Why I quit competitive magic. | A20 Watcher Run | Slay the Spire
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 июн 2024
- thats a lot
You can find jorbs shirts and hoodies at: www.bonfire.com/jorbs/
If you want to buy the games we've been playing check out: www.nexus.gg/jorbs
If you enjoy these videos please consider dropping a like to help promote it to search algorithms. If you'd like to join the community of people who support me making content like this you can do so via:
Variety Games: / @manyjorbs
Discord: / discord
Twitch: / jorbs
Patreon: / jorbs
Twitter: / joinrbs
(Or by Subscribing to RUclips here :D).
#slaythespire 
Игры
The sad thing about the bot situation is that innocent women who like to hang out in string bikinis and watch Slay The Spire videos are probably getting caught in the crossfire. My heart goes out to them.
Men have no idea how hard it is to really be a sexy single in your area 😢
Bot situation? Jorbs discussing TF2 bots or am I senile
@@genericname4168 youtube comment bots, you might see some around here if their comments havent already been deleted
@@genericname4168 They're talking about the fact that there are a lot of RUclips comment bots, usually with pictures of women in bikinis as profile pictures, leaving comments on Jorbs' RUclips videos (including this one.)
I appreciate your sympathy
More information on the Yugioh player who was banned:
- He placed a "Swordsoul" token face-up in view of his opponents during a tournament. On that day, he was not playing any card or strategy that can create "Swordsoul" tokens.
- After the tournament, he says in an interview that he did that intentionally to mislead his opponent, so that they will play their first turn incorrectly if they assume he was playing the Swordsoul deck. The interview was uploaded to RUclips.
- Very quickly, it goes on Reddit. The sentiments from most Yugioh players are "This rule (against tricking opponents) is mostly unenforceable, but we should ban people if they give blatant proof that's what they are trying to do" and "Don't try any Jedi mind tricks in a tournament guys, that's against the rules".
- But then there are also a bunch of MTG players in the comments saying "it's super acceptable to do this in magic" and "Yugioh really likes to be presented all prime and proper, like we are babys who need to be protected".
.
.
.
so anyway I guess what I'm saying is the culture is very different between these two TCG community huh.
I figure that part of the issue is how ruses like this are much more effective in Yu-Gi-Oh. If I'm playing magic and trick my opponent into thinking I'm on a different deck in their turn 1, it doesn't accomplish much. If I'm playing yugioh and do the same, that was likely their only relevant turn in the game and it can make a massive difference.
@@ericwallace1484 Mulligan decisions in Magic are one of the most skilltesting moments in the game, and if you have knowledge about your opponent's decklist it becomes much easier to make informed decisions you shouldn't otherwise be able to make about what kind of hand is keepable- and if you have incorrect knowledge about your opponent's decklist, it could be devastating to your decisions. From what I know about Yugioh, you draw five cards, and those are your five cards, and you start the game.
@@Kryptnyt It's really not the same. Sure mulligans are important in Magic. You could say that decision accounts for maybe 10% of your win. However, Yu-Gi-Oh! games are often decided on, literally, each player's first turn. Your decisions based on what you think your opponent might have, before you've seen a single card in there deck, might be as much as 90% of your win.
@@kitsunin4690 Yeah the pace of the game is really the major difference. There's so much more game being played in a game of Magic than a game of Yugioh. Even in the extremely fast formats like Vintage and Legacy, you're still almost guaranteed to get to your second turn. And in slower formats like pauper where games regularly go to 6, 8, or even 10 turns, keeping a mid 7 vs a great 6 is a marginal improvement *at best*.
Just wanted to say that:
1. Your pen is not a game piece.
2. You can and should use your pen to do other tings then just change your lifetotal. For example you should write down what turn it is, if your opponent has played a land, and how many times your opponent asked you "have I played a land?".
I'm someone who considers something like chalice checking a totally valid thing to do, because you can't always determine the intent of the player performing a legal game action.
Maybe they were trying to gotcha the chalice player and turn a functionally 0% play into more than 0%, or, there was some other legitimate reason to play a card into the chalice. You can't really say for sure what the intent was just by looking at the play.
In this video though the claim is made that LSV himself clarified he intent behind the actions.
MTG actually splits information into different classes, and life totals are status information. You can't lie about status information and you are supposed to physically track it as the game state changes. And the claim is that LSV's stated intent was to look like he was going to update this status information.
There's no hard rule around looking like you are going to do this because it's not always so easy to determine intent, but in this situation the claim is that the player in question is saying it was a good play exactly because it accomplished what he wanted so it's clear what his intent was. And then the argument is raised that people won't play the game specifically because a cut and dry case like this is being allowed.
Although in the video it is also presenting the idea that touching your pen at all should signify your intent to shortcut to the state of the game where your lifetotal has changed and your #2 point is an argument against that.
Jorbs also mentions that in poker it goes in the opposite direction, people getting forced to fold because they did something that signified folding and totally disregarding any intent behind the behavior. (Not that I know about poker or how valid that claim is, that's just what is in the video)
@@shadef3915 it cuts both ways in poker and there are lots of completely legal angle shoots you can do that, while they may draw ire from the community, would not prevent your opponent from needing to hand you their money. One example you can find if you search "Of course I lied Phil it's poker" is on youtube. To summarize: there's a general theme of players talking about whether they've looked that hand, and so one player asks another if they've looked and they lie and say they haven't. This information causes a 3rd player to overbet, and they are very upset when the liar shows their cards and it's clear that they did indeed lie.
I would argue that your pen is a game piece when you're required to use a pen and paper to track your life total.
My best argument for why Magic handles bluffing/misleading correctly:
From what I've heard, Yugioh takes it the opposite direction, with a "misleading the opponent is cheating" rule like you're asking for. Yugioh also has a number of "hand traps" with activation conditions depending on what's happened earlier in the turn, meaning you need to keep track of certain actions to know whether you can legally play those cards. (Think counting storm on the opponent's turn to see whether a Flusterstorm would successfully counter a spell.) They've ruled that counting in a way your opponent could notice is only legal if you do have the card in hand.
Seems fine, until you consider that this means you *can't* count without telling your opponent exactly what they need to play around! Meaning you have to choose between giving up that information, or risk losing track, potentially either missing a chance to play the card or trying to play it before it's legal.
More broadly, I'd say there's a blurry line between concealing a fact and communicating a falsehood. Magic takes the stance of allowing both as long as it's about private information, and I prefer it that way, as the alternative seems like it'd force me to trade off between comfortably keeping track of the game state, keeping my hidden info hidden, and avoiding risk of penalties/disqualification.
What if you draw the card that "counts storm" later in the turn? Are you just not allowed to play it later, because you can't know what it does/if you're allowed to play it? That can't be right.
@@hendrikd2113 If I had to guess, they'd let you count as long as you have it in your deck and have a way to draw on the opponent's turn? Not a Yugioh player, just going off what I've heard.
Good question. I’ll ask a friend who plays yugioh regularly. Just commenting to see what people’s thoughts are
I think the situation you’re talking about is number of summons which you can ask regardless whether or not you have a card that counts the summons. There are definitely ways to bluff in yugioh that are not cheating.
One thing I like about playing YGO is that as much as possible, the rules try to prevent angleshoots or poker style fake tells. The only things that dictate a winner are the moves people make in the game and timer (sadly the timer does it more often it really should). People have been banned for admitting to their angleshoots in deck profiles (examples include showing a token to the opponent with card art from a different deck to try to indicate you're on a different deck).
I would argue attempting to gain information from things outside of the game is just not a good idea. So you have tokens, so what? You could just want to track a board state accurately. Tokens are not game pieces. Same way your mat, your deckbox, your die, and your field center are not game pieces.
@@kazibaker6747he literally said in an interview on youtube that he had the token to try and mislead other players. In a game where intentionally misleading is forbidden by the rules
@kazibaker6747 It was a format where multiple decks used tokens and obviously knowing which deck your opponent was on game 1 is huge. The player admitted to intentionally showing his token (iirc he was pretending to drop it?) to his opponent. This sort of angleshoot is absolutely banned in YGO.
@@pascal6871 Could you get banned in Yugioh for having Blue Eyes White Dragon card sleeves when you don't have it in your deck?
@@Kryptnyt If you are on record saying "I have Blue Eyes sleeves because I want to mislead my opponent" then yes you can.
I don't understand how you can simultaneously believe that using body language to give false information is cheating but reading body language to infer information *isn't* cheating.
In my head, the pen trick wouldn't work on a noob player because they don't know how to read their opponent's body language if they're even bothering to think about it in the first place. The pen trick only works on players that are actively reading your body language to gain information. If they're allowed to read my body language to glean information, I should be allowed to change my body language to give false information. It's then up to the opponent to trust my body language or not. It would be the same as asking someone if they have a counterspell in hand. You're allowed to ask, I'm allowed to answer, but I'm also allowed to lie. It's up to you to decide if you want to trust that info or not.
I just don't think it's possible to effectively ban using body language to convey false information. The biggest problem is just where's the line? If I topdeck my only out and keep a straight face, is that lying? Am I allowed to pretend like I ripped my only out if I drew a dead card? What if my opponent has a trigger to deal damage to me whenever they attack with a specific creature? Am I required to motion to change my life total when that creature is declared as an attacker? Couldn't that be used to angle shoot and trick them into declaring it as attacking? If I don't move am I angle shooting to get them to miss their trigger?
What about sequencing plays? If I have a mountain, a shockland, and a painland in hand and I want to be able to play a spell on turn 2 that costs 1 and a blue, the objectively correct way to sequence those lands is to play the shock tapped turn 1. But just doing that gives my opponent information. It says I don't have a turn 1 play. But I can use these lands to take a bit of damage and make my opponent change their play. I can play the painland turn 1 and make my opponent play around a possible spell pierce. Maybe I want to hide that I'm playing blue, so I play my mountain first and hide my second color until I play a painland turn 2. If I wanted to get really wild, I could go mountain into shockland untapped and insinuate that I don't have any more untapped lands in my hand. This entirely hides that I actually do have another land in hand and could make a player keep a spell pierce in hand thinking I will be mana screwed when I'm really not. Is this allowed? How is this different from using body language? Is it because it uses game pieces? Aren't the pen and paper game pieces when you're required to use them to track your life total?
MTG allows their players, specifically, in the comprehensive rules, to lie about hidden information. You're allowed to lie about the cards in your hand and/or your future plans. I understand that they could change that rule, but I don't see a way to implement a rule that would allow players to still lie directly, like if you ask about a counterspell, but not through body language, like moving to change my life total. The obvious solution of "players can't lie about hidden information" is clearly unusable, since in game 2 I could just ask you if you have your win condition in hand and you'd be bound to tell me the truth. Instead of trying to define some arbitrary line in the sand or get judges to try to measure intent, MTG just says says "lying is okay, so don't trust anything your opponent does".
Would anyone mind linking to when he starts talking about why he quit magic?
Starts at 51:35
The summary: he felt when playing paper magic he had to focus more of his attention on making sure his opponent wasn’t cheating or attempting to cheat. Story at 53:45
magic gets brought up at 50:15 I think
That is why you play online
Bluffing is based. Banning it would be bad. Magic is game based on hidden information, this necessitates bluffing.
It is very strange to see someone repeatedly insist that the action a top level player took to indicate something about the game state, which he took because he knew it would imply to his opponent the thing he wanted to bluff about the game state, doesn't in fact imply anything about the game state because it isn't recognised in the official guidelines.
Is there like, a recorded example of something like this happening somewhere? I can't comprehend how the pen touching thing would ever be an issue, surely it just has nothing to do with the game that can't be clarified verbally with a quick "wait, you're not blocking?"
ruclips.net/user/shorts4IQrQuCPdmg is one of the first results for "magic the gathering pen trick." You can also hear LSV say he's done it in this vid around the 10:30 mark, although it's talking about the same game as before ruclips.net/video/ee7Fz5p_DUI/видео.html
The chatter was using some serious circular logic to back up their claims, but I do think they're correct even if they're bad at arguing.
I don't think it makes sense to punish people for using body language to insinuate false information but be totally okay with people reading your body language to attempt to gain information. That's why I like how magic does it. You're allowed to check body language to try to find a tell but your opponent is also allowed to lie through their body language.
Disagree with the LSV bluff take. He implied an on board game action he could take when passed priority. It's an interesting topic and an extremely visible example of how far you can/should take bluffing. I'm of the opinion that what he did was within the bounds of bluffing, but it's a tough thing!
Within the nitty gritty, Shortcutting is a specific thing in Magic (rule 729), and while the making of a token (I think) could fall into that realm, notably rule 729.2a states that it's the player with priority that may suggest a shortcut. So LSV couldn't propose a shortcut while his opponent, Jeremy Dezani, was deciding his attackers.
At the end of the day, I think it's a question of what is one's opinion on bluffing. Can you try to mislead your opponent regarding the contents of your hand? Can you bluff a combat trick, interaction, etc? Where's the line, in your opinion? What are you "allowed" to lie about? This isn't so much directed or Jorbs, but more for anyone reading this to think about the topic and develop their own opinion. ^_^
The play in question for anyone curious:ruclips.net/video/RsO-Om0RXkQ/видео.html
I'm gonna be real I read "rule 729" and said yeah screw this I'm not touching this game in any competitive sense
One thing I'm glad about is that in YGO this would absolutely be a rules infraction.
LSV is a terrible, narcissistic person and he made no play that was illegal. I do think he knew exactly what he was doing though, but it's part of the game.
@@CaptainDubab He admitted he was making that play for that exact reason, that one isn't up for debate.
Is this actually the play in question? All that seems to be happening here is LSV doing out a potential line, albiet opportunistically, whereas Jorbs was talking about LSV pretending to change his life total as though he had shortcutted to damage without actually having to follow through on accepting that shortcut.
Re: Land Drop Guy- I’d hope there’s extra judging staff you could call, but maybe way back then there wasn’t anyone besides that friend/ the policy was different. Trying to blatantly cheat multiple times is just easy judge calls, forget the paper and writing it down.
I get quitting because of scumminess in general though.
In American League MTG you can lie about a shortcut, but in National League MTG you can use a switch hitter.
The only correct response to "did I play a land this turn?" is "yes" doesn't matter if they did or not.
Yup - if I ask myself that in post combat main phase, I just dont play a land. Its that simple, I would rather play suboptimal than cheat "on accident"
Weird other context for this same sort of rule. Whenever I'm working out and forget how many reps I've done, then I've always done the lower number. Keep track or suffer the consequences!
Win at any cost (WAAC) players are a blight on any game hobby, and yes tournaments absolutely make them more common. I can definitely understand peacing out on that.
That's just proper tournament play.
If you are not there with the intent to play at your best, why are you competing?
@@PBoten Angle shooting isn't "playing at your best", it's attempting to use factors outside the game to increase your in-game win chances.
@@doylerudolph7965 So if I draw garbage off the top of my deck but react as though I'm trying to hide that I have just pulled a counterspell, that's illegal? Am I part of the game or outside of it? What if my opponent is playing a burn deck and I'm being extra shifty in my chair at a low life total because it will make them think I don't have any answers? What if I'm not trying to control my body language at all? Is my opponent allowed to read my body language to try to glean information about my hand?
I guess you have never read about the tournament with prosper bloom winning😂
1:10:29 I also dont think you can shortcut before you have priority. Picking up a pen before you are "allowed to take the hit" is the same as ordering cards in your hand or grabbing for a bottle to drink something.
Or changing the order of your tapped and untapped lands.
Or on digital magic, tapping two islands, then untapping them and passing priority in response to a spell (Makes you look like you want to counter something but backed out of it)
It's a pump fake
Yeah I don't like the idea of banning fake info through body language. I just don't think it's possible to do it in a reasonably functional way. You'd just end up with judges making spur-of-the-moment decisions which could just lead to more "friendly judge rules in my favor" moments.
gamesmenship is a part of every competitive game played between players. no different than reading body language to know if they have a counterspell or similar.
I had Meloku in a sealed deck that I made day 2 of a grand prix with. It was such a powerful deck. It was Temur and I had Uyo, the Silent Prophet and I think 2 copies of Glacial Ray.
Sadly, day 2 was Rochester draft and I had no idea what I was doing. I think I went 0-3 and was eliminated. But making day 2 was pretty cool.
So yeah, Meloku is a really busted limited card, but you do have to know what you're doing.
omg rochester draft. it has been a long time since i last thought of rochester draft.
Netrunner is a pretty cool game, im surprised it seeing associated with tricking. Maybe it was like this in the past, but i have seen no attempts to angle shoot in my time playing it.
I mean, netrunner has bluffing built into it. There is some amount of nuance, but the game is fundamentally built around bluffing and reading your opponent with ICE and upgrades. The runner plays 100% honestly (cards can be good, but no secrets or bluffing, barring SMC shenanigans), but the corp's whole game is bluffing.
There were even instant kill combos like prisec+psychic field that required bluffing.
Although I guess if you specifically mean angle shooting and meta bluffing shit, that's fair. I can't think of a moment I ran into that in the anr community though. Pretty much universally good vibes, and the ones who didn't pass the vibe check were pretty rapidly kicked out
@@KokaKolaMusic ah yes, naturally the game is built on hidden info. But the bluffing is pretty telegraphed. If your opponent installs a card and advances it twice without ice they representing a trap. But that's a bluff that is part of the game and it gives the opponent plenty of ways to try to deal with it. (Surviving the trap, trying to outrace kill options, etc)
@@AugustusCaesar9464 that's true. I guess it's more apt to refer to what I said as bluffing, rather than tricking or angle shooting as you mentioned, so fair enough!
I find it bizarre that MTG professional ruleset doesn't involve writing a log of what happens at the table.
Like, you get kicked out of a chess tournament if you don't write down the score sheet.
That would take 5 hours
Magic Online has an event log. It's quite useful.
@@sammckay1307 Imagine: Player 1 untapped and drew a card for turn. They then tapped Breeding Pool for Green, Plains for White, and Raugrin Triome for Blue in order to cast a Risen Reef.
Player 2 has no response.
Player 1 announces triggers for .....
Why too damn exhaustive.
Funnily enough the log of what happens at the table is the pen and paper life total that caused the whole argument lol
I disagree on the pen thing. If you expect an opponent to “shortcut” to taking damage before you even attack because they picked up a pen, you have failed to maintain the board state which is its own violation. If you expect the pen to be a concession of damage, you’re trying to win via rules lawyering which is disingenuous in its own way. If you’re so hard and fast on rules and representation, then do your own due diligence.
I agree with your stance, I just think this is a very weak argument. The board state doesn't instantly change from one moment to the next. That would be like saying you failed to maintain your board state because you tapped 3 attackers individually instead of all at once.
can someone give me the timestamp for when he is talking about magic?
excellent stream conversation
"Why did you pick up your pen?" The player could simply be making a note, which is completely legal. It's your fault if you fall for this kind of thing. Would you also want no deception to be allowed in a game of poker?
!dig
That person definitely reminded me why I don't play MTG, what an unpleasant person to be around
I think they're just bad at arguing which is totally reasonable, especially when you're arguing with a streamer live.
What was the warhammer 40k tournament drama?
i did a google search or two and didnt find much 😭i also wanted to know!
I completely disagree about the "pen trick". Picking up your pen to indicate you're about to change your life total is not a tournament shortcut. A shortcut is like not stating every single step of casting a spell, not explicitly going through passing priority for each step and phase, or for presenting an infinite loop. If it's not a conventional Magic tournament shortcut (which it isn't), then both players must explicitly agree upon the shortcut. If you don't explicitly tell your opponent, "when I pick up my pen, that means I'm just taking the damage," then you haven't declared a shortcut. And even if you have, any player may interrupt and/or deviate from a shortcut(even their own shortcut) at any time, by declaring they are doing something different can previously proposed.
Picking up your pen doesn't automatically mean you're changing your life total, even if you do it while being attacked. You could be writing notes about the game, how many copies of a card you've seen, what turn it is, number of cards in opp's hand/library/yard. As long as hidden information exists in the game, mind games and bluffing are going to be a part of Magic. It's why blue players often keep 2 blue mana untapped even when they don't have a counterspell in hand. The rules explicitly allow players to lie about _hidden_ information. While, your life total is not hidden information, whether or not you're going to block or play a trick IS hidden information until you actually declare blockers or play the trick. If you tell your opponent, before they attack you, that you won't block if they do attack you, you are not obligated to take the damage, and you are allowed to block.
He said that was what he was implying though. And apparently it was a clear insinuation, a gesture intended to convey yielding priority until the damage step.
Equating touching a pen to lying about the gamestate to your opponent seems wild to me. I've only ever played magic in a digital setting, and Jorbs is a smart guy, so I expect there's something I'm missing here. But if it's before your attack step and your opponent touches their pen, I would assume nothing. And if it's mid attack step I might ask them something like 'So you're not blocking?'. I can't comprehend how this would ever be an issue.
The idea a person could take a match loss for wanting to tally up some tokens or do some math on paper, or just idly touch their pen seems like nuking an ant to me. What have I missed?
Opp with open mana and known possibility of reactions.
Question: combat? -allowing for cryptic command or whatever before entering combat (typical in all states with possible triggers of reactions)
Lsv picks up pen and leans to his notepad
Opp swings in with all
Lsv casts Settle the Wreckage, exiling all attacking creatures.
And you think that wasn’t conveying the shortcut? Same thing if I scoop half my cards before a game action just to make you change behavior.
In poker if I hint to throw the cards at the possibility of your bet (say I check to you and gesture to fold’em when you reach for chips) and then I go and 3-bet you, I get forced to scoop the cards.
Leaving UU open without a counterspell is a game action that is an “open bluff” and starts the thought of “do they have it”, picking up the pen and leaning for the notepad is like tucking your hand away and then reaching for your cards under the mat as soon as your opp makes the play.
From what I got from Jorbs, he doesn't necessarily want people to be punished for playing the bluff game, he just doesn't want to participate in the bluff game. I know a lot of people who get up in arms about board politics and kingmaking in multiplayer magic, and this is kind of the 1v1 version of that. It sours the experience for him, and he doesn't enjoy the game because of it.
@@Poolrev1234 I don't understand the shortcut or problem here at all. If LSV picked up the pen after attacks were made, then nothing changes (opp can't add attackers after they were declared). If LSV picked up the pen before attacks were made, and then the opp assumed LSV wasn't blocking or reacting with a card to the attack and hence declared extra attackers, that's on the opponent.
No "shortcut to damage" could happen before the attackers were declared.
This is especially the case in a format that contains Settle the Wreckage at a time where LSV had the mana to cast it. As a non-pro player in a non-tournament situation, I'd still play around StW.
@@wardm4 You saying "Combat?" and your opponent picking up their pen in response is effectively communicating "I would like to pass priority until the damage step". It's scummy to do so when that isn't your intention.
Also the issue isn't whether or not his opponent played around STW, which was the incorrect play *despite* LSV having it - there's pretty much no path to victory there if he doesn't alpha strike.
@@doylerudolph7965 If there was no other winning line, then LSV couldn't angle shoot no matter what.
I thought that's what this was about. Is it actually about "unsportsmanlike conduct" by making your opp think they're going to win for 3 seconds until you show them they lost?
In that case, I think it's scummy. I totally disagree with people who think it's angle shooting or on the edge of cheating by tricking your opp, which is what many commenters seem to think.
OH WAIT IS THIS WHAT LED TO THAT DQ TANTRUM POWERPOINT VID?
wait 'december fourth' how old is this run
I have a technical disagreement on the “pen trick” as described in MTG.
While it seems from the comments that LSV performed it intentionally to deceive his opponent, I would argue this would not work unless the opponent was attempting to gain extra knowledge from outside the game state.
Consider a game of rock paper scissors. We’ll play with the rule that we slam our fist on our open palm 3 times, and then “shoot” our actual position.
Say that after the 3rd slam, you saw your opponent opening up their hand before the “shoot” phase. You could choose to interpret this as a signal that they will play paper. They instead close their hand back up and “shoot” rock. You were deceived, but only because you tried to interpret their gestures. The bluff only worked because you were trying to get an information advantage.
You could also take poker as an example. If someone whispers “damn” as they get their cards, you can choose to think that their hand is weak. It’s on you if that choice is wrong.
However, I do consider it reasonable to not want to deal with this level of bluffing and theatrics in MTG. Playing online removes most levels of that as you cannot see your opponent and communication is limited and can be shut off.
Unfortunately, ANY real life event with money on the line will deal with exaggerated levels of both gaining outside knowledge and bluffing to defend against it or prey on it.
Being able to judge eye dilation may help you at a poker table whereas it is no help online. Wearing sunglasses would be a defense, while feigning dilation would be a bait. If you consider this an issue, then the issue must lie with the people monitoring eye dilation, as they are the reason that the counterplay exists at all.
i find the lsv kind of lines disrespectful to the intent of the rules even though they aren't illegal
the point of the rules is to make the actual designed systems come to the forefront and not errors in communication
because then the game becomes something entirely different and that isn't really what i signed up for even if it technically was what i signed up for by the letter
Then the rules need to change to better represent the actual intent.
If a player is able to exploit the rules beyond their intent and the rules does not change, it will become standard practice. As it should.
The best players in competitive magic tend to focus on the game state information and ignore 'extra information' like body language and the opponents questions .. and always ask their opponents to verbally confirm they have conceded when it looks like they have.
additional interesting MTG 'misleading plays' to look at:
There's the famous case of a player asking if they can name 'dark confident' with 'pithing needle' ... and then choosing 'polluted delta' when they actually play it.
There's playing a land creature (dryad arbor) and hiding it in with the lands so you can get an extra blocker.
I'll leave judgement to others.
P.s. I was watching my friend who was attacking for lethal against an opponent, who then began to pick up his lands and creatures ... after about 2 minutes of opponent repeating this charade without actually putting anything away he looked up, saw my pal was just staring at him blankly and then just slammed his cards into his deck box and left the event. It really felt like he was trying to get my friend to accidentally concede.
MTG updates its competitive ruleset, when necessary. Hiding a dryad arbor is now illegal and would likely get you a match DQ.
1:11:50 (ish) Regarding the whole "pen trick" thing: Yes, LSV is trying to pantomine a shortcut without actually having to propose one. But the play only has any effect if the player takes the implied shortcut to actually be a shortcut and changes their play based on that, under the assumption that the opponent is incapable of responding. Were the pen trick sequence to have occurred verbally, the exchange would be something like "I attack with X, Y" --> "Ok, no response, go to damage" --> "Ok, I'll attack with Z as well" --> "Ok, response" (but of course, you aren't supposed to be able to make changes once the shortcut is initially accepted). By adding more attackers, the opponent is the first to break the implied shortcut, so is LSV not allowed to dispense with their end of the shortcut as well?
Actually, on second thought, LSV is also representing "ok, respond with settle" with the pen trick as well, since he'd be able to settle even after going for the pen. So yeah, probably shouldn't have been allowed to settle had the opponent not responded, had some less angle-shooting friendly rules been in place.
I dont think the pen-trick is cheating. How do you know he wasnt just planning on taking the hit until he saw all of his opponents creature turned sideways? Maybe he changes his mind, nobody can tell.
Also some people flicker their hands while others spin a pen.
You said that if you are implying to your opponent that you are about to do something is the same as shortcutting to doing it. I completely disagree. If I am bluffing a counterspell, I may put my hand on two blue mana as if to say I'm planning on countering the spell and then not actually tap it. This is completely within the rules and is part of what makes magic such a great game. The jedi mind tricks are fantastic plays - I'm thinking of stuff like the PT finals where the Prosperous Bloom player removed their only way to win the game from their deck but proceeded to combo off anyway, faking that they would inevitably kill their opponent after drawing their whole deck. This play won them the finals and was amazing to watch. The game would be much duller without such plays.
I think that saying that (group of people/things) are all bad ignores a very real degree of badness. Everything else equal, punching someone in the face and shooting someone in the face are both bad, but one is definitely worse from the perspective of the victim
I cycle through the characters as one does. Won on the defect yesterday after dozens of tries. First watcher run…win. Watcher is perfectly balanced…
I ❤ misleading with body lenguage I find it super fun
Username checks out
@@eldritchemissary4718 To be fair I find It a bit cringe rn! Did the account when I was 12/13 yr old and I'm not as cool with the name anymore
I think its good that people that dont enjoy playing the game of MTG stay away from it.
Such a wildy bad take for so long about wrong information. LSV never said a word in the settle the wreckage clip.
LSV is a terrible, narcissistic person and he made no play that was illegal. I do think he knew exactly what he was doing though, but it's part of the game.
I don't agree with Jorbs on this one, but you don't have to communicate verbally. Forexample, if I scoop all my cards I have in play together, it is clear, that I have conceded. I can't then wait until my opponent puts their cards into their deckbox, to unscoop my cards in play, and insist my opponent conceded.
@@hendrikd2113 In that instance, wouldn't you just ask "are you conceding?" why does there have to be a charade?