. If Magic had Yugioh's rules on rule-sharking, then a judge would have given a warning to the Borborygmos player, and Pithing Needle would have retroactively been considered to have named Borborygmos: Enraged.
@@attackoncardboard I think Nibiru is the biggest example. Another one would be the tendency of casual players to declare they don't have handtraps in hand, telling their opponents they are free to combo off. Normally they are truthfull, but it's cheating acording to the rules. Public knowledge in yugioh includes things like the number and names of cards in the graveyard. You can also ask for the effect of a specific card by telling it's name or describing it clearly. It's considered public knowledge. So you can ask for the effect of a trap you saw your opponent adding to the hand last turn, and they need to answer truthfully or risk dsqualification xd
If someone doesn’t tell me their tarmagoyf’s power and toughness they can wait for me to look through their graveyard, take a piss, and then look through their graveyard again
@@tonysmith9905 I only play commander so if you're playing tarmagoyf in a tournament idk what youre doing. also its just a stupid waste of time to not keep track of it when you have three opponents, like just use a dice so 3 people dont have to dig through your graveyard all the time. in 1v1 its prolly not the biggest deal but 1v1 is so boring id rather just take a nap
@@tonysmith9905 Actually no, the guy who is making you constantly check the yard would be penalized for Slow Play or Stalling. They are the one who is refusing to move the game forward at a reasonable pace by forcing constant checks when they could just communicate with their opponent. Non-English speaking players typically have counters or notes or separate out the relevant cards in their graveyard, specifically because being (as per the tournament rules) time is a shared resource and both players have a responsibility to ensure the other is not disadvantaged.
@@lostalone9320 Are you dumb? It's completely within rules for me to tell you to figure it out yourself. If you run through my yard multiple times then get your ass up to go piss I promise you that any judge will issue you a slow play penalty.
@@tonysmith9905 He'd only be penalized for slow play if he kept doing it when nothing had changed. If more cards keep getting added to or removed from the graveyard, and Goyf's stats could be changing, and are relevant to the current board state, then he'd still be allowed to check his opponent's graveyard each time, as long as he's doing it at a reasonable clip.
@remogaming791 Which means you shouldn't be playing competitively. It would be like getting upset at someone bluffing in poker. If it were a casual game then yeah it would be rude, but it was a high stakes match. Would you consider saying you have a counter spell in hand when you don't to be unsportsmanlike during the pro tour?
This isn't even a lie. This also isn't even abnormal. I can't tell you the amount of times I've played EDH and I'm like "I think I'm cooked. Don't think I've got an out." and I'm flipping through my hand, examining the board state and begin to sift through my graveyard when *BAM* the out comes to me. Me verbalizing my current state of thought isn't a LIE. So this guy saying "I can't win this turn." could simply be him talking to himself, not necessarily misleading anyone until he realizes "Oh, shit. I can bring back Breach!" and pop off for a win. He just hadn't realized it at the moment he originally spoke. On top of that...did any of them have a response to his win con ANYWAY? So if he won after returning Breach to the battlefield, if they had no out they were dead regardless of if he may have said BEFORE hand. Salty babies be salty.
Exactly this. It happens all the time. Sometimes things look so absolutely screwed, you've lost your wincon and all is lost, and you just say 'I can't win...' out loud, mostly to yourself. Its not a lie, and its even fact sometimes. But sometimes, it's just personal faltering. Losing hope when its looking not so good. Then sometimes it just turns around and you one turn win. Sometimes it happens. But immediately calling him out for lying on the spot, because you lost? Thats lame as hell. In fact, I'd argue that THATS unsportsmanlike conduct. He went straight to calling his opponent a liar, which is an insult, which is against the rules. Even if he were a liar, its specifically being used to deride him, and act like he is a worse player who didnt deserve to win. whoever wins won, suck it up.
This is exactly my thoughts on it. It's a bit of a dick move if he did do it on purpose to psych them out, but sometimes people are just wrong and realise after the fact. It happens.
@@Albinojackrussel Call me an asshole, but I don't think it's even necessarily a dick move. We're playing a game against each other, competitive or otherwise, and one that involves having information to yourself, to play around your opponent. If someone asks me a question, and there aren't any obligations within the rules, and it's not exclusively wasting time like the Tarmogoyf example, why would I? In my head, you don't see world tour poker, having everyone just leans over and goes "hey bud, what do ya got there? two aces? alright then, yeah I'll fold and ante up next round instead". Like no, the game just doesn't work that way, it wouldn't work that way, and if it did, it would be miserable to sit through or watch, boring, and may as well not be happening in the first place. I don't see the difference in magic, a game where instant speed actions are prevalent and powerful especially. If someone asks if I have a counterspell, and I bluff and say no, and then get targeted, only to reveal, surprise! I can counter that game-winning card! why am I a dick? You didn't play around the spell, you didn't try to interact with me, you just wanted a free pass/win without risk lol. It's why I stopped playing at my LGS, and stopped trying online games at this point. If I'm punished socially for playing with other people, why play the game with other people. I may as well just make decklists on moxfield and then goldfish games ad nauseum.
@@blujay1294 full disclosure, I've not actually played MTG specifically, and I've only ever played similar games on a friendly level, not a competitive level, so that definitely colours my view on it. The thing that makes me say it's a bit of a dick move (if he did do it specifically to mess with them) is that he wasn't asked. If the opponent asked him and he responded with a lie I'd feel very different. I guess what I don't like is that it takes the mind game off the table and puts it into the actual social interactions between the players, which I wouldn't expect from most card games. There are games like poker and bullshit, or social deduction games like secret Hitler where the mind game is supposed to be brought into those social interactions, but you go into playing them knowing that and mentally prepared for it. Similarly I think players asking for that kind of private info (like your, do you have counterspell example) is a dick move for basically the same reason. But, fundamentally, as others have said, the major dick move and unsportsmanlike behaviour here is the opponents immediately kicking off about him 'lying'. They have no evidence that he did so, and even if he did, you do kinda need to be mentally prepared for at least some minor dick moves in a competition with a cash prize.
Happens to me all the time too. Granted I'm not a good magic player like those at the top cut of a cEDH tournment, but still, I really don't think it was malicious, he didn't even stand to gain much from it. And of course, even it was an intentional bluff to avoid some kind of immediate response, there's no wrongdoing there, if it's in the rules then it's allowed, and if I was at a tournment I will assume my opponents are going to use everything they can to win.
Saying that you can’t win this turn is not even something the player could know because there’s information hidden from them too. They don’t know what kind of interaction the opponents have, they don’t know what cards they’re going to mill or draw, etc. It’s entirely plausible he topdecked the reclamation which opened the breach line. There’s no way for someone to be able to truthfully say they can or can’t win on a turn unless they’re in the middle of a process that will win the game while no opponent is able to stop it.
Well, under the assumption of the opponents playing reasonably, I very much could tell that I can't win this turn. After all, I know my deck, so I know what cards possibly could be on top, and if the combination of cards at my disposal + any potential top deck card I could draw now would not be capable of making me win this game this turn, then I can very well know that.
@@LucRio448 knowing if there’s a chance isn’t the same as knowing definitively. You might know that there’s a way to recur the breach combo line in the deck but if it’s one card in say 70ish cards left the odds are low enough that you could reasonably assume it won’t happen. You might know what cards you have in the deck and what cards you don’t, and that might be enough information to tell you can’t win (like if you need a board wipe to win and you don’t have any more left). But you can’t know that you will win on that turn until you have access to all the information. He may have said can/can’t but what he obviously meant was will/won’t with the won’t part being synonymous with can’t in a high level of competitive play (because if you could then you would so the only reason you won’t is that you can’t).
@@anthonycannet1305 That was a big ass paragraph when you could've just said your initial claim that a player can't possibly know that they CAN'T win this turn was simply wrong. As I already said, he can very clearly tell that there is nothing in his deck that would allow him to win this turn. Of course he can't for sure say ever that he WILL win this turn, but writing an entire paragraph on how THAT is not possible when NOBODY ever claimed he could know is an interesting way to pass time. Might as well go look for your birth certificate to proof you are in fact not your own aunt, when nobody ever claimed you were :D
@@LucRio448 This is great until you realize that your opponent can concede whenever they want. You can sometimes be sure that you will win, but you can never be sure that you won't.
"State and current zone of any object or player" Idk why but the wording makes it sound like you about the start therapy at an EDH table. "What's the current state of player 3?" "Wife cheated on him, so pretty bad"
In IT we learn to never speak absolutely ("This SHOULD work now" for example instead of "This WILL work now") I bring this up because if you leave your statement open ended "I don't think I can win the game this turn." for example feeds them the misinformation while leaving it open ended enough that you can say you didn't lie. Oh gods, I'm thinking like a U/W player.
As someone who has worked customer service my whole life I use this line of thinking all the time with my customers. This SHOULD be the solution not that it will be. Never make promises that you cant keep. There is never a 100% guarantee something that worked in the past will work in this scenario
As a maintenance worker and electrician, this. Yes ma'am, your machine should be functional now. We replaced the button, that should fix it. We relubricated the bearing, it should be better. Let us know if you still have issues and we'll try to rework a different fix😂😂😂
I do a different kind of tech troubleshooting and this is the exact same way I have learned to speak. There is always the potential for unknown variables.
I don't even see how it changes anything. Sevinne's Reclamation targets, so its target must be declared before it is placed on the stack. The entire table is still free to respond with any instant speed action in response to the spell now that they know it's threatening to win the game. Just a bunch of sour grapes.
@@deciett that's exactly what i was thinking, either they can stop it or they can't and him being wrong about being able to win didn't change that, the dude that kept pushing the issue just seemed really salty
I totally agree. This a tournament, it's played with competitive decks and is for a big prize. If i say i have counterspell in hand, do you expect me to counter your next spell to prove that or vice versa, do you trust me i don't have counterspell when i say so? Additionally, CowboyBob might have really not seen the line, so that wouldn't be an intentional lie.
@@UnexpectedDangerWhat was worth it? Bluffing in a game where you’re allowed to bluff? $600 is a lot of money to a lot of people, he did nothing wrong at all even if he did intentionally lie.
@@UnexpectedDanger Worth it? You act like something wrong was done. This is perfectly normal play and anyone thinking otherwise shouldn't do anything remotely competitive even casual magic formats.
The guy who runs my LGS decided one day to come up to us, ask if the 4 of us there had "serious" decks (read: high power) and said if we wanted he would offer a Collector Booster to the winner Stax player sucessfully slows the game to a snail's pace, stopping almost all of us from winning I naturally draw into and play my combo pieces, the start of that combo even removes the one stax piece that stops it from working properly I don't tell anyone and win when it comes back to me because people were focusing on the stax I was told by the people in the pod that that was unsportsmanlike to not announce that I could win next turn, which I usually would agree to, if the prize hadn't just gone from a single normal booster like the store usually does to a collector booster worthat lsast 6 times as much I can only imagine the reaction if I had unpromptedly said I couldn't win On the other hand I got a copy of Prisoner's Dilemma in that booster and intend on making sure everyone knows they are allowed to lie every time I play that card, I love that silly piece of cardboard
That makes no sense, why would you need to announce you are playing a winning combo? It is up to an opponent to decide what to counter and if it is worth using resources to stop your play or saved them for later I once announce I was going to win after drawing a card in an EDH game, but my last standing opponent actually had an infinite combo on the table which he was not seeing and was told by one of the other two players. I could have easily counter a card he played the previous turn and stop the combo, I only blamed myself for not understanding the implications of that card. Nobody had to tell me "You better counter this or I win", even in a friendly game.
in a multiplayer format like that, choosing who you need to focus on is apart of the game and challenge. Failing to properly asses who is the largest threat only to get the rug pulled under you is an entire strategy for many decks that like to snowball. The only time I announce when I'm in a position to win is when I'm playing with new players because they just don't have the same amount of experience to know how some cards can combo and pop off unexpectedly. In an experienced pod with 'serious' decks you should not have to announce that you're a big threat at the table, especially if you're playing for any form of prize.
and of course that was edh , jesus edh created a whole generation of noobs ,this situation was about skills , at any moment one of your oponent could of alerted the others about an eventual combo loll
@@AAA-vd5tf Yeah, part of the game of Commander is what my group calls the "Balance of Terror" where part of your strategy is about either looking like you aren't a threat or redirecting attention to other player's threats. Its the social aspect of multiplayer group dynamics and threat assessment that is part of gaining skill as a player.
"the state or current zone of any object or player" "Yo, I'm back. Where'd my opponent go?" "He had a bit too many while you were gone and now he's currently facedown, in the restroom"
The other caveat, and the reason this rule needs to exist: I may be truthful in saying "I can't win" based on the information I have (current board state/hand/etc) on one turn, then on my turn, topdeck the card I forgot I had in the deck that now I win immediately. It's better for the game to not penalize actual lies, so you don't ever penalize "accidental lies".
Sometimes you don't even have to forget about specific cards. Magic is very complex, sometimes you just didn't think of a specific interaction that may lead to win until later. For example one time I was playing a 3 people casual game, and I didn't see myself winning, and said out loud. On my turn I got Chef's Kiss and didn't do much except passing turn. Turns out, an opponent casted a spell, i can't remember what was it now but the bottom line was that it targetet a player and in the current state either me or the third player would lose if choosen. Then he targeted me and I was thinking on my options, and then realised this was exactly the situation Chef's Kiss was made for, so I used it and took out the third player, and the owner of the spell lost enough so I could snatch the win a couple turns later.
@@alicepbg2042 Well yeah, but that kinda misses the point. "You didn't have to do that" isn't an answer to the question "What should be done after it DOES happen?" It DID happen. It WAS said. Now what?
@@Mirvana because it was not supposed to be an answer to that question. Saying "what if I say stuff and was wrong?" Is not something that requires protection for you. Things should be penalized, and then you just don't say stuff for no reason. Because you being protected, means people doing it on purpose also do. And that is a bigger issue.
I remember the first time I got called out for "lying" in a match. My opponent asked me if I had any flying creatures on the board. I said no. He attacked me with 3 flying creatures, and I blocked them with my army of reachy spider bois. I didn't even lie. I just didn't give up extra info for free.
@@irlAlchemist I understood his question just fine. He didn't ask if I had a way to block his flying creatures. He asked if I had flying creatures. He knew my spiders had reach, and he knew what reach does. He was also famously a bit of a jerk to new players, so I didn't feel like he would want one holding his hand and giving him advice on how to play his game.
thats not lying, you told him exactly what he asked for and nothing else, which is perfectly in line with the rules, also for future reference if someone asks you about your board state you have to answer honestly because thats public knowledge and the alternative to answering questions about your board state is letting other players pick up and touch your cards, and i dont know about you but some of the players i play against dont exactly treat cards correctly and im not letting them touch my cards
Things you can't lie about in a game of Magic: The Gathering: - Number of cards in your hand - Number of cards left in your deck - Number of times you've cast your commander from the command zone - What your life total is Things you can lie about in a game of Magic: The Gathering: - The color of shirt you are wearing - That you won't attack an opponent this turn - That you don't plan on winning any time soon - Telling somebody who cries about you lying that their feelings about it are valid
This reminds me of an old story about Cursed Scroll. I can't remember the exact details, but basically, both players are in top deck mode. Player A has lethal damage on board, going into Player B's turn, so B has to win with only one card draw. A is down to 5 life. B has a Cursed Scroll on the field (1 mana artifact with "3, T: Choose a card name, then reveal a card at random. If you reveal the chosen card, deal 2 damage to any target." ) So after drawing, with only 1 card in hand, Player B names Fireblast, (4RR sorcery, "You may sacrifice 2 mountains instead of paying mana to cast this card. Deal 4 damage to any target.") Player A doesn't even wait for the reveal, knowing that 2 + 4 is greater than 5, and concedes. Player B then reveals that he only drew a Mountain for the turn. So, not technically a lie, but he definitely mislead his opponent into believing false information about hidden zones to steal the win.
Incredible lack of competitive discipline on behalf of both players, A failed to call a bluff which was free to call, B unnecessarily revealed they were bluffing, severely reducing their chance of succeding with a similar ploy in the future.
@@NeiZaMoI remember that story. It even got mentioned in the duelist and inquest. He revealed it because he had won the round with that bluff. No more game to play and on to next opponent.
@Issblodh they mean in future games of Magic overall Same reason in poker you don't show your hand if you win with a big bluff, because that gives information to others in future scenarios what sort of player you are
@@Idran i know. But keep in mind this was way back when tempest block was standard legal. Tournament reports took weeks to reach the players as they were only published in (monthly) magazines. Also, player A jumped the gun and should have at least waited for player B to complete the effect of cursed scroll before conceding.
@@IdranMan, while I agree that this is strategically sound, I don’t like it. (Disclaimer: I haven’t played MTG) I don’t mind bluffing within a game, but I really don’t like the idea of not revealing any bluffs once the specific information is no longer relevant, or, at the end of the current game. Like yeah, I get that in terms of what information it reveals about the player (and the conditions under which they are likely to bluff), it makes sense to not reveal it, I don’t like it, and would prefer a game culture in which people are expected to reveal any bluffs at the end of the game. I suppose other people may prefer the thing that is strategically better if it is socially permitted, and, it has the advantage of “not having a norm that isn’t enforceable”, but.... :/
I have a baral deck with 14 counterspells, anytime I play the deck I get asked if I have a counter spell then always say "I don't know" I just wait until I see something I don't want going through before doing anything
The situation in the tourny seems like just playing the game, the opponent seems salty. Lying in the way like "i cant win next turn" could be bluffing or truthful, thats just playing the game
"You still could have kept your word, like you said" is one of the most pathetic things I've ever heard. What a manipulative thing to say. You lost, asshole, get over it.
This reminds me of a tournament story from a long time ago (like 15+ years). One of the players was playing a combo deck that required a number of permanents, and one specific card in hand to start the combo. The player had assembled all the permanents required, and told his opponent "Do I really have to show you the combo?", to which his opponent forfeited. It was then revealed that the combo player *didn't have* the hand piece required for the combo, so they wouldn't have won (at least not then and there). But it was legal. The opponent forfeited, and, hey, they should have asked to be shown the combo at least once.
Yeah those scenarios typically require a decent amount of goodwill and faith between both players like the LSV one where he won a bunch of matches in a vintage tournament after forgetting to add tendrils to his sideboard because the people he played assumed he had it and he would just cast burning wish with a high stormncount and they would concede.
I believe that story was the infamous Mike Long. He was brilliant at manipulating opponents like that. Unfortunately he also crossed the line into straight up cheating (e.g., putting cards in his lap). Here's my favourite Mike Long story, from the semifinals of GP: Pittsburgh '03. It was Team Rochester, and Mike knows that his opponent drafted a Form of the Dragon. His opponent also has a Flamewave Invoker in play as well as other stuff, and eight mana. Mike is at 10. Mike sees his opponent start to set aside land... three red mana... four other mana... he knows that his opponent is going to play Form of the Dragon, so he asks him if he's just going to Invoke for the win. The opponent pauses, and Mike continues, "Are you? Or are you going to play something I can deal with?" The opponent now thinks, maybe Mike has a counter. He decides to sit back and Invoke twice, and passes the turn. Mike laughs, says, "Sucker!", and uses Choking Tethers to tap his opponent's team, swinging for the win on his turn, with no flying creatures that couldn't have attacked with Form in play.
A Prosperous Bloom player got his combo going and cast Drain Life, without specifying how much it was for. His opponent cast Force of Will. He then countered the Force of Will and hit his opponent with a 19 point Drain Life, which was lethal due to the unnecessary Force.
So. Regular Enforcement - "Does that have flying?" "No, but it does have Reach so it can block like it did." Competitive Enforcement - "Does that have flying?" "No." Professional Enforcement - "Does this have flying?" "..."
Professional enforcement is unsportsmanlike. What if the card is in a language i can't read? My opponent isn't obligated to tell me the name of the card. Bad vision? Dyslexic? Open books for cheating as far as most these commenters seem to care. Judges would freely punish this behavior just as they would slow play
So as someone that Doesn't play magic, can you ask to read the card yourself, at least when it enters the board? Or do you actually need to know the effects of every Single card in the game? Because I feel like specific card effects go beyond knowledge of game rules, especially for newer players that maybe know the current meta but then would just be blind to older cards if they have no way of knowing what the card does.
@@Steckdose_ You're supposed to be able to read the card and have access to the full errata/glossary text if my understanding of the tourney stuff is correct. I don't like playing that competitively, doesn't seem fun to me.
@@KrooTon It's very silly. All that actually does is increase game time and introduce delays into the tournament schedule. Because at this point you can't just ask your opponent what the card on the table does, because you can't trust that they'll answer honestly. So now you have to waste time dragging a judge over every time any spell is cast to get the oracle text for the card. Genuinely, a tournament straight up can't work like that, you'd have to have a judge at every table constantly announcing the oracle text of every spell that gets cast every game. It's nonsensical. They didn't think this through.
I legitimately don't play any TCG and I have no idea why this was recommended to me, but as someone with no knowledge on anything, this was a very well-put together and entertaining video. Hats off to you.
Appreciate the kind words 😊 I try to make all the Rules videos I make for MTG to be as accessible as possible. Editing always stresses me out (impostor syndrome) so it's nice to hear I'm doing something right. 😅
I have a deck based on winning with instant buffs and commander damage, which I call "Buff or bluff" The hole point of the deck is always leaving the opponents in doubt if I am strong, weak, close to winning or not. My friends know that when I play that deck, I play it as if was poker and that I will lie. It is not a very strong deck, but it is a very fun deck to play because it is a different style of play, which is more on the mental side. They know that my creatures power is not real and I can spend the entire game doing 1 or 2 damage a turn and out of nowhere I can do 20-30 to all 3 players or just lose without doing anything
A friend of mine who's a fucking monster with deck building has a deck he likes to call Mario Party. Just an Izzet deck of every chaotic card and mind games including but not limited to Goblin Game and Prisoner's Dilemma.
It looks like the intention there wasn't to condone lying ( though it does in practice allow lies by omission) but rather not to punish someone for not remembering all relevant information ( which is why you can ask a Judge for the full Oracle text )
Plus theres the fact Bob didnt see the line at first. What if instead of simply not seeing the line the situation instead was Bob drew into the win? Would they be obligated to not take it because they casually complained about not being able to win that turn? No, thats stupid.
i feel like saying "i cant win this turn" and then finding out that you can as the turn progresses is really common. it's almost in the same vein of saying "nah im not going to attack x player" and then realizing as the turn goes on "you know what? i am gonna attack x player! its the best play" because you gained information later. i feel like that happens a lot.
I play a goblin deck(Krenko, EDH) so there's usually a LOT going on with my boardstate. Maybe I just missed it while looking through the 40 cards I have between board and hand
There's a massive difference between the two things you just said. Winning isn't an action you take, it's a game state. Everyone goes into the game accepting that this exact game state is everyone's goal, and hoping it might be them. There's a massive difference between saying "the game won't be over yet" and then being wrong about that, and saying "I will choose not to take this exact action" and then taking that exact action.
@@emmeehan8680 Actually, life totals are status information and both players have to track them to the best of their ability and announce any changes. I don't have to tell you the power and toughness of Tarmogoyf, but if you announce you are taking 1 damage from it in combat I have to correct you.
Ok, but can you ask an opponent to see their grave? Can they refuse that u less you have graveyard interaction? I play casual so like most these rules/niche things don't apply as we are all pretty open and hell open adds to politics
@@andrewcullen2527 Yes, contents of graveyards are free information. You can ask to see them any time, and your opponent can't misrepresent which cards are in it, but they don't need to help you compute the number of card types in it or announce every card that enters it.
If someone ways they can't win this turn, don't take their word for it. As an opponent, you have to assume they can win at any point and be on your edge. Someone casts a sevinne reclamation targeting a breech, I'd want to know everything I'm allowed.
If I'm playing the game... I'm paying attention. I already know whether you can win this turn or not. I know if it can happen, I know if it simply can't happen, and I know generally how likely it might be to potentially happen. This is not information that comes out of nowhere. Magic is not like Yugioh. You know when someone's about to win several turns in advance. Everyone knows it, as long as they're paying attention.
it's kind of weird to say it but you should treat a competitive game like war. do not trust anything your opponents say. they are free to use politics or lies against you. i find it weird that players can effectively lie by omission (such as the vampire nighthawk example since people with poor eyesight would be forced to take an extraordinary amount of time to verify the board without help). this is a war of information and the people with better information and foresight do best.
@@finesseandstyle If i remember correctly you are allowed to pick up and look at any of your opponents cards in any public zone as long as you ask for permission first, and your opponent is obligated to grant you permission to do so.
@@invertedname3099 more so it's not a big surprise when you see your opponent randomly grab one of your cards out of nowhere. that could be a shocker and perhaps lead to conflict at the table
it's funny the technicalities you can get into with what info you can provide to opponents. there's a guy in my local competitive scene that has all cards in korean and will not tell you what he played and likes to play alt artworks so they're less recognizable. in a way this is derived information, but if i can't read korean it doesn't do me any favors. ended up taking our games to a draw because i called a judge over to look up every card he played and drag out the time.
Yeah, that's wack. I have a few Japanese cards in my EDH deck because it was just cheaper, but not telling people what I'm playing is just asshole behaviour. Don't the tournament rules say something about how the English version of the cards is technically the one all tournaments run on? Not that it means you can't play foreign cards, but that you should know the English name of all of them....
That would be against the rules by your opponent, even before you involved a judge. As shown in the “Free Information” section of this video, they’re obligated to tell you the name of any visible object, including on the stack or on the battlefield. You could get dinged for slow play if you constantly asked for the same object, but you’re in the clear to ask about each new thing and they have to tell you.
@@veggiedragon1000 Nope. Official policy is that any language printing is allowed anywhere, though, what counts as a legal game piece is ultimately left at head judge discretion. That said, dude was still absolutely rulebreaking. You'll note in the video that the names of objects in public zones is public information that can't be withheld or lied about. That doesn't mean the opponent is forced to provide the name in English when prompted. There's no guarantee the opponent can even _speak_ English. However, it does mean the opponent would have to provide accurate information in _some_ language, at which point a judge/translator can step in if necessary. Refusing to identify your game pieces entirely is a rule violation. The person telling this story, who said the identity of these cards is derived info, is wrong. Oracle text might be derived but card name is not. The oracle text on cards is derived because it can be derived _using the name._
i get that the ruling on derived information is like that, cuz they don't want to force you to explain a whole card under threat of a game rules violation. but now i'm imagining someone with a playset of altered textless goyfs who REFUSES to tell you the oracle text or their p/t. a living, breathing, knowledge check.
The procedure is this: Ask the opponent what card types are in their graveyard. [They can respond with the names of the cards, in which case you just demand to inspect the GY.] Then you ask yourself to do the same thing. Then you figure it out.
@@attackoncardboard Imagine someone running a full deck of cards that obfuscate what they do, or parts of what they do. Then you basically have to have a judge looking over the game and have them read out the oracle text of every single card they play. You can do it, and it's funny in a supervillain type of way. But the rules should obviously try to make this kind of play style impossible.
@@attackoncardboard Eh, you are required to know your cards if you play them, and if y ou don't outline cards effects when they literally cannot be read, your opponent has no way to verify anything you say is accurate if an altered, textless tarmagoyf is put into play, and your opponent asks what it does, and you say "not telling" but then turn around and say "actually it does 3 damage when it dies to any target" so the opponent is just supposed to accept that? Even in your "call a judge" case, if this was done where there *isnt* a judge to call, like in a casual environment, that would 100% be extremely unsportsmanlike, so why should that be any different in tournament? What if my opponent plays a foreign language card with an art i dont recognize, but am a seasoned veteran of magic? What if he says the foreign name of the card on cast, which i dont speak the language of? You're telling me the opponent is not obligated to tell me what their card is? I cant even look up the card if i don't know what it is! Hell, what if im dyslexic? or have a disability that makes reading small text difficult? No, this scenario is 1000% just bad sportsmanship, which would be punishable.
Lol the first thing i thought of when seeing the thumbnail was tony g lying to phil helmuth in poker lol. If you are at a tournament and playing for prizes always assume the worst of your opponent.
I mean it’s casual. Depends on the vibe, if you lie and they don’t like it you are “losing” by alienating a play partner. But maybe they enjoy ruthless competition for its own sake.
100% fine. I'm amused that you used the counter spell example. I had a friend ask me during a game, "Do you have a counter spell in your hand?" I replied, "I always have a counter spell in my hand." There is a degree of playing the players not just the cards.
nah nah nah, i'm 01:26 in the video and there is no argument: Lying isn't against the rule, and I would say especially in a competitive tournament. In a casual setting either, but losing friends over this could suck. This guy did nothing wrong (except trying to justify himself but whatever).
The funniest part about that prisoner's dilemma card is that there's no incentive to ever pick silence. In the prisoner's dilemma thought experiment, the optimal play for any one-off instance is to defect. This is because defecting on the "final" prisoner's dilemma always produces the greatest possible reward, regardless of the opponent's choice. The only way cooperation ever enters the strategy is if you're expected to play many prisoner's dilemmas over an indefinite period of time. In other words, the strategy for this card "should" differ depending on whether you're in a tournament match or if you're playing with friends (who you'll be playing with repeatedly for an indefinite number of times). However, the fact you have to devote a deck slot to the card and pay mana for it changes the equation. Now, it's no longer just "an event that both players participate in," but rather "an event triggered by a player expecting some outcome." If you're playing this card, you *want* the 8 damage burn and consider the 8 damage to yourself as an acceptable cost. You will always pick snitch, because dealing 8 damage to your opponent for 3 mana is better than dealing 4 damage. At which point, the entire minigame becomes redundant, as if the opponent understands this too, the card effect can be reduced to "all players take 8 damage."
I'm not sure I quite understand. Doesn't Prisoner's Dilemma only require opponents to make the decision, so that the caster will never take damage? (This makes it nearly useless in a 2 player game, where it is just an expensive way to make your opponent take 4 damage.) If the caster got to make that decision as well, then yeah, they would always end up choosing snitch, and your analysis would be correct, however this isn't the way the card works. Also the card has flashback, and you could potentially have multiple of it in your deck and/or get it back from the graveyard somehow, so it isn't always one-off.
@@osbourn5772 Sorry, I got recommended this video despite not having touched MTG in years, so I assumed the person who played the card was included in "each opponent."
I don't like that you can lie about cards that are in play. If asked what a card does, it should be considered no different than asking to see the card itself. The only difference is I didn't have to handle your cards. I agree that any interactions with other cards needs to be figured out by me.
The idea is that you don't get penalized for not reading literally everything in the oracle text when someone asks you what it does. Like forgetting a little detail on one of the 6 abilities on a questing beast (yes it has that many and some are pretty wordy). But it also protects bad faith actors. But that's true of every rule, you can always tread the line without crossing it.
It's mostly so you don't get penalized for not knowing the exact Oracle text, in cases where it does not match the printed card. For example, Cromat is an Illusion, but has no printings that reflect this. Obviously nobody is gonna play this bulk legend at a professional level, and anyone that does choose to play it at that level should be familiar with this fairly minor change, but it's not something you could know without looking it up yourself. So instead the correct procedure is to ask a judge to provide the Oracle text, as players are entitled to derived information, their opponent just isn't the one that has to provide it.
I had a poison-tip archer in play at my weekly casual edh get-together w/ friends. person sitting perpendicular to me (my library partially blocking his view of my cards) wanted to swing at someone with his commander, who had flying. He asked if anyone had any creatures with FLYING and I said no (others said yes because they did). It hit me as soon as I said no that I had a card with reach, but I decided to keep my mouth shut and let it unfold. I blocked with my poison-tip archer, who had reach AND deathtouch, and cost him his commander. I think he might have been able to win if I hadn't done that. ofc I didn't win either.
Re: the slaughter games example. If I was going through an opponent’s library for those cards and they told me there were only 3 to prevent me from finding the 4th - I’d be sour AF when they drew the 4th scapeshift.
Effects that instruct you to search for something doesn't forces you to find it, even if there's indeed one or more to find... it's totally on your part to search carefully...
A failure to understand social strategies is, hilariously enough, the fault of many commander players, yet fairly well understood amongst people who play 60-card.
Which is weird to me because are always making alliances, betraying alliances, and other such stuff the fact that people don’t understand that you can lie in a social game is ridiculous
Lying is a part of strategy in most games, and becomes part of knowing your opponents. If you don't know your opponent will enough to read them or you can't identify their lies, the best line is to always ignore what they say entirely and okay as if they said nothing.
Easist lie is to hold a card separate to the rest of your hand when you have unspent mana. You could be holding an Island but your opponent doesn't know it isn't a counter
Lying in Cowboy Bob's situation was not only legal, I'd say it was the correct strategic move. If you're playing at a competitive table, playing for money, you should be doing everything within your power to win.
Been there done that! Since EDH is both an eternal and singleton format there are plenty of moments were you can make that prefect draw to turn a hopeless situation into a commanding lead/win. I did just that the other week when I was bemoaning my misfortunes for being so far behind and almost losing before drawing a Mizzix Mastery that I could overload: winning on the spot. It wasn't a lie to say that I was a sure loser as you'd be silly to appeal to the slim odds of drawing the one singular card that I'd need to win.
My favorite "cheat" in casual MTG is, if a player seems inattentive, asking if they end their turn right as I end mine. My poor friend, exhausted after a long day, let me take 4 consecutive turns before I explained what I was doing. He had a good laugh and resigned
but technically shouldn't it untap and draw? also how do you ask him if you just finished yours? it means he really wasn't at the table playing if he lets you...
That's as much of a cheeky little 'cheat' as drawing extra cards when he's not looking or not updating your life total after taking damage. Idk how yalls relationship dynamic is, but if someone pulled that kind of thing on me more than once, I wouldn't trust them very much anymore.
It might be a funny joke with your friend, but, unlike the conduct at issue in this video, that doesn't actually work, rules wise. If you take another turn without your opponent untapping and drawing their card for the turn, you are guilty of Game Play Error - Failure to Maintain Game State (IPG 2.6) because you failed to notice your opponent not drawing their card for the turn. Intentionally committing a game play error in order to give yourself an advantage would be Unsporting Conduct - Cheating (IPG 4.8), but you would need to be aware that letting your opponent pass through their turn without drawing their card was something you weren't allowed to do (which you now are).
@@0redfr0g0 it's a game between friends for fun... it's not like there's any stakes?? me and my friends cheat/fuck around in games all the time and it's all good fun. I suppose you need to know someone enough so that you know where the line is and not to cross it and how the context impacts what's okay but like. cheating in a board game is not trust(or friendship)-ending serious? especially if the main point of playing is hanging out and having fun. card and board games are just something for us to do while we hang out, so we don't really take them that seriously. we trust each other to the point we know we wouldn't screw each other over on something *actually* important, I guess edit: not to imply magic isnt important. this obviously doesn't apply to tourneys or to situations where there IS stakes
If I say "I'm going to play a creature spell" and then I play a non-creature spell, I lied but no one cares. If I tell everyone I'm going to lose the game next turn and I don't lose the game, no one cares. If this guy offhandedly says "there's no way I can win this game..." and then draws a miracle card or realizes a winning strategy spur of the moment that lets them win, everybody loses their minds. Seriously, there never is a rule that you must be 100% honest with all of your actions. Heck, sometimes I promise someone I won't attack them next turn if they don't do something bad to me this turn, and then turn around and stab them in the back. Sure it's unsportsmanlike, but in the end I didn't break any rules and if that wins me the game, why wouldn't I go for the kill if it ends up costing me the game later. My payment for my sins is earning a bad reputation and becoming untrustworthy for future deals, but that's the social aspect of the game that makes it dynamic, not breaking some rule.
It does destroy your credibility with the group though. I hate political whiners that say “they’re out of the game” so people take pity on them, only to draw their combo piece and win next turn. Knew a guy who was like that with EVERY deck he played. I focus him down every game even if he’s “behind”, because you have too, he’s honorless
@@Garl_Vinland I get this, and I am known for being a "straight" player in other games (I don't play commander, but played vast amounts of V:TES which is always social and starts with 5 players per table). And I also learned to qualify my statements as opinions unless rules-legalese is involved. Very often I said "I don't think I can win this game" and every so often a miracle happens and you get exactly what you need. For deceitful players, I knew to ignore them - just ensure they didn't cheat. Is part of reading the game and people. In one board game one event required a player to pick a card, say a statement based on the card (number), and if you lied successfully you improved your board and if the opponent guessed correctly the advantage would go there. It got to one player never reading the content of the card - would just say one of the possible statements (1 in 3) so there would be no "read" possible. It's like poker players that place a bet without seeing a card in order to avoid being read - although in both cases that's a read on itself. Metagames are awesome.
@@tychoMX Having two mana open and bluffing that you have a counter spell in hand is like poker. Saying you're "Out of the game, please don't hurt me" and then comboing out the following turn is more of what we would call a 'bitch move'
@@Garl_Vinland There's 3 people at my LGS who do this crap constantly. The rest of us have colloquially come up with the house rule in the store that you kill those players first, no matter what, no matter how many land drops they've missed.
@@Garl_Vinland Sure when playing with your regular group but with randoms in a competitive setting and competing for cash why would you trust them? At that point it is on you.
If I had a quarter for every time I thought I couldn't win on a turn and figured out how to pull it off as I'm going about playing my cards, I could afford fetchlands in all my decks lol. Let the man cook
i don't lie to my friends, but i'm not giving information out with them asking lol. that dude was just butthurt he got duped. and yes if i can win on that turn, i'm going to lie to my friends that i can win that turn. which totally goes against what i said in the beginning, buuuut it's fun to play a deck that they all hate.
That dryed arbor move was funny 😂 “I shall block with this” “Thats a forest….put that shit back 😑” “No no no look” “Put that shit back 😡” “Looooooooook” “Oh 😶”
As a seasoned commander player, if someone tells me "I can't win the game" I don't tend to believe them. Players will say a lot of things to try and avoid being a target, most commonly "I'm not doing anything" Oh yeah, if someone just says "I can't win" don't believe them, because, why are they in the game? To win.
This made me remember once I was playing commander. My deck had very weird and specific interactions and every time I would play a card I would tell all players WHY they should care about a card. One interaction few new players know is about trickbinding a suspended card. So, one of the players was new on the store (though played his fair shares), got annoyed at me for overexplaining so much that when I was exiling his commander on suspend and trying to alert him to NOT let it be exiled but put on commander zone... he hit me with a "shut up, I know how to play the game." 2 turns later he lost his precious commander and the entire table was annoyed by many mistriggers and overlooking of my less than usual deck. T'was a funny episode, never happened again.
I played on a competetive event once. It was hard and tbh pretty annoying. Because it was excatly the case with tarmogoyf. My opponent had one, manipulated his GY several times (get cards from GY to hand etc) so I could never be sure about the exact toughness. Hence I had to always count. Now the catch. If the opponent does not allow you to touch their cards (which is afaik in their rights) you have to call a judge. The judge was not happy about me when I asked him for the third or fourth time to count the different card types in the opponents GY, since I wasnt allowed to touch them. I tried to keep track, but writing everything down etc. is pretty fast also considered "time play", hence you get a warning etc. So as you said: on fnm and regular rule enforcement situations: Be friendly, help each other and maybe (to help getting better) give hints what would be derived information like "you could know something more. Think about it" and then tell them if they dont get to the conclusion. I quit higher levels of playing, cause it got annoying pretty fast. Because tbh I was simply too nice to pull stuff like that player and just told my opponent e.g. Gofys power/toughness or what cards in my grave have flashback etc. Yes, it is/was my fault that I was too nice, but even on slighty more serious levels (prices like a display etc, which I know is still monetary value, but you get what I mean) it gets annoying pretty fast when you want to have fun as well.
I was in a magic feast in Brussles, and I played vs an opponent playing UW spirits. He played Rattlechains in Italian, and I didn't know what it does. He told me that it's a spirit with flash that gives hexproof to a spirit when it enters. Cool. Then, 2 or so turns later, he proceeded to play another spirit at instant speed, because Rattlechains allows him to do so. He was allowed to do it in the rules, but he scammed me with a card in a language I didn't know. Then and there I learned this lesson - always ask a judge.
Does this mean at competitive rel if player A asks player B their attacking Goyf's power and B says "3" and then A chooses not to block, B can reveal it's actually 4 power? That seems sketch to me, but ok.
If I ever tell you that I don't have a counterspell, you should know just from that information that I do. I'm glad he threw in the "Of course I'm lying, it's poker" clip.
Lying is actually not a part of poker. Table talk is taboo in poker, in general. The entirety of the game is about bluffing and reading bluffs... note, I said bluffs and not lies. The literal gameplay is in communication, and the only actually acceptable forms of communication about the game are the game actions you take and the implications they have. "I have four aces" is not something you can just say. You can, however, go all-in, implying you have a hand that can't be beaten. A lie is when you say something that's not true intentionally. A bluff is when you do something that makes the other players make incorrect inferences. When you bluff, you're not telling anybody anything.
Nah. If I'm playing competitive, I will gladly hide that I'm swinging deathtouch so I can kill a problem on the green players board. It's on them the pay attention. Announce evasion (flying, landwalk, skulk, etc.) and power, but other than that, the blockers can do the rest.
@@chickenladysam4098 I wouldn't hide the fact it has deathtouch, that's against the rules. But I wouldn't offer that information up freely either. Which it seems by your example is what you do, but I wanted to highlight that its still against the rules to actively misrepresent derived info.
I still don't understand how he was "bluffed" Isn't the spell still on the stack targeting the card in the graveyard? Last I checked he could still be responded to.
@@patterofheads256 as the story goes, he first cast Silence (Your opponents can't cast spells this turn) while saying he couldn't win. Since no one countered silence, they can't play anything to stop him once he realized he could win
@@wheatleyede7628 That would have been useful context at the start of the video. Nobody would ever cast silence on their own turn unless they were going to win that turn.
@@attackoncardboard The context changes everything. It's not even about whether or not he lied at that point. It's about his opponents allowing him to resolve a sorcery speed silence then complaining when the inevitable happened.
I've notice a lot of people making a similar mistake most times which is regarding the definition of a lie. A lie has to be INTENTIONALLY false, so unless we know or can prove that Cowboy did see the line of play when he said he didnt, nothing he did was a lie. It was an oversight.
For Competitive or Professional levels only question: I am not the tornment judge and I saw a misstrigged hability (let's say, lifegain with Sheoldred in drawstep). Both players did'nt said nothing. Am I allowed to "fix" the game and say "hey Active player, your sheoldred."? If I say that, 1: what happen to the players? (warning, game lost, nothing etc.) 2: what happen to me? Same case, but consider I'm the judge now. Do I NEED to fix the game in time? What happen to the players then?
Not a judge, but here is what I got from reading the outside assistance sections of the MTR and IPG. First of all, it is entirely the responsibility of a trigger's owner to not miss it. Their opponent is never under any obligation to remind them of it. If a player does remember their trigger after it has been missed, their opponent generally has the option of putting it onto the stack then, or having it remain missed. There might be a larger penalty if the trigger is generally considered detrimental, or if the judge believes it's controller missed it intentionally. Because triggers can be missed, I believe that pointing one out as a spectator would be outside assistance using IPG 3.2 "A player, spectator, or other tournament participant does any of the following: ... -Gives play advice or reveals private information to players who have sat for their match ..." Later, that section mentions: "Spectators who commit this infraction may be asked to leave the venue if they are not enrolled in the tournament." I will note that I'm not sure how this changes if you point out other rules violations that both players are responsible for catching.
Does it even count as lying? Like he thought he couldn't win and then accidentally realized that he missed something and it worked out, is that even qualifies as lying or just misjudging?
And if anyone had asked if Breach was in his graveyard, he would have had to answer honestly. However, "what cards are in your deck that can bring Breach back from the graveyard" is not free information.
With friends in a casual game, sure, it's the respectful thing to do to be honest about everything. But in a competitive match? Always expect the worst and assume your opponent is bluffing and playing just barely by the rules. I feel that's just common sense.
Great vid. Definitely not something I’d try to do regularly but I do enjoy bluffing that I have a Counterspell or boardwipe from time to time (especially when I’m archenemy) good to know it’s allowed. Although yeah, anything that’s free and derived info I’m happy to tell my mates. One time I bluffed a mate that I had force of will and I don’t think he’ll ever forget it 😂
Honestly, from what I've seen and heard about the Yu-Gi-Oh rules, I like how they approach it. You cannot give information about things that are in a hidden state. No telling your opponents about what you do or do not have that they have no way of confirming. So in Yu-Gi-Oh, Cowboybob would be breaking the rules by saying 'I can't win this turn', even if it was 100% true. You can't say if you do or do not have a counterspell in hand. You have to give all relevant information about things in a public state. Everything that your opponent could know, is information that you _must_ freely give. If they just give a vaguely worded request of information, you must do your best to give that information. It would block that infamous Pithing Needle/Borbyrgmos fiasco, because your opponent wouldn't be able to say 'Um ackually you called out the bad Borbyrgmos instead of the meta Borbyrgmos Enraged .' because decklists are considered public knowledge in a tourney. From what I understand, breaking these rules is about the warning system, and repeated or intentionally breaking these rules incurs the penalties, but a single honest mistake isn't going to DQ someone from a tourney. I like the approach because of how it approaches player interactions. Actively discouraging people being jerks to each other is sadly something that needs to be done, especially when it comes to strangers interacting with each other. And when there's a personal benefit while having no real social repercussions, we have seen it happen time and time again in MtG tourneys where people are doing their best to screw over your opponents. Don't get me wrong, I _love_ weird interactions. 'This interacts with this, which triggers this, which does this *third* thing that goes completely off' is so much fun to me. But I'm playing this game to have fun, even in a tourney setting and fun, despite what a lot of people say, _isn't_ zero sum in MtG. Manipulating my opponents into making suboptimal plays isn't playing a close MtG game.
That's absolutely stupid. With that rule, if your opponent draws their initial hand and says "no lands, I'm going to mulligan" then you can just win the game on the spot because they said something unverifiable about their hand, but it's not gonna matter because that hand is going away. Very stupid rule.
@@pairot01 Guess what? That would be a warning for the person who decided to give private information. It's only a stupid rule if the people reading it are stupid and don't realize that there's a gradient to it and that it would only really apply to tournaments.
The knowledge that there are even any players anywhere that think lying, in a hidden information game, is a bad thing, is honestly kinda baffling. Even in a perfect information game, it would be baffling. Imagine if you were somehow punished in Chess because you told your opponent you weren't about to move a specific piece, and then moved it. Like, what??
Fun fact, that has actually happened in chess before! Specifically the way I've seen it happen is streamers talking about possible moves the opponent could make to their chat, but if they think their opponent is sniping them (i.e. watching the stream) then they sometimes lie and describe a possible move from the opponent as good, even if actually it's a blunder. If the opponent takes that move then it's very satisfying when the streamer immedietly changes their tone to describe how the move was actually an obvious blunder.
Because playing games with sociopaths isn't fun. The chess equivalent is a piece 99% on one square and 1% on the other then you ask your oppnent and they say its on the square its 99% on, you accept it then they move it off the other square for mate. "It's on you to know where my pieces are." No, it's on you not to be a total jerk and devolve every game into "That piece isn't absolutely perfectly centered, game fault, start from turn 1"
This is a weird example because that is exactly what would happen in chess (most likely a time penalty, possibly a DQ/game loss if it is a recurring issue). Talking to your opponent in chess at all is illegal. Talking about the moves you are going to make is extra illegal. Doing a move other than what you were talking about is extra extra illegal as the only purpose of that would have been to distract your opponent from your intended line while you thought about it.
@@moneypouch765 Well, my example was more referring to you answering someone asking you a question about whether or not you are gonna move that piece. Even just saying a lie out of nowhere should be fine. I get that talking is against the rules, but I was talking about a scenario where it isn't, such as during most non-competitive matches.
Regarding the clip, I just want to point out that there is a difference between "lying" and being "mistaken." That aside... the fuck are people doing blindly believing others during a card game? Maybe because I used to play poker with my buddies, but the words are meaningless -- what the opponent CAN and WILL do is what matters, and you have to make that assessment. Even if the guy did actually lie during a card game... well, I hope the others learned a good lesson.
"I can't win", "I promise not to attack you if you attack him" or "I have a boardwipe" are all potential lies that I would find it very naive not to expect at some point.
One of those is fine, one of those is questionable, and the third is unsportsmanlike conduct that rightfully deserves to get you banned from that playgroup. And the fact that it's extremely obvious to everyone which is which tells you exactly how correct this is.
@@dontmisunderstand6041 They are certainly on a curve, but it still somewhat depends on the context of the playgroup. I mostly see kids playing commander (all under 13), and if a kid is known to blabber and lie, the others just ignore it or outright state they don't believe it. The metagame can still correct itself without any issue amongst kids, so I feel adults should be able to handle it as well. The only issues I see is in the extremes where the playgroup is made of strangers that only meet once or if the group is locked in, so you're stuck with their play patterns.
What if they ask me the power of Tarmogoyf and I make a mistake and give them the wrong info? Can I claim I made a mistake? Or once you give them the information you can be punished if it's wrong?
If you want to say anything, you have to say the correct information to the best of your abilities and immediately correct yourself if you yourself counted wrong. Edit: That said, an honest mistake won't be punished as badly as if you gave wrong information about, say, the size of your hand.
For instance, if you accidentally announce the wrong info, damage is assigned based on what you said, and several turns pass before the mistake is discovered: CALL A JUDGE and they will determine the fix. Or go to the comments on a video telling judges how to fix that mistake.
@@attackoncardboard This is not true. It is against the rules to give the wrong P/T of goyf at all ELs. You don't have to respond but if you do it must be truthful (can be misleading but must be true). "Players may not misrepresent derived, free or status information incorrectly." At rel nothing would happen but at higher enforcement it could be anything from a warning to gameloss, or dq. Basically depending on if the judge decided if you did it intentionally to gain an advantage (cheating) or not, most likely based on if you have previous warnings for the same thing.
You've got my sub... I like your integrity based playstyle. Because even at the highest level of comp, I'd still play in a friendly manner because I enjoy simply being better than my opponent rather than being trickier. No hate for the other type of players, we just have to get better at noticing their bluffs.
I think it's a major dick move not to mention if a creature has death touch or something like that. When someone attacks into me when I do have a blocker with death touch or something like that I'll ask "are you sure, this card does have this". I know this isn't the rules, but I think it's good etiquette and winning because the other player couldn't read a tiny bit of text from the other side of the table is a hollow victory.
Cowboybob didn't do anything wrong here. Even if he had said he couldn't win to trick an opponent into not using a counterspell, he didn't do anything wrong.
Were still talking about me lying lol 😂
If you're truly the guy in the video, the large majority of the comment section and myself are on your side :)
@@attackoncardboard I also sent you a dm on Twitter if you get a minute lol 😂
Did you know you could win when you declared you couldn't
@@TetsuRiken nope I saw a wishclaw off an enlightened tutor and saw the line the
Technically you weren't lying. As far as you could tell with the information you had available, you were not able to win. It wasn't until later on as you were in the midst of the turn with more information that you realized you could win, meaning you didn't lie as you truthfully thought you could not win that turn.
In any card game “damn, I can’t win this turn/hand” is the oldest bluff in the book. Should have told the kid his shoes were untied and refrigerator was running while you’re at it
Similar to that one time Homer get royal straight flush on poker.
I don't understand why the table got salty over it, they allowed a bunch of actions leading to a win under the impression that ''I can't win''. If you had a response and chose not to take it: That's on you.
If I’m at a competitive tournament and my opponent says unprovoked “damn it, I can’t win next turn” I’ll immediately assume he can win next turn. Come on, people.
that is so obvious that they probably said that with the intention of you assuming and playing around them being able to win next turn, so they probably can indeed not win next turn!
@@VictorTaelin But its also so obvious that they said it with the intention of making you assume and play around them being able to win because they cannot win that you could play safe assuming they cant win when they actually can win and win you because you were cautious.
Magic, poker for nerds confirmed
Seriously. Lying in that way is kind of a dead giveaway, especially since he noted that no one had asked if he could win and he freely gave that info. I'm calling that bluff every time.
"Truly you have a dizzying intellect"
Imagine if it was illegal to lie in the given case:
"I can't win this turn." - "I resign. Hey, judge, my opponent lied, therefore the match goes to me!"
That's what the Yugioh community was talking about when this happened. According to Konami, telling yur opponent you have something you don't might influence their play, so it's illegal at all play official events.
Curiously, asking what your opponent has in hand isn't technically against the rules, but can still get you penalized with unsportsmanlike conduct.
@@makingadjustments Why did you say that here? Did you actually read the comments above, or did you just find a comment near the top to ride the coattails of?
@@randommaster06 Yeah yugioh's policy on lying is insane from a magic player's perspective. I don't know how your tournament's don't devolve into "who can get their opponent to dq themselves first"
@@JuniperHatesTwitterlikeHandles The boring answer is bad prize support. Most people don't want to get banned to win a few packs.
The funny answer is that the plays have ADHD and know that they won't be able to find another game that lets them do 20 things in the first turn if they get banned from Yugioh.
There is a separate rule clarifying that you win if your opponent resigns, regardless of the game state. Like you can resign even if you have a platinum angel.
As someone who plays Yugioh and Magic, it's funny comparing these rules to Yugioh's rules, especially the rules on private information. In Yugioh, not only are you not allowed to tell your opponent false information about the contents of a hidden zone, you're not allowed to tell them TRUE information about hidden zones.
One of my friends is a top Yugioh judge and we were talking about the differences in the rules. It's absolutely mind-blowing 🤯
@@attackoncardboard There's a very powerful card in Yugioh called Nibiru. It's a huge meteor that you can summon from hand on your opponent's turn if they've summoned 5 other monsters, wiping their board.
Because of the presence of Nibiru in the metagame, it breaks the rules for Players to say "this is the fourth summon right?" or to count the summons on their fingers, or to otherwise publicly count summons. Because either you have Nibiru in your hand, and you're cheating, or you don't have Nibiru in your hand, and you're cheating.
@@MomirViggwilv 😂 Are there more instances of things like this?
@@attackoncardboard How about a good ruling then, something that Magic should really look to copy.
Yugioh has extremely strict rules against rule-sharking, which is when you use the minutia rules of the game to gain an advantage, instead of using it to properly represent the gamestate. If a judge catches this, the player attempted to rules-shark is given a warning, and the gamestate is retroactively fixed to account for propper information as much as possible.
A good example of this would be the famous Borborygmos + Pithing Needle incident. If Magic had Yugioh's rules on rule-sharking, then a judge would have given a warning to the Borborygmos player, and Pithing Needle would have retroactively been considered to have named Borborygmos: Enraged.
@@attackoncardboard I think Nibiru is the biggest example. Another one would be the tendency of casual players to declare they don't have handtraps in hand, telling their opponents they are free to combo off. Normally they are truthfull, but it's cheating acording to the rules.
Public knowledge in yugioh includes things like the number and names of cards in the graveyard. You can also ask for the effect of a specific card by telling it's name or describing it clearly. It's considered public knowledge. So you can ask for the effect of a trap you saw your opponent adding to the hand last turn, and they need to answer truthfully or risk dsqualification xd
If someone doesn’t tell me their tarmagoyf’s power and toughness they can wait for me to look through their graveyard, take a piss, and then look through their graveyard again
Only happens in big tournaments where you'd be the one penalized for slow play. Go ahead, take your piss, I'll take my win.
@@tonysmith9905 I only play commander so if you're playing tarmagoyf in a tournament idk what youre doing. also its just a stupid waste of time to not keep track of it when you have three opponents, like just use a dice so 3 people dont have to dig through your graveyard all the time. in 1v1 its prolly not the biggest deal but 1v1 is so boring id rather just take a nap
@@tonysmith9905 Actually no, the guy who is making you constantly check the yard would be penalized for Slow Play or Stalling. They are the one who is refusing to move the game forward at a reasonable pace by forcing constant checks when they could just communicate with their opponent.
Non-English speaking players typically have counters or notes or separate out the relevant cards in their graveyard, specifically because being (as per the tournament rules) time is a shared resource and both players have a responsibility to ensure the other is not disadvantaged.
@@lostalone9320 Are you dumb? It's completely within rules for me to tell you to figure it out yourself. If you run through my yard multiple times then get your ass up to go piss I promise you that any judge will issue you a slow play penalty.
@@tonysmith9905 He'd only be penalized for slow play if he kept doing it when nothing had changed. If more cards keep getting added to or removed from the graveyard, and Goyf's stats could be changing, and are relevant to the current board state, then he'd still be allowed to check his opponent's graveyard each time, as long as he's doing it at a reasonable clip.
Cowboybob didn't break any rules. Sounds like his opponents were just salty that they didn't win.
His opponents acted like they were in a casual game after they signed up for a competitive tournament.
we’ve all been there, but winning by guilting your opponents is much worse than winning by “lying”
@remogaming791 if you allow yourself to be guilted in a competitive format you are doing it wrong
@@BS-bv5sh i agree, but we are only human. If 3 people whose option you may care about are pressuring you, you may fold.
@remogaming791 Which means you shouldn't be playing competitively. It would be like getting upset at someone bluffing in poker. If it were a casual game then yeah it would be rude, but it was a high stakes match.
Would you consider saying you have a counter spell in hand when you don't to be unsportsmanlike during the pro tour?
This isn't even a lie. This also isn't even abnormal. I can't tell you the amount of times I've played EDH and I'm like "I think I'm cooked. Don't think I've got an out." and I'm flipping through my hand, examining the board state and begin to sift through my graveyard when *BAM* the out comes to me. Me verbalizing my current state of thought isn't a LIE. So this guy saying "I can't win this turn." could simply be him talking to himself, not necessarily misleading anyone until he realizes "Oh, shit. I can bring back Breach!" and pop off for a win. He just hadn't realized it at the moment he originally spoke.
On top of that...did any of them have a response to his win con ANYWAY? So if he won after returning Breach to the battlefield, if they had no out they were dead regardless of if he may have said BEFORE hand.
Salty babies be salty.
Exactly this. It happens all the time. Sometimes things look so absolutely screwed, you've lost your wincon and all is lost, and you just say 'I can't win...' out loud, mostly to yourself. Its not a lie, and its even fact sometimes. But sometimes, it's just personal faltering. Losing hope when its looking not so good. Then sometimes it just turns around and you one turn win. Sometimes it happens.
But immediately calling him out for lying on the spot, because you lost? Thats lame as hell. In fact, I'd argue that THATS unsportsmanlike conduct. He went straight to calling his opponent a liar, which is an insult, which is against the rules. Even if he were a liar, its specifically being used to deride him, and act like he is a worse player who didnt deserve to win. whoever wins won, suck it up.
This is exactly my thoughts on it. It's a bit of a dick move if he did do it on purpose to psych them out, but sometimes people are just wrong and realise after the fact. It happens.
@@Albinojackrussel Call me an asshole, but I don't think it's even necessarily a dick move.
We're playing a game against each other, competitive or otherwise, and one that involves having information to yourself, to play around your opponent. If someone asks me a question, and there aren't any obligations within the rules, and it's not exclusively wasting time like the Tarmogoyf example, why would I?
In my head, you don't see world tour poker, having everyone just leans over and goes "hey bud, what do ya got there? two aces? alright then, yeah I'll fold and ante up next round instead". Like no, the game just doesn't work that way, it wouldn't work that way, and if it did, it would be miserable to sit through or watch, boring, and may as well not be happening in the first place.
I don't see the difference in magic, a game where instant speed actions are prevalent and powerful especially. If someone asks if I have a counterspell, and I bluff and say no, and then get targeted, only to reveal, surprise! I can counter that game-winning card! why am I a dick? You didn't play around the spell, you didn't try to interact with me, you just wanted a free pass/win without risk lol.
It's why I stopped playing at my LGS, and stopped trying online games at this point. If I'm punished socially for playing with other people, why play the game with other people. I may as well just make decklists on moxfield and then goldfish games ad nauseum.
@@blujay1294 full disclosure, I've not actually played MTG specifically, and I've only ever played similar games on a friendly level, not a competitive level, so that definitely colours my view on it.
The thing that makes me say it's a bit of a dick move (if he did do it specifically to mess with them) is that he wasn't asked. If the opponent asked him and he responded with a lie I'd feel very different. I guess what I don't like is that it takes the mind game off the table and puts it into the actual social interactions between the players, which I wouldn't expect from most card games.
There are games like poker and bullshit, or social deduction games like secret Hitler where the mind game is supposed to be brought into those social interactions, but you go into playing them knowing that and mentally prepared for it.
Similarly I think players asking for that kind of private info (like your, do you have counterspell example) is a dick move for basically the same reason.
But, fundamentally, as others have said, the major dick move and unsportsmanlike behaviour here is the opponents immediately kicking off about him 'lying'. They have no evidence that he did so, and even if he did, you do kinda need to be mentally prepared for at least some minor dick moves in a competition with a cash prize.
Happens to me all the time too. Granted I'm not a good magic player like those at the top cut of a cEDH tournment, but still, I really don't think it was malicious, he didn't even stand to gain much from it. And of course, even it was an intentional bluff to avoid some kind of immediate response, there's no wrongdoing there, if it's in the rules then it's allowed, and if I was at a tournment I will assume my opponents are going to use everything they can to win.
Saying that you can’t win this turn is not even something the player could know because there’s information hidden from them too. They don’t know what kind of interaction the opponents have, they don’t know what cards they’re going to mill or draw, etc. It’s entirely plausible he topdecked the reclamation which opened the breach line. There’s no way for someone to be able to truthfully say they can or can’t win on a turn unless they’re in the middle of a process that will win the game while no opponent is able to stop it.
Very true
Well, under the assumption of the opponents playing reasonably, I very much could tell that I can't win this turn. After all, I know my deck, so I know what cards possibly could be on top, and if the combination of cards at my disposal + any potential top deck card I could draw now would not be capable of making me win this game this turn, then I can very well know that.
@@LucRio448 knowing if there’s a chance isn’t the same as knowing definitively. You might know that there’s a way to recur the breach combo line in the deck but if it’s one card in say 70ish cards left the odds are low enough that you could reasonably assume it won’t happen.
You might know what cards you have in the deck and what cards you don’t, and that might be enough information to tell you can’t win (like if you need a board wipe to win and you don’t have any more left). But you can’t know that you will win on that turn until you have access to all the information. He may have said can/can’t but what he obviously meant was will/won’t with the won’t part being synonymous with can’t in a high level of competitive play (because if you could then you would so the only reason you won’t is that you can’t).
@@anthonycannet1305 That was a big ass paragraph when you could've just said your initial claim that a player can't possibly know that they CAN'T win this turn was simply wrong.
As I already said, he can very clearly tell that there is nothing in his deck that would allow him to win this turn. Of course he can't for sure say ever that he WILL win this turn, but writing an entire paragraph on how THAT is not possible when NOBODY ever claimed he could know is an interesting way to pass time. Might as well go look for your birth certificate to proof you are in fact not your own aunt, when nobody ever claimed you were :D
@@LucRio448 This is great until you realize that your opponent can concede whenever they want. You can sometimes be sure that you will win, but you can never be sure that you won't.
"State and current zone of any object or player"
Idk why but the wording makes it sound like you about the start therapy at an EDH table.
"What's the current state of player 3?"
"Wife cheated on him, so pretty bad"
Some times you need to check in with your homies 😂
Also makes it sound like players can be in zones. "I'm going into my library now, see you guys later."
@@Novenae_CCGtechnically, there is an Un card that makes you a card in your library, so you can actually do that.
@@attackoncardboard Don't forget to tuck the homies in at night and give them a goodnight kiss
@@Novenae_CCG I summon Yugi and attack your life points directly
In IT we learn to never speak absolutely ("This SHOULD work now" for example instead of "This WILL work now")
I bring this up because if you leave your statement open ended "I don't think I can win the game this turn." for example feeds them the misinformation while leaving it open ended enough that you can say you didn't lie.
Oh gods, I'm thinking like a U/W player.
As someone who has worked customer service my whole life I use this line of thinking all the time with my customers. This SHOULD be the solution not that it will be. Never make promises that you cant keep. There is never a 100% guarantee something that worked in the past will work in this scenario
As a maintenance worker and electrician, this. Yes ma'am, your machine should be functional now. We replaced the button, that should fix it. We relubricated the bearing, it should be better. Let us know if you still have issues and we'll try to rework a different fix😂😂😂
Allegedly*
I do a different kind of tech troubleshooting and this is the exact same way I have learned to speak. There is always the potential for unknown variables.
what is "U/W"?
Imagine just thinking out loud "I dont think I have game" and realising you do and people getting pissed at that
Imagine only being human.
@@ShiningDarknes after all
@@brunolehmann7588 don't put the blame on me
I don't even see how it changes anything. Sevinne's Reclamation targets, so its target must be declared before it is placed on the stack. The entire table is still free to respond with any instant speed action in response to the spell now that they know it's threatening to win the game. Just a bunch of sour grapes.
@@deciett that's exactly what i was thinking, either they can stop it or they can't and him being wrong about being able to win didn't change that, the dude that kept pushing the issue just seemed really salty
I totally agree. This a tournament, it's played with competitive decks and is for a big prize. If i say i have counterspell in hand, do you expect me to counter your next spell to prove that or vice versa, do you trust me i don't have counterspell when i say so? Additionally, CowboyBob might have really not seen the line, so that wouldn't be an intentional lie.
100%. This is Wizard Poker, people are going to lie, bluff and play mind games, especially for prizes.
"Make them have it" as they say.
Eh $600 isn't exactly a "big" prize, so hopefully it was worth it to him.
@@UnexpectedDangerWhat was worth it? Bluffing in a game where you’re allowed to bluff? $600 is a lot of money to a lot of people, he did nothing wrong at all even if he did intentionally lie.
@@UnexpectedDanger Worth it? You act like something wrong was done. This is perfectly normal play and anyone thinking otherwise shouldn't do anything remotely competitive even casual magic formats.
The guy who runs my LGS decided one day to come up to us, ask if the 4 of us there had "serious" decks (read: high power) and said if we wanted he would offer a Collector Booster to the winner
Stax player sucessfully slows the game to a snail's pace, stopping almost all of us from winning
I naturally draw into and play my combo pieces, the start of that combo even removes the one stax piece that stops it from working properly
I don't tell anyone and win when it comes back to me because people were focusing on the stax
I was told by the people in the pod that that was unsportsmanlike to not announce that I could win next turn, which I usually would agree to, if the prize hadn't just gone from a single normal booster like the store usually does to a collector booster worthat lsast 6 times as much
I can only imagine the reaction if I had unpromptedly said I couldn't win
On the other hand I got a copy of Prisoner's Dilemma in that booster and intend on making sure everyone knows they are allowed to lie every time I play that card, I love that silly piece of cardboard
That makes no sense, why would you need to announce you are playing a winning combo? It is up to an opponent to decide what to counter and if it is worth using resources to stop your play or saved them for later
I once announce I was going to win after drawing a card in an EDH game, but my last standing opponent actually had an infinite combo on the table which he was not seeing and was told by one of the other two players. I could have easily counter a card he played the previous turn and stop the combo, I only blamed myself for not understanding the implications of that card. Nobody had to tell me "You better counter this or I win", even in a friendly game.
in a multiplayer format like that, choosing who you need to focus on is apart of the game and challenge. Failing to properly asses who is the largest threat only to get the rug pulled under you is an entire strategy for many decks that like to snowball. The only time I announce when I'm in a position to win is when I'm playing with new players because they just don't have the same amount of experience to know how some cards can combo and pop off unexpectedly.
In an experienced pod with 'serious' decks you should not have to announce that you're a big threat at the table, especially if you're playing for any form of prize.
and of course that was edh , jesus edh created a whole generation of noobs ,this situation was about skills , at any moment one of your oponent could of alerted the others about an eventual combo loll
@@AAA-vd5tf Yeah, part of the game of Commander is what my group calls the "Balance of Terror" where part of your strategy is about either looking like you aren't a threat or redirecting attention to other player's threats. Its the social aspect of multiplayer group dynamics and threat assessment that is part of gaining skill as a player.
These guys sound lame. I cant imagine ever announcing that I am about to win.
If a player casts silence and then says they can't win, and you believe them, that's on you
"the state or current zone of any object or player"
"Yo, I'm back. Where'd my opponent go?"
"He had a bit too many while you were gone and now he's currently facedown, in the restroom"
So he’s. 2/2 colorless?
"The state of any player"
Damn, nobody just asks how their opponent is feeling.
The other caveat, and the reason this rule needs to exist: I may be truthful in saying "I can't win" based on the information I have (current board state/hand/etc) on one turn, then on my turn, topdeck the card I forgot I had in the deck that now I win immediately. It's better for the game to not penalize actual lies, so you don't ever penalize "accidental lies".
Sometimes you don't even have to forget about specific cards. Magic is very complex, sometimes you just didn't think of a specific interaction that may lead to win until later.
For example one time I was playing a 3 people casual game, and I didn't see myself winning, and said out loud. On my turn I got Chef's Kiss and didn't do much except passing turn. Turns out, an opponent casted a spell, i can't remember what was it now but the bottom line was that it targetet a player and in the current state either me or the third player would lose if choosen. Then he targeted me and I was thinking on my options, and then realised this was exactly the situation Chef's Kiss was made for, so I used it and took out the third player, and the owner of the spell lost enough so I could snatch the win a couple turns later.
you could... you know... just not say that.
@@alicepbg2042 Well yeah, but that kinda misses the point.
"You didn't have to do that" isn't an answer to the question "What should be done after it DOES happen?"
It DID happen. It WAS said. Now what?
@@Mirvana because it was not supposed to be an answer to that question.
Saying "what if I say stuff and was wrong?" Is not something that requires protection for you.
Things should be penalized, and then you just don't say stuff for no reason.
Because you being protected, means people doing it on purpose also do. And that is a bigger issue.
@@alicepbg2042 You seem really upset by this... you the guy who lost to Cowboy bob?
I remember the first time I got called out for "lying" in a match. My opponent asked me if I had any flying creatures on the board. I said no. He attacked me with 3 flying creatures, and I blocked them with my army of reachy spider bois. I didn't even lie. I just didn't give up extra info for free.
Oh, did you not understand that he was asking if you would be able to block his flying creatures so the game could go faster?
You answered the question he asked. It’s not your fault he didn’t ask the correct question 😂
@@irlAlchemist I understood his question just fine. He didn't ask if I had a way to block his flying creatures. He asked if I had flying creatures. He knew my spiders had reach, and he knew what reach does. He was also famously a bit of a jerk to new players, so I didn't feel like he would want one holding his hand and giving him advice on how to play his game.
@@irlAlchemist That isn't what he asked.
thats not lying, you told him exactly what he asked for and nothing else, which is perfectly in line with the rules, also for future reference if someone asks you about your board state you have to answer honestly because thats public knowledge
and the alternative to answering questions about your board state is letting other players pick up and touch your cards, and i dont know about you but some of the players i play against dont exactly treat cards correctly and im not letting them touch my cards
Things you can't lie about in a game of Magic: The Gathering:
- Number of cards in your hand
- Number of cards left in your deck
- Number of times you've cast your commander from the command zone
- What your life total is
Things you can lie about in a game of Magic: The Gathering:
- The color of shirt you are wearing
- That you won't attack an opponent this turn
- That you don't plan on winning any time soon
- Telling somebody who cries about you lying that their feelings about it are valid
This reminds me of an old story about Cursed Scroll. I can't remember the exact details, but basically, both players are in top deck mode. Player A has lethal damage on board, going into Player B's turn, so B has to win with only one card draw. A is down to 5 life. B has a Cursed Scroll on the field (1 mana artifact with "3, T: Choose a card name, then reveal a card at random. If you reveal the chosen card, deal 2 damage to any target." ) So after drawing, with only 1 card in hand, Player B names Fireblast, (4RR sorcery, "You may sacrifice 2 mountains instead of paying mana to cast this card. Deal 4 damage to any target.") Player A doesn't even wait for the reveal, knowing that 2 + 4 is greater than 5, and concedes. Player B then reveals that he only drew a Mountain for the turn. So, not technically a lie, but he definitely mislead his opponent into believing false information about hidden zones to steal the win.
Incredible lack of competitive discipline on behalf of both players, A failed to call a bluff which was free to call, B unnecessarily revealed they were bluffing, severely reducing their chance of succeding with a similar ploy in the future.
@@NeiZaMoI remember that story. It even got mentioned in the duelist and inquest. He revealed it because he had won the round with that bluff. No more game to play and on to next opponent.
@Issblodh they mean in future games of Magic overall
Same reason in poker you don't show your hand if you win with a big bluff, because that gives information to others in future scenarios what sort of player you are
@@Idran i know. But keep in mind this was way back when tempest block was standard legal. Tournament reports took weeks to reach the players as they were only published in (monthly) magazines. Also, player A jumped the gun and should have at least waited for player B to complete the effect of cursed scroll before conceding.
@@IdranMan, while I agree that this is strategically sound, I don’t like it. (Disclaimer: I haven’t played MTG)
I don’t mind bluffing within a game, but I really don’t like the idea of not revealing any bluffs once the specific information is no longer relevant, or, at the end of the current game.
Like yeah, I get that in terms of what information it reveals about the player (and the conditions under which they are likely to bluff), it makes sense to not reveal it,
I don’t like it, and would prefer a game culture in which people are expected to reveal any bluffs at the end of the game.
I suppose other people may prefer the thing that is strategically better if it is socially permitted, and, it has the advantage of “not having a norm that isn’t enforceable”,
but.... :/
Lol I lie all the time at tables. "Nah, I got no counterspell in hand", while I proceed to cast it.
🙏🙏🙏
based blue player
I have a baral deck with 14 counterspells, anytime I play the deck I get asked if I have a counter spell then always say "I don't know" I just wait until I see something I don't want going through before doing anything
"See? This is not a Counterspell. It is a Spell Pierce."
That's fine as long as you graciously accept a loss when you get called on it.
The situation in the tourny seems like just playing the game, the opponent seems salty. Lying in the way like "i cant win next turn" could be bluffing or truthful, thats just playing the game
"You still could have kept your word, like you said" is one of the most pathetic things I've ever heard. What a manipulative thing to say. You lost, asshole, get over it.
This reminds me of a tournament story from a long time ago (like 15+ years). One of the players was playing a combo deck that required a number of permanents, and one specific card in hand to start the combo.
The player had assembled all the permanents required, and told his opponent "Do I really have to show you the combo?", to which his opponent forfeited. It was then revealed that the combo player *didn't have* the hand piece required for the combo, so they wouldn't have won (at least not then and there).
But it was legal. The opponent forfeited, and, hey, they should have asked to be shown the combo at least once.
Rule 104.3a
Yeah those scenarios typically require a decent amount of goodwill and faith between both players like the LSV one where he won a bunch of matches in a vintage tournament after forgetting to add tendrils to his sideboard because the people he played assumed he had it and he would just cast burning wish with a high stormncount and they would concede.
I believe that story was the infamous Mike Long. He was brilliant at manipulating opponents like that. Unfortunately he also crossed the line into straight up cheating (e.g., putting cards in his lap).
Here's my favourite Mike Long story, from the semifinals of GP: Pittsburgh '03. It was Team Rochester, and Mike knows that his opponent drafted a Form of the Dragon. His opponent also has a Flamewave Invoker in play as well as other stuff, and eight mana. Mike is at 10. Mike sees his opponent start to set aside land... three red mana... four other mana... he knows that his opponent is going to play Form of the Dragon, so he asks him if he's just going to Invoke for the win. The opponent pauses, and Mike continues, "Are you? Or are you going to play something I can deal with?"
The opponent now thinks, maybe Mike has a counter. He decides to sit back and Invoke twice, and passes the turn. Mike laughs, says, "Sucker!", and uses Choking Tethers to tap his opponent's team, swinging for the win on his turn, with no flying creatures that couldn't have attacked with Form in play.
A Prosperous Bloom player got his combo going and cast Drain Life, without specifying how much it was for. His opponent cast Force of Will. He then countered the Force of Will and hit his opponent with a 19 point Drain Life, which was lethal due to the unnecessary Force.
Remember that happening a lot on YuGiOh, would always ask them to play their combo out at least a few times to make sure they could do it or loop
So.
Regular Enforcement - "Does that have flying?" "No, but it does have Reach so it can block like it did."
Competitive Enforcement - "Does that have flying?" "No."
Professional Enforcement - "Does this have flying?" "..."
Professional enforcement is unsportsmanlike. What if the card is in a language i can't read? My opponent isn't obligated to tell me the name of the card. Bad vision? Dyslexic? Open books for cheating as far as most these commenters seem to care. Judges would freely punish this behavior just as they would slow play
EXACTLY this!
So as someone that Doesn't play magic, can you ask to read the card yourself, at least when it enters the board? Or do you actually need to know the effects of every Single card in the game? Because I feel like specific card effects go beyond knowledge of game rules, especially for newer players that maybe know the current meta but then would just be blind to older cards if they have no way of knowing what the card does.
@@Steckdose_ You're supposed to be able to read the card and have access to the full errata/glossary text if my understanding of the tourney stuff is correct. I don't like playing that competitively, doesn't seem fun to me.
@@KrooTon It's very silly. All that actually does is increase game time and introduce delays into the tournament schedule. Because at this point you can't just ask your opponent what the card on the table does, because you can't trust that they'll answer honestly. So now you have to waste time dragging a judge over every time any spell is cast to get the oracle text for the card. Genuinely, a tournament straight up can't work like that, you'd have to have a judge at every table constantly announcing the oracle text of every spell that gets cast every game. It's nonsensical. They didn't think this through.
I legitimately don't play any TCG and I have no idea why this was recommended to me, but as someone with no knowledge on anything, this was a very well-put together and entertaining video. Hats off to you.
Appreciate the kind words 😊 I try to make all the Rules videos I make for MTG to be as accessible as possible.
Editing always stresses me out (impostor syndrome) so it's nice to hear I'm doing something right. 😅
It's never too late to start
I have a deck based on winning with instant buffs and commander damage, which I call "Buff or bluff"
The hole point of the deck is always leaving the opponents in doubt if I am strong, weak, close to winning or not. My friends know that when I play that deck, I play it as if was poker and that I will lie. It is not a very strong deck, but it is a very fun deck to play because it is a different style of play, which is more on the mental side. They know that my creatures power is not real and I can spend the entire game doing 1 or 2 damage a turn and out of nowhere I can do 20-30 to all 3 players or just lose without doing anything
I have a 60 card RGB infect deck that does this. Never thought to try it with commander damage. That sounds fun.
The best kinds of decks are the ones that also deal damage to your opponents' sense of security 😈
A friend of mine who's a fucking monster with deck building has a deck he likes to call Mario Party. Just an Izzet deck of every chaotic card and mind games including but not limited to Goblin Game and Prisoner's Dilemma.
I love commander decks like these that have to come with a disclaimer :D
That sounds incredibly fun, gonna need that list, chief
Wait, wait, you can refuse to tell your opponent about oracle text?!? What the fuck, thats evil.
It looks like the intention there wasn't to condone lying ( though it does in practice allow lies by omission) but rather not to punish someone for not remembering all relevant information ( which is why you can ask a Judge for the full Oracle text )
It's called GameSharking and will get you jumped in the parking lot, scummy move
@@roxashenry8315 Ok, ITG
@@roxashenry8315 Not sure I'm too worried about getting jumped by, of all people, angry nerds.
@@jacobesterson hay man you ever been hit by those $700 calculators, knock some smarts in yah and give you +2 intelligence for the day. Mathmatical
Plus theres the fact Bob didnt see the line at first. What if instead of simply not seeing the line the situation instead was Bob drew into the win? Would they be obligated to not take it because they casually complained about not being able to win that turn? No, thats stupid.
i feel like saying "i cant win this turn" and then finding out that you can as the turn progresses is really common. it's almost in the same vein of saying "nah im not going to attack x player" and then realizing as the turn goes on "you know what? i am gonna attack x player! its the best play" because you gained information later. i feel like that happens a lot.
I play a goblin deck(Krenko, EDH) so there's usually a LOT going on with my boardstate. Maybe I just missed it while looking through the 40 cards I have between board and hand
There's a massive difference between the two things you just said. Winning isn't an action you take, it's a game state. Everyone goes into the game accepting that this exact game state is everyone's goal, and hoping it might be them. There's a massive difference between saying "the game won't be over yet" and then being wrong about that, and saying "I will choose not to take this exact action" and then taking that exact action.
At professional rules enforcement level:
"What is the power and toughness of your goyf?"
"I DO NOT CONSENT!"
hmm guess I'll take 1 damage then
@@emmeehan8680 Actually, life totals are status information and both players have to track them to the best of their ability and announce any changes. I don't have to tell you the power and toughness of Tarmogoyf, but if you announce you are taking 1 damage from it in combat I have to correct you.
Ok, but can you ask an opponent to see their grave? Can they refuse that u less you have graveyard interaction? I play casual so like most these rules/niche things don't apply as we are all pretty open and hell open adds to politics
@@andrewcullen2527 Yes, contents of graveyards are free information. You can ask to see them any time, and your opponent can't misrepresent which cards are in it, but they don't need to help you compute the number of card types in it or announce every card that enters it.
Does this really happen? This actually sounds unsportsmanlike, unlike the guy in this video who was accused of lying
If someone ways they can't win this turn, don't take their word for it. As an opponent, you have to assume they can win at any point and be on your edge. Someone casts a sevinne reclamation targeting a breech, I'd want to know everything I'm allowed.
Well and even if I say "I can't win on my turn" it could mean "I win on YOUR turn" aswell
If I'm playing the game... I'm paying attention. I already know whether you can win this turn or not. I know if it can happen, I know if it simply can't happen, and I know generally how likely it might be to potentially happen. This is not information that comes out of nowhere. Magic is not like Yugioh. You know when someone's about to win several turns in advance. Everyone knows it, as long as they're paying attention.
it's kind of weird to say it but you should treat a competitive game like war. do not trust anything your opponents say. they are free to use politics or lies against you. i find it weird that players can effectively lie by omission (such as the vampire nighthawk example since people with poor eyesight would be forced to take an extraordinary amount of time to verify the board without help). this is a war of information and the people with better information and foresight do best.
The lying by omission was a real surprise to learn when I was researching for this video!
@@attackoncardboard i mean can't they just show you the card? Any card on a public zone is considered free information, no?
@@finesseandstyle If i remember correctly you are allowed to pick up and look at any of your opponents cards in any public zone as long as you ask for permission first, and your opponent is obligated to grant you permission to do so.
@@NeiZaMoIs it really asking for permission of theirs obligated to answer a certain way?
@@invertedname3099 more so it's not a big surprise when you see your opponent randomly grab one of your cards out of nowhere. that could be a shocker and perhaps lead to conflict at the table
Of course I lied, Phil! It's poker!
it's funny the technicalities you can get into with what info you can provide to opponents. there's a guy in my local competitive scene that has all cards in korean and will not tell you what he played and likes to play alt artworks so they're less recognizable. in a way this is derived information, but if i can't read korean it doesn't do me any favors. ended up taking our games to a draw because i called a judge over to look up every card he played and drag out the time.
so he is just a sore player with extreme bad sportmanship just because the "rules" allow it
Yeah, that's wack. I have a few Japanese cards in my EDH deck because it was just cheaper, but not telling people what I'm playing is just asshole behaviour. Don't the tournament rules say something about how the English version of the cards is technically the one all tournaments run on? Not that it means you can't play foreign cards, but that you should know the English name of all of them....
That would be against the rules by your opponent, even before you involved a judge. As shown in the “Free Information” section of this video, they’re obligated to tell you the name of any visible object, including on the stack or on the battlefield.
You could get dinged for slow play if you constantly asked for the same object, but you’re in the clear to ask about each new thing and they have to tell you.
@@veggiedragon1000 Nope. Official policy is that any language printing is allowed anywhere, though, what counts as a legal game piece is ultimately left at head judge discretion. That said, dude was still absolutely rulebreaking.
You'll note in the video that the names of objects in public zones is public information that can't be withheld or lied about. That doesn't mean the opponent is forced to provide the name in English when prompted. There's no guarantee the opponent can even _speak_ English. However, it does mean the opponent would have to provide accurate information in _some_ language, at which point a judge/translator can step in if necessary. Refusing to identify your game pieces entirely is a rule violation. The person telling this story, who said the identity of these cards is derived info, is wrong. Oracle text might be derived but card name is not. The oracle text on cards is derived because it can be derived _using the name._
i get that the ruling on derived information is like that, cuz they don't want to force you to explain a whole card under threat of a game rules violation.
but now i'm imagining someone with a playset of altered textless goyfs who REFUSES to tell you the oracle text or their p/t. a living, breathing, knowledge check.
That's what Judges are there for. They can give you the Oracle text of any card at any time.
@@attackoncardboard Yes this! Cards are functionally stand-ins for oracle text. Always!
The procedure is this:
Ask the opponent what card types are in their graveyard. [They can respond with the names of the cards, in which case you just demand to inspect the GY.] Then you ask yourself to do the same thing. Then you figure it out.
@@attackoncardboard Imagine someone running a full deck of cards that obfuscate what they do, or parts of what they do. Then you basically have to have a judge looking over the game and have them read out the oracle text of every single card they play. You can do it, and it's funny in a supervillain type of way. But the rules should obviously try to make this kind of play style impossible.
@@attackoncardboard Eh, you are required to know your cards if you play them, and if y ou don't outline cards effects when they literally cannot be read, your opponent has no way to verify anything you say is accurate
if an altered, textless tarmagoyf is put into play, and your opponent asks what it does, and you say "not telling" but then turn around and say "actually it does 3 damage when it dies to any target" so the opponent is just supposed to accept that?
Even in your "call a judge" case, if this was done where there *isnt* a judge to call, like in a casual environment, that would 100% be extremely unsportsmanlike, so why should that be any different in tournament?
What if my opponent plays a foreign language card with an art i dont recognize, but am a seasoned veteran of magic? What if he says the foreign name of the card on cast, which i dont speak the language of? You're telling me the opponent is not obligated to tell me what their card is? I cant even look up the card if i don't know what it is!
Hell, what if im dyslexic? or have a disability that makes reading small text difficult?
No, this scenario is 1000% just bad sportsmanship, which would be punishable.
The guy saying "you should've kept your word" was lowkey being pretty unsportsmanlike
highkey
What CowboyBob did is about the same as my boy asking me, "Do you have your wincon?" On their turn and me responding, "Do I?"
Lol the first thing i thought of when seeing the thumbnail was tony g lying to phil helmuth in poker lol. If you are at a tournament and playing for prizes always assume the worst of your opponent.
It's common courtesy to not lie in casual. Competitive, dont ever listen. Especially with prizes on the line.
I think lying should be encouraged in casual
@@ladygeneveve3805 lying shouldn't be encouraged at all, but especially not in casual play.
I mean it’s casual. Depends on the vibe, if you lie and they don’t like it you are “losing” by alienating a play partner. But maybe they enjoy ruthless competition for its own sake.
@@Binzob believing your opponents about the state of their hand should be actively discouraged. It makes no sense
@@jek__ tcg isnt poker theres no need to lie about what cards you have. Simply play better than your opponent
100% fine. I'm amused that you used the counter spell example. I had a friend ask me during a game, "Do you have a counter spell in your hand?" I replied, "I always have a counter spell in my hand." There is a degree of playing the players not just the cards.
nah nah nah, i'm 01:26 in the video and there is no argument: Lying isn't against the rule, and I would say especially in a competitive tournament. In a casual setting either, but losing friends over this could suck. This guy did nothing wrong (except trying to justify himself but whatever).
"i can't win this turn" says every cedh player right before winning on their turn
The funniest part about that prisoner's dilemma card is that there's no incentive to ever pick silence. In the prisoner's dilemma thought experiment, the optimal play for any one-off instance is to defect. This is because defecting on the "final" prisoner's dilemma always produces the greatest possible reward, regardless of the opponent's choice. The only way cooperation ever enters the strategy is if you're expected to play many prisoner's dilemmas over an indefinite period of time. In other words, the strategy for this card "should" differ depending on whether you're in a tournament match or if you're playing with friends (who you'll be playing with repeatedly for an indefinite number of times). However, the fact you have to devote a deck slot to the card and pay mana for it changes the equation. Now, it's no longer just "an event that both players participate in," but rather "an event triggered by a player expecting some outcome." If you're playing this card, you *want* the 8 damage burn and consider the 8 damage to yourself as an acceptable cost. You will always pick snitch, because dealing 8 damage to your opponent for 3 mana is better than dealing 4 damage. At which point, the entire minigame becomes redundant, as if the opponent understands this too, the card effect can be reduced to "all players take 8 damage."
I'm not sure I quite understand. Doesn't Prisoner's Dilemma only require opponents to make the decision, so that the caster will never take damage? (This makes it nearly useless in a 2 player game, where it is just an expensive way to make your opponent take 4 damage.) If the caster got to make that decision as well, then yeah, they would always end up choosing snitch, and your analysis would be correct, however this isn't the way the card works.
Also the card has flashback, and you could potentially have multiple of it in your deck and/or get it back from the graveyard somehow, so it isn't always one-off.
@@osbourn5772 Sorry, I got recommended this video despite not having touched MTG in years, so I assumed the person who played the card was included in "each opponent."
@@caliburnleaf9323 No worries
I don't like that you can lie about cards that are in play. If asked what a card does, it should be considered no different than asking to see the card itself. The only difference is I didn't have to handle your cards.
I agree that any interactions with other cards needs to be figured out by me.
The idea is that you don't get penalized for not reading literally everything in the oracle text when someone asks you what it does. Like forgetting a little detail on one of the 6 abilities on a questing beast (yes it has that many and some are pretty wordy). But it also protects bad faith actors. But that's true of every rule, you can always tread the line without crossing it.
It's mostly so you don't get penalized for not knowing the exact Oracle text, in cases where it does not match the printed card. For example, Cromat is an Illusion, but has no printings that reflect this. Obviously nobody is gonna play this bulk legend at a professional level, and anyone that does choose to play it at that level should be familiar with this fairly minor change, but it's not something you could know without looking it up yourself. So instead the correct procedure is to ask a judge to provide the Oracle text, as players are entitled to derived information, their opponent just isn't the one that has to provide it.
I had a poison-tip archer in play at my weekly casual edh get-together w/ friends. person sitting perpendicular to me (my library partially blocking his view of my cards) wanted to swing at someone with his commander, who had flying. He asked if anyone had any creatures with FLYING and I said no (others said yes because they did). It hit me as soon as I said no that I had a card with reach, but I decided to keep my mouth shut and let it unfold. I blocked with my poison-tip archer, who had reach AND deathtouch, and cost him his commander. I think he might have been able to win if I hadn't done that. ofc I didn't win either.
Re: the slaughter games example. If I was going through an opponent’s library for those cards and they told me there were only 3 to prevent me from finding the 4th - I’d be sour AF when they drew the 4th scapeshift.
Totally fair but at least you now know to not trust your opponent's word when searching 😉
Effects that instruct you to search for something doesn't forces you to find it, even if there's indeed one or more to find... it's totally on your part to search carefully...
A failure to understand social strategies is, hilariously enough, the fault of many commander players, yet fairly well understood amongst people who play 60-card.
Which is weird to me because are always making alliances, betraying alliances, and other such stuff the fact that people don’t understand that you can lie in a social game is ridiculous
Lying is a part of strategy in most games, and becomes part of knowing your opponents. If you don't know your opponent will enough to read them or you can't identify their lies, the best line is to always ignore what they say entirely and okay as if they said nothing.
Imagine letting sevinne's resolve and then getting salty about a line.
Lol at the beginning of the game say, "I will win" so then your opponents are forced to let you win
💯
Once I heard cash prize and he broke no rules, it sucks for the table, but everyone is trying to win
Easist lie is to hold a card separate to the rest of your hand when you have unspent mana. You could be holding an Island but your opponent doesn't know it isn't a counter
Also, when they do a spell you can't counter, say that you're choosing to let it resolve (or something like that).
Lying in Cowboy Bob's situation was not only legal, I'd say it was the correct strategic move. If you're playing at a competitive table, playing for money, you should be doing everything within your power to win.
Hot take we love to see
Been there done that! Since EDH is both an eternal and singleton format there are plenty of moments were you can make that prefect draw to turn a hopeless situation into a commanding lead/win. I did just that the other week when I was bemoaning my misfortunes for being so far behind and almost losing before drawing a Mizzix Mastery that I could overload: winning on the spot. It wasn't a lie to say that I was a sure loser as you'd be silly to appeal to the slim odds of drawing the one singular card that I'd need to win.
OMG the inclusion of the Tony G v Hellmuth Clip is great xD
My favorite "cheat" in casual MTG is, if a player seems inattentive, asking if they end their turn right as I end mine. My poor friend, exhausted after a long day, let me take 4 consecutive turns before I explained what I was doing. He had a good laugh and resigned
but technically shouldn't it untap and draw? also how do you ask him if you just finished yours? it means he really wasn't at the table playing if he lets you...
That's as much of a cheeky little 'cheat' as drawing extra cards when he's not looking or not updating your life total after taking damage. Idk how yalls relationship dynamic is, but if someone pulled that kind of thing on me more than once, I wouldn't trust them very much anymore.
@@0redfr0g0its clearly just a funny story about his buddy and kitchen table magic
It might be a funny joke with your friend, but, unlike the conduct at issue in this video, that doesn't actually work, rules wise. If you take another turn without your opponent untapping and drawing their card for the turn, you are guilty of Game Play Error - Failure to Maintain Game State (IPG 2.6) because you failed to notice your opponent not drawing their card for the turn. Intentionally committing a game play error in order to give yourself an advantage would be Unsporting Conduct - Cheating (IPG 4.8), but you would need to be aware that letting your opponent pass through their turn without drawing their card was something you weren't allowed to do (which you now are).
@@0redfr0g0 it's a game between friends for fun... it's not like there's any stakes?? me and my friends cheat/fuck around in games all the time and it's all good fun. I suppose you need to know someone enough so that you know where the line is and not to cross it and how the context impacts what's okay but like. cheating in a board game is not trust(or friendship)-ending serious? especially if the main point of playing is hanging out and having fun. card and board games are just something for us to do while we hang out, so we don't really take them that seriously. we trust each other to the point we know we wouldn't screw each other over on something *actually* important, I guess
edit: not to imply magic isnt important. this obviously doesn't apply to tourneys or to situations where there IS stakes
0:30 - Um, isn't this a bluff? Bluffing is not allowed?
Remember, it's the moral obligation of all blue players to keep 2 mana open, and act like they have counterspell they can play.
Grand Abolisher enters the room and says, "no u".
I usually just say “I JUST SHIT MYSELF LETS HURRY UP SO I CAN WIPE! 😰” that usually does the trick.
Goated music choice for the background, love that ape escape track
If I say "I'm going to play a creature spell" and then I play a non-creature spell, I lied but no one cares. If I tell everyone I'm going to lose the game next turn and I don't lose the game, no one cares. If this guy offhandedly says "there's no way I can win this game..." and then draws a miracle card or realizes a winning strategy spur of the moment that lets them win, everybody loses their minds.
Seriously, there never is a rule that you must be 100% honest with all of your actions. Heck, sometimes I promise someone I won't attack them next turn if they don't do something bad to me this turn, and then turn around and stab them in the back. Sure it's unsportsmanlike, but in the end I didn't break any rules and if that wins me the game, why wouldn't I go for the kill if it ends up costing me the game later. My payment for my sins is earning a bad reputation and becoming untrustworthy for future deals, but that's the social aspect of the game that makes it dynamic, not breaking some rule.
It does destroy your credibility with the group though.
I hate political whiners that say “they’re out of the game” so people take pity on them, only to draw their combo piece and win next turn.
Knew a guy who was like that with EVERY deck he played.
I focus him down every game even if he’s “behind”, because you have too, he’s honorless
@@Garl_Vinland I get this, and I am known for being a "straight" player in other games (I don't play commander, but played vast amounts of V:TES which is always social and starts with 5 players per table). And I also learned to qualify my statements as opinions unless rules-legalese is involved. Very often I said "I don't think I can win this game" and every so often a miracle happens and you get exactly what you need.
For deceitful players, I knew to ignore them - just ensure they didn't cheat. Is part of reading the game and people. In one board game one event required a player to pick a card, say a statement based on the card (number), and if you lied successfully you improved your board and if the opponent guessed correctly the advantage would go there. It got to one player never reading the content of the card - would just say one of the possible statements (1 in 3) so there would be no "read" possible. It's like poker players that place a bet without seeing a card in order to avoid being read - although in both cases that's a read on itself.
Metagames are awesome.
@@tychoMX Having two mana open and bluffing that you have a counter spell in hand is like poker.
Saying you're "Out of the game, please don't hurt me" and then comboing out the following turn is more of what we would call a 'bitch move'
@@Garl_Vinland There's 3 people at my LGS who do this crap constantly. The rest of us have colloquially come up with the house rule in the store that you kill those players first, no matter what, no matter how many land drops they've missed.
@@Garl_Vinland Sure when playing with your regular group but with randoms in a competitive setting and competing for cash why would you trust them? At that point it is on you.
If I had a quarter for every time I thought I couldn't win on a turn and figured out how to pull it off as I'm going about playing my cards, I could afford fetchlands in all my decks lol. Let the man cook
"I can't win this turn" is a lie about what you have in your hand, which is private information you're allowed to outrageously lie about.
i don't lie to my friends, but i'm not giving information out with them asking lol. that dude was just butthurt he got duped. and yes if i can win on that turn, i'm going to lie to my friends that i can win that turn. which totally goes against what i said in the beginning, buuuut it's fun to play a deck that they all hate.
"Bluffing because I always end up the arch enemy" I feel that
Of course it was a commander game
That dryed arbor move was funny 😂
“I shall block with this”
“Thats a forest….put that shit back 😑”
“No no no look”
“Put that shit back 😡”
“Looooooooook”
“Oh 😶”
As a seasoned commander player, if someone tells me "I can't win the game" I don't tend to believe them. Players will say a lot of things to try and avoid being a target, most commonly "I'm not doing anything"
Oh yeah, if someone just says "I can't win" don't believe them, because, why are they in the game? To win.
This made me remember once I was playing commander. My deck had very weird and specific interactions and every time I would play a card I would tell all players WHY they should care about a card. One interaction few new players know is about trickbinding a suspended card.
So, one of the players was new on the store (though played his fair shares), got annoyed at me for overexplaining so much that when I was exiling his commander on suspend and trying to alert him to NOT let it be exiled but put on commander zone... he hit me with a "shut up, I know how to play the game." 2 turns later he lost his precious commander and the entire table was annoyed by many mistriggers and overlooking of my less than usual deck. T'was a funny episode, never happened again.
I played on a competetive event once. It was hard and tbh pretty annoying. Because it was excatly the case with tarmogoyf. My opponent had one, manipulated his GY several times (get cards from GY to hand etc) so I could never be sure about the exact toughness. Hence I had to always count. Now the catch. If the opponent does not allow you to touch their cards (which is afaik in their rights) you have to call a judge.
The judge was not happy about me when I asked him for the third or fourth time to count the different card types in the opponents GY, since I wasnt allowed to touch them. I tried to keep track, but writing everything down etc. is pretty fast also considered "time play", hence you get a warning etc.
So as you said: on fnm and regular rule enforcement situations: Be friendly, help each other and maybe (to help getting better) give hints what would be derived information like "you could know something more. Think about it" and then tell them if they dont get to the conclusion.
I quit higher levels of playing, cause it got annoying pretty fast. Because tbh I was simply too nice to pull stuff like that player and just told my opponent e.g. Gofys power/toughness or what cards in my grave have flashback etc.
Yes, it is/was my fault that I was too nice, but even on slighty more serious levels (prices like a display etc, which I know is still monetary value, but you get what I mean) it gets annoying pretty fast when you want to have fun as well.
I was in a magic feast in Brussles, and I played vs an opponent playing UW spirits. He played Rattlechains in Italian, and I didn't know what it does. He told me that it's a spirit with flash that gives hexproof to a spirit when it enters. Cool.
Then, 2 or so turns later, he proceeded to play another spirit at instant speed, because Rattlechains allows him to do so. He was allowed to do it in the rules, but he scammed me with a card in a language I didn't know. Then and there I learned this lesson - always ask a judge.
Magic not have rules about needing to have translations for your own cards? Pretty stupid if not
@@Binzob He can't have a translation for every card that he has in every language. He knows what his cards are doing, and I should have asked a judge
Does this mean at competitive rel if player A asks player B their attacking Goyf's power and B says "3" and then A chooses not to block, B can reveal it's actually 4 power? That seems sketch to me, but ok.
You're not allowed to misconstrue derived information. Effectively, you can lie by omission, but not lie outright.
You can not give the answer, but you can't lie.
I've always said "I'm not telling you"
My group is pretty casual, but won't catch me just giving information away unless it's extremely funny
Whenever I'm asked if I have a counterspell my answer is "Only one way to find out."
If I ever tell you that I don't have a counterspell, you should know just from that information that I do. I'm glad he threw in the "Of course I'm lying, it's poker" clip.
I love and hate but mostly love that Magic leaves space for Gamesmanship.
Imagine going to a poker tournament and complaining about the players lying 😂
Come on guys, it's part of the game
Lying is actually not a part of poker. Table talk is taboo in poker, in general. The entirety of the game is about bluffing and reading bluffs... note, I said bluffs and not lies. The literal gameplay is in communication, and the only actually acceptable forms of communication about the game are the game actions you take and the implications they have. "I have four aces" is not something you can just say. You can, however, go all-in, implying you have a hand that can't be beaten. A lie is when you say something that's not true intentionally. A bluff is when you do something that makes the other players make incorrect inferences. When you bluff, you're not telling anybody anything.
Lying about private information is absolutely part of the game. Lying about derived information should never be done, though.
Nah. If I'm playing competitive, I will gladly hide that I'm swinging deathtouch so I can kill a problem on the green players board. It's on them the pay attention. Announce evasion (flying, landwalk, skulk, etc.) and power, but other than that, the blockers can do the rest.
@@chickenladysam4098 This is why magic is such an ass game
@@HellecticMojo why? They can read. They have access to the same information. It's not my job to spoonfeed it to them.
@@chickenladysam4098 because it's just obtuse obfuscation of forcing people to read upside down text. It's just jackassery for the sake of jackassery.
@@chickenladysam4098 I wouldn't hide the fact it has deathtouch, that's against the rules. But I wouldn't offer that information up freely either. Which it seems by your example is what you do, but I wanted to highlight that its still against the rules to actively misrepresent derived info.
One guy bluffed on the other one totally took the bait. He is just salty because he got totally played.
I still don't understand how he was "bluffed" Isn't the spell still on the stack targeting the card in the graveyard? Last I checked he could still be responded to.
@@patterofheads256 as the story goes, he first cast Silence (Your opponents can't cast spells this turn) while saying he couldn't win. Since no one countered silence, they can't play anything to stop him once he realized he could win
@@wheatleyede7628 That would have been useful context at the start of the video.
Nobody would ever cast silence on their own turn unless they were going to win that turn.
Even with that context, it changes nothing. Whether he lied or not (I'm in camp Not), CowboyBob did nothing objectively wrong.
@@attackoncardboard The context changes everything. It's not even about whether or not he lied at that point.
It's about his opponents allowing him to resolve a sorcery speed silence then complaining when the inevitable happened.
I've notice a lot of people making a similar mistake most times which is regarding the definition of a lie. A lie has to be INTENTIONALLY false, so unless we know or can prove that Cowboy did see the line of play when he said he didnt, nothing he did was a lie. It was an oversight.
I'm a casual player so I may be in the dark regarding some rules but that's what I think I've noticed
For Competitive or Professional levels only question:
I am not the tornment judge and I saw a misstrigged hability (let's say, lifegain with Sheoldred in drawstep). Both players did'nt said nothing.
Am I allowed to "fix" the game and say "hey Active player, your sheoldred."?
If I say that,
1: what happen to the players? (warning, game lost, nothing etc.)
2: what happen to me?
Same case, but consider I'm the judge now. Do I NEED to fix the game in time? What happen to the players then?
Not a judge, but here is what I got from reading the outside assistance sections of the MTR and IPG.
First of all, it is entirely the responsibility of a trigger's owner to not miss it. Their opponent is never under any obligation to remind them of it. If a player does remember their trigger after it has been missed, their opponent generally has the option of putting it onto the stack then, or having it remain missed. There might be a larger penalty if the trigger is generally considered detrimental, or if the judge believes it's controller missed it intentionally.
Because triggers can be missed, I believe that pointing one out as a spectator would be outside assistance using IPG 3.2
"A player, spectator, or other tournament participant does any of the following:
...
-Gives play advice or reveals private information to players who have sat for their match
..."
Later, that section mentions:
"Spectators who commit this infraction may be asked to leave the venue if they are not enrolled in the tournament."
I will note that I'm not sure how this changes if you point out other rules violations that both players are responsible for catching.
Does it even count as lying? Like he thought he couldn't win and then accidentally realized that he missed something and it worked out, is that even qualifies as lying or just misjudging?
But Breech was in their graveyard. Thats free information.
yes, but the sevinnie's reclamation in his hand was not. that's private information, which he was allowed to lie about.
And if anyone had asked if Breach was in his graveyard, he would have had to answer honestly. However, "what cards are in your deck that can bring Breach back from the graveyard" is not free information.
In a card game with hidden cards in each player's hand, why would you complain players bluffing?
Csuse you played ygo before?
They handle it in a way where bluffing = cheating.
Idk why, i just know they do. Just a guess.
With friends in a casual game, sure, it's the respectful thing to do to be honest about everything. But in a competitive match? Always expect the worst and assume your opponent is bluffing and playing just barely by the rules. I feel that's just common sense.
Great vid. Definitely not something I’d try to do regularly but I do enjoy bluffing that I have a Counterspell or boardwipe from time to time (especially when I’m archenemy) good to know it’s allowed. Although yeah, anything that’s free and derived info I’m happy to tell my mates.
One time I bluffed a mate that I had force of will and I don’t think he’ll ever forget it 😂
Honestly, from what I've seen and heard about the Yu-Gi-Oh rules, I like how they approach it.
You cannot give information about things that are in a hidden state. No telling your opponents about what you do or do not have that they have no way of confirming. So in Yu-Gi-Oh, Cowboybob would be breaking the rules by saying 'I can't win this turn', even if it was 100% true. You can't say if you do or do not have a counterspell in hand.
You have to give all relevant information about things in a public state. Everything that your opponent could know, is information that you _must_ freely give. If they just give a vaguely worded request of information, you must do your best to give that information. It would block that infamous Pithing Needle/Borbyrgmos fiasco, because your opponent wouldn't be able to say 'Um ackually you called out the bad Borbyrgmos instead of the meta Borbyrgmos Enraged .' because decklists are considered public knowledge in a tourney.
From what I understand, breaking these rules is about the warning system, and repeated or intentionally breaking these rules incurs the penalties, but a single honest mistake isn't going to DQ someone from a tourney.
I like the approach because of how it approaches player interactions. Actively discouraging people being jerks to each other is sadly something that needs to be done, especially when it comes to strangers interacting with each other. And when there's a personal benefit while having no real social repercussions, we have seen it happen time and time again in MtG tourneys where people are doing their best to screw over your opponents.
Don't get me wrong, I _love_ weird interactions. 'This interacts with this, which triggers this, which does this *third* thing that goes completely off' is so much fun to me. But I'm playing this game to have fun, even in a tourney setting and fun, despite what a lot of people say, _isn't_ zero sum in MtG. Manipulating my opponents into making suboptimal plays isn't playing a close MtG game.
That's absolutely stupid. With that rule, if your opponent draws their initial hand and says "no lands, I'm going to mulligan" then you can just win the game on the spot because they said something unverifiable about their hand, but it's not gonna matter because that hand is going away. Very stupid rule.
@@pairot01 Guess what? That would be a warning for the person who decided to give private information. It's only a stupid rule if the people reading it are stupid and don't realize that there's a gradient to it and that it would only really apply to tournaments.
Bluffing is a legal play. Being salty about falling for a bluff is a skill issue.
Exactly bluffing is part and parcel of most card games, magic included.
The knowledge that there are even any players anywhere that think lying, in a hidden information game, is a bad thing, is honestly kinda baffling.
Even in a perfect information game, it would be baffling.
Imagine if you were somehow punished in Chess because you told your opponent you weren't about to move a specific piece, and then moved it.
Like, what??
Fun fact, that has actually happened in chess before! Specifically the way I've seen it happen is streamers talking about possible moves the opponent could make to their chat, but if they think their opponent is sniping them (i.e. watching the stream) then they sometimes lie and describe a possible move from the opponent as good, even if actually it's a blunder. If the opponent takes that move then it's very satisfying when the streamer immedietly changes their tone to describe how the move was actually an obvious blunder.
Because playing games with sociopaths isn't fun. The chess equivalent is a piece 99% on one square and 1% on the other then you ask your oppnent and they say its on the square its 99% on, you accept it then they move it off the other square for mate.
"It's on you to know where my pieces are."
No, it's on you not to be a total jerk and devolve every game into "That piece isn't absolutely perfectly centered, game fault, start from turn 1"
@@cubicengineering4715 Love me some Gotham Chess content!
This is a weird example because that is exactly what would happen in chess (most likely a time penalty, possibly a DQ/game loss if it is a recurring issue).
Talking to your opponent in chess at all is illegal. Talking about the moves you are going to make is extra illegal. Doing a move other than what you were talking about is extra extra illegal as the only purpose of that would have been to distract your opponent from your intended line while you thought about it.
@@moneypouch765 Well, my example was more referring to you answering someone asking you a question about whether or not you are gonna move that piece.
Even just saying a lie out of nowhere should be fine.
I get that talking is against the rules, but I was talking about a scenario where it isn't, such as during most non-competitive matches.
Regarding the clip, I just want to point out that there is a difference between "lying" and being "mistaken."
That aside... the fuck are people doing blindly believing others during a card game? Maybe because I used to play poker with my buddies, but the words are meaningless -- what the opponent CAN and WILL do is what matters, and you have to make that assessment. Even if the guy did actually lie during a card game... well, I hope the others learned a good lesson.
"This hand sucks" says player that then proceds to win on turn 2
"I can't win", "I promise not to attack you if you attack him" or "I have a boardwipe" are all potential lies that I would find it very naive not to expect at some point.
One of those is fine, one of those is questionable, and the third is unsportsmanlike conduct that rightfully deserves to get you banned from that playgroup. And the fact that it's extremely obvious to everyone which is which tells you exactly how correct this is.
@@dontmisunderstand6041 They are certainly on a curve, but it still somewhat depends on the context of the playgroup. I mostly see kids playing commander (all under 13), and if a kid is known to blabber and lie, the others just ignore it or outright state they don't believe it. The metagame can still correct itself without any issue amongst kids, so I feel adults should be able to handle it as well. The only issues I see is in the extremes where the playgroup is made of strangers that only meet once or if the group is locked in, so you're stuck with their play patterns.
@@nicolaim4275 I agree for the most part. Breaking a deal is a bit different from lying.
What if they ask me the power of Tarmogoyf and I make a mistake and give them the wrong info?
Can I claim I made a mistake? Or once you give them the information you can be punished if it's wrong?
At all RELs, you won't be punished at all. The P/T of the Goyf would be derived information :)
If you want to say anything, you have to say the correct information to the best of your abilities and immediately correct yourself if you yourself counted wrong.
Edit: That said, an honest mistake won't be punished as badly as if you gave wrong information about, say, the size of your hand.
@@Jeremy-gy7me 6:09 "Players may not misrepresent derived, free or status information incorrectly."
For instance, if you accidentally announce the wrong info, damage is assigned based on what you said, and several turns pass before the mistake is discovered: CALL A JUDGE and they will determine the fix.
Or go to the comments on a video telling judges how to fix that mistake.
@@attackoncardboard This is not true. It is against the rules to give the wrong P/T of goyf at all ELs. You don't have to respond but if you do it must be truthful (can be misleading but must be true). "Players may not misrepresent derived, free or status information incorrectly."
At rel nothing would happen but at higher enforcement it could be anything from a warning to gameloss, or dq. Basically depending on if the judge decided if you did it intentionally to gain an advantage (cheating) or not, most likely based on if you have previous warnings for the same thing.
Great video bro !!
Glad you enjoyed! 😊 It was a stressful time editing it 😅
You've got my sub... I like your integrity based playstyle. Because even at the highest level of comp, I'd still play in a friendly manner because I enjoy simply being better than my opponent rather than being trickier. No hate for the other type of players, we just have to get better at noticing their bluffs.
I call that diplomacy and sees this as the same to engineer your opponents to fight each other in a 1v1v1 for exemple.
I think this is more about bad etiquette than being against the rules
I think it's a major dick move not to mention if a creature has death touch or something like that. When someone attacks into me when I do have a blocker with death touch or something like that I'll ask "are you sure, this card does have this".
I know this isn't the rules, but I think it's good etiquette and winning because the other player couldn't read a tiny bit of text from the other side of the table is a hollow victory.
Entrenched MTG players often struggle to understand etiquette or social cues without it being spelled out in a rulebook.
I mean, they could just read the card
Cowboybob didn't do anything wrong here. Even if he had said he couldn't win to trick an opponent into not using a counterspell, he didn't do anything wrong.
❤
Cowboy didn't cheat. Other players are extra salty 🧂
Based af
Anybody that takes their opponents word about whether they can win or not deserves to lose.
THANK YOU FOR THE APE ESCAPE 1 MUSIC
Made me feel like I was in the training room learning a new gadget