General Gotcha!

[Chris Taylor]

Angle shooting and the like have always been a contentious topic in magic, one which I tend to treat with the attitude of "Oh man, that's neat. Never do that again" but I love seeing the stories of these weird exploits.

Here's 3 articles which came up in the wake of the Kentroversy which provide some takes on this, the one of which I loved most is Jeff Hoogland's pile o examples:
http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/the-cheating-isnt-the-only-problem/
http://www.gatheringmagic.com/andrewjessup-11072016-opening-a-dialogue-on-ethics/
http://www.jeffhoogland.com/2016/11/magic-the-savaging/ <---This one

I think my favorite (Though not actually allowed in current magic, since you can't ask for priority without the intent to do anything) is
Opponent's main phase: Hey can I have priority?
Opp: Sure, what are you doing?
"Passing priority. You're now in your combat phase."

Or the good old:

Play rampant growth. Put rampant growth in graveyard, pick up deck to find basic land. Get DQ'd because rampant growth being in your graveyard means it's already resolved, and you're just looking at your deck for no reason.

Lots of interesting case studies in the comments of Hoogland's article

 

[Onderzeeboot]

I once deliberately took the time to count and recount just loud enough to be clearly audible the total power of my board on the final turn of extra turns. My opponent had blockers and my opponent's life total was higher than the total power of my creatures, which I already knew before I had started counting. I sighed, shrugged, and said something along the lines of "This is of course completely useless, but whatever. Attack with everything..." My opponent then asked "You don't have enough power to kill me, right?" "That's right." "Ok, no blocks!", with an understanding "good game, guess we'll share the points" kind of grin. I then proceed to cast a pump spell and win a game I should never have won. I'm fully convinced that without the theatrics I wouldn't have won.

 

[sigh]

And that is why you always go for optimal plays, even if you have seemingly clinched the game. The opponent had literally nothing to lose by fully blocking in that scenario, and honestly, I wouldn't have even hesitated. Just throw all your guys in the way, win.

Neat that you got 'em, though.

Councils judgment is an easy card to gotcha! people with, as all of its effects happen on resolution. If your opponent let's it resolve, they can't take any more actions until resoluton is complete.

 

[Goldenpineapple]

http://www.gatheringmagic.com/andrewjessup-11072016-opening-a-dialogue-on-ethics/

This is the only one I had read before opening this thread. Personally I think opponent just played badly in scenario #2, and got game-information checked in #3, so nothing is really wrong.

#1, however, has a quality that annoys me in magic:

After I attacked, I tapped my Breeding Pool and picked up my graveyard. My opponent then informed me that they were still thinking, so I stopped. During this I never said anything, and I didn’t move any cards outside my graveyard. My opponent then chump blocked my Dryad Arbor with their Olivia Voldaren.

Nothing wrong with faking a spell while you have priority, which Jessup does after attacking. My problem lies in that his opponent incorrectly viewed this bluff as "you've already declared blockers" and stopped him, then blocked- none of which Jessup corrected. Purposefully muddling the game state- specifically, what step of combat the game is in- by not saying ANYTHING is pretty inexcusable. If the cards involved were a little different, a similar bluff or tactic would let him 'rewind' combat if his opponent played the game out in a manner less beneficial to Jessup- "actually, I still have priority after attacking" etc. A less-sketchy way to complete the bluff would have simply been to clarify that he still had priority in some way, set his graveyard down, and move to blockers. This may seem like nitpicking, but purposefully obscuring the game like this is ethically wrong IMO, and that's what these articles are about.

 

[Aston]

This is pretty reminiscent of the Samuele Estratti bluff against Tom Martell from the Dark Ascension PT. You can see it here:

I'm not sure how clear it is from the video but here's the situation as I understand it:

Tom's about to take over the game with Beguiler of Wills. Samuele only has a Fiend Hunter equipped with something that gives it +4/+X (not sure what), so Tom can't steal it yet.

Samuele attacks and plays Moment of Heroism before blocks, then taps and untaps . Tom's at 8, the Fiend Hunter now has 7 power, and there are multiple tricks in the format with that casting cost that give +2 power. You can then hear Tom say "that resolves, can I block?" and he chumps with the Beguiler to play around the second lethal trick, which it turned out Samuele didn't have. This was hailed as a pretty amazing bluff after the Pro Tour and I don't think I saw anyone claim this was unethical, nor would I have agreed if they did.

I'm not sure how different Tom Jessup's story is to this. Picking up the graveyard is a bit further maybe to telegraph a specific spell, but I still think this falls within the realm of ethical plays. I'm not sure Jessup's story does imply that he was muddling which part of the turn it was in if neither player has indicated that they think blockers have passed.

 

[Goldenpineapple]

I'm not sure Jessup's story does imply that he was muddling which part of the turn it was in if neither player has indicated that they think blockers have passed.

The difference being that the game rules are being enforced when Tom asks to block. If your opponent stops you mid-action while you have priority (Jessup's example), and vaguely moves the steps/phases around on their own with no priority changes, they aren't maintaining game state, which both players must do. Presumably they are tilted by the bluff into glossing this over, but by remaining silent and letting his opponent mislead themselves, Jessup is unethically allowing the game's rules to be skipped/manipulated.

In his exact example, an ethical bluff would have been to tap his land, pick up his graveyard, correct his interrupting opponent that he currently has priority (or if his opponent did nothing during Jessup's priority as proper), replaced his graveyard and untapped his land, then moved to blocks. If the bluff was successful, the game would have played out exactly the same way. By letting his opponent stop him mid-priority and going mute, he was unethically baiting a play from his opponent.

To over-simplify my problem with the play, let's say the following cards were involved:



This may not read like an optimal line of plays, but humor me. After moving to declare attackers normally, Jessup attacks- just after attacking, he starts tapping lands. "Wait!" says opponent. "I'm still thinking." Jessup stops what he's doing and waits in silence, despite knowing he has priority. Opponent plays their sudden death. However, Jessup technically had priority, and would be in the right to enforce that with an "actually, I had priority, so I get to cast my stonewood invocation first." Purposefully letting your opponent misinterpret game steps/phases, things that must be maintained by both players, in hopes of gains is the unethical bit.

 

[Aston]

I don't think that's the same, and that's not what Jessup was trying to do. There's a difference between letting your opponent try and cast a spell when you have priority and are intending to use it, and bluffing that you think you've already moved to post blocks. I think that in your example above, the ruling would be that if you didn't expressly hold priority after attacks when your opponent tries to do something, you've passed and would not be able to play Stonewood Invocation.

Edit: Having said that, I'm not a judge and I'm not 100% sure that that would be the ruling.

 

[Goldenpineapple]

There's a difference between letting your opponent try and cast a spell when you have priority and are intending to use it, and bluffing that you think you've already moved to post blocks.

I think this is where we disagree- you're still 'using' your priority when you do a "tap... wait, untap" bluff. You CANNOT do this if you don't have priority. By readily 'relinquishing' his priority and letting his opponent perform a game action (blocking) he's entering the game-state fudging territory. You can't "bluff that you think you've already moved to post blocks," that's what my whole problem was about. Without his opponent's interruption, Jessup's bluff would have played out as "oh yeah you haven't blocked yet" and putting his graveyard down/untapping, then moving to blocks- that would have made it the same as Estratti's bluff.

I have no doubt in my mind the judge would rule in the invocation player's favor. If your opponent says "wait," you wait. They may want to call a judge (which covers "I'm still thinking"), or do something not specifically game-related (taking an inhaler shot? I dunno). Especially if you're already doing something with your priority (tapping mana, presumably to cast a spell), your opponent doesn't get free priority by interrupting you with their own spell.

How about this? It's your first main phase, and you have this board, no hand, and two mana:



Your opponent is at two life, has no blockers but lethal attackers next turn, and one card in hand.

Your only line of play is to equip and attack. Knowing this, you glance at life totals to double-check that you're dead on the crack-back. Your opponent says "Lightning Bolt" and casts the spell, their last card, at one of your ornithopters. What do you do? The ethical thing is to correct your opponent: "actually I have priority right now, so you'll have to wait until I pass it to cast your bolt," even if it dooms you. How many people would do this in a prize tournament? How many pros would do this in a high-stakes game (off-camera, I guess)? Letting your opponent illegally perform actions as a result of their misinterpreting priority or game steps is unethical.

 

[psly4mne]

Your opponent is free at any point to propose a shortcut where you pass priority and then they [cast a spell / block]. You can then accept that shortcut. I don't think there's anything unethical there.

 

[Miasmir]

How about this? snip.

The opponent's play is clearly bad, so much so that it's hard for me to imagine what they think is going on. If they actually intend to bolt an Ornithopter before combat, then it doesn't matter if they do it before or after you equip; you could equip again after the bolt resolved and win. You definitely don't have to remind them that the right play is to bolt after you've declared attackers.

The difference between the correct play and the incorrect play doesn't have much to do with priority. The opponent is wrong strategically more than they're wrong about rules minutiae.

But the larger point you're making makes sense to me, as I understand it. When someone says 'wait', the correct thing to do is double check what phase and step the game is currently in, and determine who has priority. If the inactive player just throws a spell (or other game action) on the table, there needs to be a rewind.

Jessup mentions in his internal monologue that he intended to 'just realize' that the opponent hadn't declared blocks yet - but then he doesn't say that he followed through on this idea. Still, it's clear his intention was to pretend to be after blocks and then give the opponent the chance to block; that is, it was his intention to deceive his opponent about the game state.

I think rather than actively bluffing during combat I would prefer counting the graveyard before attacks, because the block step confusion is irrelevant to whether or not you have the spell. Bluffing that you think you're in a different part of combat than you know you are in is deliberately confusing the game state, which is entirely different from accidentally confusing the game state. The bluff is only 'safe' and 'legal' because the rules attempt to be lenient towards the honest mistake. Well, also because it happens so quickly, and it's not worth the judges' time to stop the game for everything on this small scale, for such a barely-suspicious 'mistake'.

If the opponent, rather than just asking Jessup to wait, had said something like "We're still in declare attackers, right?" then the game state would be preserved. The thing is, the opponent in this situation is most afraid of Jessup shortcutting through the block step, slamming a spell, and trying to scum them out of blocking. It's fear of being taken advantage of that led the opponent to be taken advantage of.

 

[Aston]

How about this? It's your first main phase, and you have this board, no hand, and two mana:



Your opponent is at two life, has no blockers but lethal attackers next turn, and one card in hand.

Your only line of play is to equip and attack. Knowing this, you glance at life totals to double-check that you're dead on the crack-back. Your opponent says "Lightning Bolt" and casts the spell, their last card, at one of your ornithopters. What do you do? The ethical thing is to correct your opponent: "actually I have priority right now, so you'll have to wait until I pass it to cast your bolt," even if it dooms you. How many people would do this in a prize tournament? How many pros would do this in a high-stakes game (off-camera, I guess)? Letting your opponent illegally perform actions as a result of their misinterpreting priority or game steps is unethical.

I just don't think this would realistically happen. I can't remember a single time I've had an opponent cast their spell randomly in the middle of my turn when it's clear I have priority.

I also don't think Jessup is obfuscating which step of the game they're in that much. In the event that he does cast Become Immense instead of just bluffing, it would clearly still be during declare attackers and the opponent would have a chance to block.

Would you prefer the bluff if he had worded as he bluffed he was thinking about deciding to cast it before blockers but "decided" it would be better to wait until after blockers? I think the physical actions are the same but here there's no confusion about what stage of the game they're in.

 

[James Stevenson]

Or the good old:

Play rampant growth. Put rampant growth in graveyard, pick up deck to find basic land. Get DQ'd because rampant growth being in your graveyard means it's already resolved, and you're just looking at your deck for no reason.

A friend of mine apparently really tried this in a tournament, but with harrow. I've always had trouble having any respect for him since I found that out. He's quite a high level player (he won UK nationals at one point), and he and his group don't even blink about this sort of thing. To them its the correct play.

 

[Chris Taylor]

A friend of mine apparently really tried this in a tournament, but with harrow. I've always had trouble having any respect for him since I found that out. He's quite a high level player (he won UK nationals at one point), and he and his group don't even blink about this sort of thing. To them its the correct play.

I think you've made the right call

I'm not sure if I mentioned, but there was a time where judges weren't allowed to "rule by intent", which now that they can helps a lot of this shady shit from happening. The rampant growth example I've cited is specifically mentioned as something that is no longer possible now that judges can rule by intent.