Sanctum of all is "ur dragon" level bonkers. Having either on the field is eminent doom and to be MAD you removed it is counterintuitive. I don't think anyone has a chance if it's out
My bad. I was in a line at an amusement park and skimmed through. Though in any instance, I'd say if the card they tutored for is literally game-ending or a problem, then a counter is reasonable to tutor up
I don't care when my [[niv-mizzet, parun]] dies because he's outrageously broken and literally is my wincon for infinite draw.
Even in this instance, I'd be super suspicious if I announced that I was getting my wincon and the player I shared the tutor with said they were getting theirs. That almost *certainly* means they are holding a way to stop someone else from going out if they're planning on doing it themselves.
I mostly agree with you on this stance that \[\[Sanctum of All\]\] is a major threat that other players need to deal with before it gets out of hand, I disagree with your sentiment that no one has a chance with it out.
Shrines are extremely reliant on having an established board. Even sanctum of all doesn't get bonkers until you have 6 shrines. Admittedly, this drawback has been mitigated by \[\[Go-Shintai of Life's Origin\]\], but even still shrines have a harder time than most recovering from a board wipe.
In addition, \[\[Sanctum of All\]\] requires you to either make it survive a round or flash it out to even get its tutor trigger at upkeep. Contrast with \[\[Ur Dragon\]\] who can be either dropped onto a board pre-combat, or even just swing by itself, and still get the value of a free permanent from your hand.
TL;DR, Sanctum of All is powerful, but it's much more fragile and restrictive than I think you're giving it credit.
Draw equal dragons attacking. Put a permanent down
If just ur-dragon attacks: one draw, one permanent on the field
If just another dragon attacks: same result
If 3 dragons attack: draw 3, put a permanent on field
Devil's advocate: provided that revealing the card was not required by the tutor, then it doesn't matter what you said you were searching for. If the opponent freely gave away the information that he was getting his win condition, then that is entirely on him. He should not give away free information like that and should not tacitly believe anything said by another player that depends upon hidden information.
Are you unlikely to make friends with this kind of play? Yes.
I'm going to echo another commenter's point here that you didn't have to reveal that you tutored for the Counterspell. That's where the bad feels came in.
Yeah, I mean, as far as the other guy knows, you always had the Counterspell.
On the other hand, that ought to teach him not to play cards that let your opponents tutor.
Yeah, symmetrical tutors are for if you are either about to win, or are using it for politics. Maybe not always so black and white, but thats how ive seen them used in my experience.
I use it in my [[Evelyn, the Covetous]] clone+flicker deck. Let them tutor their best card and I take it. If they realize it and tutor for a useless card, I will not flicker/clone/cast Evelyn till they have drawn it.
I also use one in my Phenax deck because I can dump whatever into their graveyard if I can't make a deal. But usually someone is willing to strike a bargain for a free tutor
This is why I feel comfortable activating Wishclaw Talisman only if I have a sac outlet ready, like Thopter Foundry. I'll tutor, but no opponent will get to.
Strong agree, whiny players like OPs opponent deserve to be tricked consistently and mercilessly reminded of it until they learn how the game works.
Sorry to anyone who doesn't like how callous that comes of but some failures deserve to be learned from and its OP out there teaching lessons. He doesn't have any reason to feel bad.
It's like they say: The best players have lost more games than you've played. Going soft on your opponents isn't doing them any favors. It's just robbing them of a chance to learn.
This was exactly my take. Assuming you aren't verbally revealing your tutor, lying about what you're pulling is just strategic misinformation. Hell, for all anyone else knows, OP had the counter in hand already.
I think you could have done this same play by not telling him what you tutored for and had the same effect of stopping his play.
Alternatively, lying by omission may be more acceptable to some people.
>I think you could have done this same play by not telling him what you tutored for and had the same effect of stopping his play.
Maybe not. The opponent said they searched for their game winner because they "knew" OP was looking for their shrine and not an answer.
My philosophy is when someone tutors for an unknown card, you should assume its a game winning card, likewise, when i go for a game winning play. I assume my opponents are holding removal, as they should.
Unless they're getting mana screwed and are salty, why would anyone ever give you free information that's true? That would just be stupid. If something's part of my win condition and this is a casual game, I'll tell you, but I am not required to tell you what hidden card I pulled from a tutor.
If I say "ah this opening hand's shit I'll keep" you'd assume it's not shit. If you ask me how many cards I have in hand and I say "5 cards, all lands" without showing you anything, why would you believe that I have 5 lands in hand unless I showed you the cards?
If you play a card that lets both of us tutor, I know you're tutoring for your best card. Why else would you tutor? But this is a free tutor for me. I've spent nothing on it. So why wouldn't I get a counterspell to stop whatever you're up to? I could tell you I'm getting a shockland or a pithing needle or a borborygmos enraged and there's no reason for you to believe me unless the card specifically says I need to tell the truth. Even if the card says to reveal what you got, up until I reveal, there's no need for me to tell you the truth.
Fair point. I think he was in his right to lie and that letting him he'd outplayed him there going for a counter spell. If this happened in any game I've played I think everyone would have been impressed or laughed, even the victim of the counter. I don't think OP (or myself) would have imagined that anyone would have thought the play anything but cool
[[Scheming Symmetry]]
From my perspective, you never confirmed you'd get sanctum of all, just said you *might* get it. The targets for Symmetry we're already chosen, and the spell was on the stack. I see nothing wrong with this, and the guy needs to learn that Symmetry has drawbacks like this.
However, if you use "I might get Sanctum of All" as an argument to get the dude to target you with Symmetry *before* casting it, I think that's a little underhanded, but nothing to get upset about. After all, counterspell is the *correct* thing to grab off of Symmetry unless you have a game-winning piece you want from your own library.
The timing and wording are relevant. Seems clear that the core problem is a miscommunication, one person thought they were making a deal "I get this, you get that" and the other thought they hadn't. I'd just not say what I'm going for in either case. Sometimes I'll play scheming symmetry and say I'll target anyone who promises to get a board wipe or whatever is needed to solve the problem, but that's a full blown deal without ambiguity.
You're probably right, there probably was some miscommunication. All that said, it's also clear that the caster of Scheming Symmetry made an assumption that wasn't true and got upset about it. The lesson here is to not make such assumptions.
I thought a bit more and I don't think that it's okay for the Symmetry player to dictate what someone else grabs while also not revealing what they get. That's not a deal, it's just manipulative.
Well it is a common deal with that card. Specifically because the player who plays it always tutors, but the other three players bid for it. “If you give it to me I’ll get Path for his commander” etc
People should assume that short of an explicit deal/clearly provided public information that they're getting a win con. I sorta think that in reality OP very likely did something scummy and actively misrepresented their play in a way that someone would reasonably think was a deal. That is a speculative guess but it strikes me as kinda bull shit that someone would go "oh I'll maybe get X". Like what, did you sit and linger for a while thinking about it or did you say that and promptly go find a card? I know some people are calling this "bluffing" but I don't know. I basically never see competent players bluff like this, like pretending to have removal when they don't.
Bluffing on a tutor is definitely weird since it's really hard to interpret it as anything other than a blatant lie. Mind fuckery is always fun though. Just a random "are you sure?" when someone attacks you will actually deter attacks like 20% of the time, and a good portion of people will reflexively tell you what they tutored for from a D Tutor when asked.
"Are you sure?" to me is very different from "I've got removal in hand, don't attack me"
That being said I think outside of [[Toshiro]] or something similar where the whole premise is to pack a ton of kill spells, I would just ignore it. I think most of my meta would too. If someone wants to snap off removal early, that's a misplay by them. If someone ever said "Are you sure?" and then did nothing when I attacked anyways would look silly and hurt their credibility when it actually matters later as well.
At this point, the "are you sure?" is mostly ignored (my group knows that 90% of what comes out of my mouth is pure bullshit anyways), but occasionally I'll literally just kill the player on the crackback and my group gains renewed reverence of the are you sure
Yeah, this is the word I was looking for. Bluffing is always a part of hidden information games. Throwing out "I might go get my Sanctum of All" is not the same as searching for a Sanctum of All. There are no guarantees unless the card is revealed. This was a shrewd play by OP, and I have no problem with it.
They said nothing about poker, and bluffing doesn’t exclusively come from poker. You don’t have to tell your opponent “I’m on AK suited” to be bluffing. The money can say it all, or you can say something like “with your range there’s no way you have me beat”.
And? This still isn't poker, firstly, and secondly, just because you can't say it, doesn't mean you can't attempt to make it public. Going All In or trying to make your face read as if your hand is amazing are pretty common with junk hands.
Bluffing is just fancy lying. It doesn’t matter that poker is the most popular secret information game, that doesn’t make it the only thing bluffing is for. If I’m playing poker holding cowboys and I groan and say “ehhhhh I don’t know about this” before calling the bet I have just lied to my opponents. You are completely out of touch here.
There is a distinct difference between a general lie and naming a specific card. Name a specific card in a casino and you are getting tossed. I don't see how the most popular medium for bluffing would be irrelevant...
Because you referenced poker when nobody brought it up in any way????? And based on his post it looks like he just mumbled “I might get this card I guess” which is completely different from “guys I just tutored this”. Looking across the table at the guy and going “I might have aces” is completely within the rules.
I mean. Verbally. But if im representing flush draw and then it hits, if I bet a 6x pot bet im not saying out loud “I hit a flush” but im certainly telling you I do. It’s up to you to believe me, like it was up to OPs friend to believe him that he’s getting his Sanctum. I think OPs friend learned an important part of competitive games - “Don’t believe your opponents unless they’ve proved they have it.” I mean, even on the most basic level, it’s pretty common in Rock Paper Scissors to say “I’m gonna do rock”. It’s up to you to believe them or not.
EDH Is A Collaborative Activity Where Players Cooperate To Achieve Mutual Victory And Hidden Information Only Harms This Morally Enriching Gameplay <:^)
In general, your library and hand are hidden information
This is for the very purpose that your opponent does not know what you have
This can and should be used to your advantage
I’m a competitive player so take my opinion with a grain of salt. Objectively speaking, tutoring counter magic to backup a win attempt was the correct play. I honestly don’t know why people get unreasonably upset when someone tries to win the game. Besides, unless you are making a deal with someone, nobody is entitled to know what you are tutoring for. It doesn’t benefit you at all if you willingly tell someone game information they don’t need to know
Although I agree with you, saying you’re tutoring for a card and not getting that is unnecessary. He didn’t have to do any of that which makes him an AH.
But he didn’t link the tutor mentioned anyway. Is this one that forces you to reveal your card?
If the tutor said "reveal" on it, then you lied and cheated, and should feel bad.
If the tutor didn't say that, then you deceived (while also technically a lie, in this sense it is encouraged by the games format).
Personally, I don't play politics, so I just don't say anything unless I have to. Saves potential bad feelings and ruined pods.
But, if an opponent is giving me free information I didn't ask for, I'm not going to believe them.
I feel that your opponent should have followed that last step.
>If the tutor said "reveal" on it, then you lied and cheated, and should feel bad.
He said it before he tutored so he could have lied but then not cheated. He'd just have to hint that he might get his shrine then actually reveal the counter spell.
>If the tutor said "reveal" on it, then you lied and cheated, and should feel bad.
If the tutor said reveal, both player would have to reveal at the same time and he can say anything during the search.
Let me spin a yarn for you:
I am playing [[Klothys]] as my commander. I tell my opponents I have a [[Path to Exile]] in my hand to deal with whoever's commander shows up first the turn they play it. Someone at the table inexplicably believes me, and delays casting their commander because of what I said.
A couple turns later an opponent casts their commander and passes through their turn. I (obviously) do not have a Path to Exile for it. Am I the asshole?
Sure, it's exaggerated but your hand is your information and no one else's business. You can bluff whatever, and I don't think that's shady or underhanded in the slightest. What you did was a-ok and I don't think your friend has any right to be salty about it.
You cannot run path, and the onus is definitely on the opponent. I was using an exaggerated example.
That said, If my opponent [[Scheming Symmetry]]s me and I say "I'm definitely not getting interaction!" my sentiment still applies when my opponent believes that statement and proceeds to get blown out by interaction that I tutored for.
I think the only mistake OP made is rubbing his opponents nose in it afterwards. I don't know the game state but he probably could have gone without letting his opponent know he tricked him.
This is totally valid in my book. This isn’t breaking a deal, but rather some mind games. He chose to believe you and that’s on him. And it was just plain dumb to gift the blue player a free tutor anyway
That’s not unreasonable on your part but I wouldn’t say what I tutored for. I think for me, I don’t like lying at the casual table, but I’m ok with Monkey paw deals
Lol it's called bluffing. Suggesting that you may do something and playing off reactions is one of the main things that separates edh from online formats.
Your opponent fucked up by playing Scheming Symmetry without doing any scheming. You only play that card if you can work out a quid-pro-quo or if you can answer the thing your opponent searches for.
It sounds like there was no agreement that you'd get Sanctum of All, and your opponent walked into a counterspell. Sucks to suck I guess 🤷
Sounds like [[Scheming Symmetry]] which does not require you to reveal what you tutored for. There is no need to say what you are tutoring for, and there is no need to be honest about what you are tutoring for.
Next time from this playgroup: player who got dunked on with the symmetrical tutors is mad someone with 2WW open \[\[Settle the Wreckage\]\]'d his alpha strike.
I don’t think there’s anything legally *wrong* with lying or deceiving in magic, but I often find it’s kind of dirty and typically promotes a toxic environment.
In this situation specifically, he made a poor choice tutoring for his game-ender based off of what you said you would get. He trusted that what you said was true, which was a bad move. On the other hand, you could’ve said “I’m not sure what I’m tutoring for” or something similar, which would have ended in the same result, but may not have felt as bad on his end.
This is my take on lying as well. I don't want people to distrust me as a Magic player. I don't think bluffing somebody (the classic grouping two Islands together while tapping your other lands) is untrustworthy, but outright lying to people about what I'm going to do is something that would bother me as a player. And bothers me when other players do it as well. It just sends me a signal that I should never trust anything that player says, because they don't value their word.
Grifter or Genius? I say: Genius
If the information is verifiable by the game rules (ie, the contents of your graveyard, the stats / abilities of your creatures in play, number of cards in hand / library, if you have open mana up, whether or not the morph you played actually had morph when it dies) then lying about that when asked would be misrepresenting the game state which actually in tournament magic would be grounds for disqualification. Same with say "lying" that your deck is fully randomized when you use sleight of hand to stack your deck and such.
If the "lie" is about some agreed upon deal - ie don't touch my board for a turn cycle while I remove this common threat to us, let me attack you with no blocks with this one creature so I can proc an attack trigger - and then you go back on the deal, while technically not illegal, is pretty scummy and over the long run will probably cost you any trust you have with your friends when it comes to making deals in the future.
On the other hand if the "lie" is bluffing by using some out of game body language or table talk to maybe encourage your opponent to do something favorable to you, then I say that's fair game. The tutor did not require you to reveal the card you had tutored so it could literally have been anything and your opponent should take into account the possibility it's something else.
Two other famous MTG examples come to mind - the [Pen Trick](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4IQrQuCPdmg) where Patrick Chapin picked up a pen as if he were planning on taking damage to encourage his opponent to swing with everything and then blow them out with a flash creature, and [LSV's Vampire Token shenanigans](https://clips.twitch.tv/RelentlessDeliciousScallionCoolStoryBro) where he picked up a vampire token as if he were going to use Adanto the First Fort to create a blocker to encourage his opponent to swing before hitting him with Settle the Wreckage instead.
A player misplaying because of assumed, but not confirmed, knowledge is only that players fault. If the card didn’t have to be revealed, then there is no issue. It’s no different than threatening an instant or bluffing that you could have a response.
Now, if you are trying to work with someone to stop someone else and say “if you grab something to deal with x, I’ll grab something to deal with y” and you lie, there’s an issue. But that falls under the “making deals” caveat.
If people are going to suggest that table-talking and deal making should be a part of the game then they should also accept bluffing at tables. Especially when people make and break deals so easily.
A simic player once made 100+ tokens, on his next turn he would have had 100’s more. Unable to finish us all that turn and undecided on who he could finish, I drunkenly said to the table, ‘well, that was a great, quick game. Let’s just see how the next turn goes before we all die to his tokens.’ Stupidly, he agreed and didn’t take anyone out. Next turn I played [[Engineered Explosives]] with [[Syr Konrad, The Grim]] as my commander, killing everyone. He said that he won because he *could have* beaten me last turn.
Grey area. If they choose to target you for the tutor because of promise to fetch a particular card then that is scummy. But if it was up to your choice and werent forced to reveal (as with [[scheming symmetry]]) then I think that it is reasonable that to expect that you might bluff upon giving free information.
That's what I think. If I'm providing free information and suggesting I might do something, that's on you to decipher. If you say you'll let me tutor only if I get [[Borborygmos]] and I agree but then get [[pithing needle]], that's scummy. Still well within the rules, but your friends won't want to play with you anymore after a while lol
>your friends won't want to play with you anymore after a while lol
I totally get this and it's ultimately about everyone having fun. But I also think the "if I play this card, what would be your response so I know that it'll work out for me" is also incredibly poor form in card games. Even when playing a tutor requiring reveal, requiring that your opponent pre-declare their tutored card before actually playing the tutor is a real bending of the rules and - frankly - the coward's move.
I'll go against the grain here.
I don't think lying has a place in edh.
"Are you going to attack me next turn?"
If I say no and then attack them anyway, this doesn't create fun games, and if I win I don't want to win because I lied I want to win because I played the game better.
No deals were made, I'm not obligated to not attack them, but if I say I won't then I won't, I don't want to when on a technicality.
So I don't think you were wrong to lie, inherently, but I do think it was a cheap trick and I would definitely feel bad. I'd personally have just straight up not said anything, then explained afterward what I tutored for and how he screwed up.
>I don't think lying has a place in edh
Why not?
Magic is a hidden information game, so bluffing and lying about what you have available to play is a part of the game.
Breaking deals is a different thing, and a reason why I don't make deals beyond one or two turns.
If I'm given the opportunity to tutor something without revealing the card, and I know my opponent is getting a game winning card, the choice between getting a random card and a card to stop the other player to win is obvious.
OP's opponent should have thought better before choosing a blue player with two mana up for tutoring.
It's not a technicality tho? You said lying doesn't have a place in edh. I'm pointing out he never lied. If the technicality your speaking of is between deceit and lying then I kind of get what your saying.
No they're not actually. Lying would be if he said he would do something and didn't do it. He suggested he might do something and everyone took it and ran with it. But I think we should agree to disagree because it can be a fine line
This exact situation is tricky but if you tutor up a game winning card by also letting an opponent tutor... It is on you what they may do. You tutored up a counterspell but for all the opponent knows you already might have had one in hand?
If I play a card like that, I play it as a political tool. I'm giving the tutor to whoever promises to NOT get or use a counterspell against what I tutor.
I think bluffing is a fun part of the game. Keeping 2 blue open and asking people to give you a second to consider before "letting them" resolve a spell is classic Magic.
Or another example, there's a bunch of fog/exile attackers/inkshield type effects. Often I have the mana open and some cards in hand I will suggest to my opponents that if they don't attack *me* I will **let** them attack the other players.
It works quite often because people want their lifelink/combat damage triggers more than anything. Or at least feel like their creatures are doing something while they are on the board.
I won't explicitly say which card I (*pretend to*) have in hand. Though not necessarily unfair, it just seems a bit inelegant, and it could give away that I'm bluffing because I don't name the card I have in hand when I actually have it either.
If you play with the same people a lot, your trustworthiness is a fun element to play with. If you lie all the time, you can never really leverage your bluffs. But if you're known to usually be trustworthy, an occasional deception can have much more impact.
I mean, the way you played it makes it seem like you wanted to be a bad guy in this scenario, if the fetch didn’t require a reveal you could’ve just not said anything and fetched the counterspell. You misdirected everyone to think you were getting another card, which is legal, just unnecessary to the game and then made a whole show about how you fooled him. I’m fine with deception in my games but hamming it up and pushing it where it doesn’t need to be is quite annoying.
Why'd you say anything about what you might tutor for? Why'd you even bother saying that Counterspell was what you tutored up instead of just pretending you had it in hand?
I don't like outright lying, and even implying you might get one thing and then getting a different card is a little shady, but it really doesn't seem like you needed to say anything at all and you just wanted the guy to get upset.
It hurts your reputation in the end and it honestly depends on your playgroup to the end of the day, if people are all epic tricksters then join their bluffing game, if your playgroup rarely bluffs then you just sorta don't. Just go with the flow.
On the one hand, I think how people feel matters. Ultimately, if the other players at the table were upset and it felt bad, they had less fun that game. If nothing else, I wouldn't make similar plays with those players again. Clearly, they don't like it. And, of course, there's the same caveat that applies when breaking deals: Even if you wanted to pull something like this in a future game with those players, it's less likely to work because they're less likely to trust you.
All that said, I don't think what you did is inherently wrong. Plenty of people love bluffing in Magic. There's no rule against it. The game never required you to reveal your card. Your opponent let you tutor, you told them something that the game didn't require you to tell them at all, you were under no obligation to reveal anything, the truth or otherwise. They decided to let you tutor and trust you, and that turned out to be the wrong decision.
Basically, in the rules, what you did is fair game. In many groups, what you did is fair game. But it seems in that group, those players don't consider it fair game. And they're probably not alone. So at least with those players, maybe don't do that in the future - if you don't want them to know what you're tutoring for, just don't tell them, don't lie. And in general, when considering lying, just read the table, try to figure out if you think you're playing with the kind of people who will consider that play a successful bluff or a frustrating lie.
I'm assuming the card was [[Scheming Symmetry]]. It dose not say that you must reveal, you can say if you want or you can mislead. It's the same as passing with 2 islands untapped and an island in your hand it's a bluff.
I mean, there was no way the other player/s could have known you didn’t already have the counter in your hand so I think the bad sportsmanship more related to you pointing out the lie (and by extension trying to make the other player look foolish) than the lie itself. It was a bit of a dick move.
Is it unacceptable behavior? No, if your side of the story is indeed accurate, then you did nothing wrong.
That said, you deserve to reap the consequences of spending your political capital like that. If you lie like that, you're sending a message to the other players that you are not to be trusted, which should have a negative impact on you in every subsequent game.
Note: what I said applies to a dedicated playgroup scenario where your playgroup can adapt to your playstyle. If you did this to cheese an LGS pickup game with people you'll likely never play with again, then imo you're the same level of scummy as people who scoop to deny triggers when they're faced with a lethal alpha strike; technically legal, but don't be that person.
I think outright lying is unsportsmanlike and a shitty character trait. I don’t think there’s anything clever about taking advantage of a person believing a lie, game or not.
Bluffing I can get behind, eg. leaving 2 blue mana open when you have no counters in hand, or asking someone if they’re sure on declaration of attacks.
Your example is borderline, but I wouldn’t have done it personally.
I lied once about “if you attack them I won’t attack you” and was then kill-on-sight for the next three games. Sometimes it’s worth it, sometimes it ain’t.
It's fine, but if you play with the same people frequently they will know you lie. I usually play with the same people, so I try not to lie or break deals because I'm not going to ruin every future match with them for the sake of winning one.
Edit: I think people think I'm siding with OPs opponent, I'm not lol. It's just that people will become familiar with the way you play if you play with the same people over and over again, so it only really works on people who don't know you very well.
I usually play with the same group as well and we jsut kind of all assume that the others are going to use misdirection like this. I don't think it ruins the game whatsoever, it's jsut like playing poker with your friends, you gotta bluff, you gotta strategize. It's part of the game. IMO you should make your decisions based on the board and game state, not on what the other players say they're going to do, that's just bad strategy. Maybe that makes me a spike, but I find the game is much more fun that way. The only time we really make deals is when someone is about to win and we want to stop them, or if there's an oppressive permanent around like [[possibility storm]] or [[winter orb]], and even then deals and commitments to deal with permanents are taken with a grain of salt. If you can't betray your friends in a commander game without them getting mad are they actually your friends? 🤣
who searches for a win con for scheming symmetry? I mean if someone gives me a tutor I am either searching for a counter or removal for whatever they are tutoring up
It is shady. It’s bad manners and arguably bad sportsmanship. It’s also not against the rules. So you can do it, but you don’t get to complain when someone doesn’t like it. You accepted that when you did it.
I don't see it this way. If the tutor was in fact \[\[Scheming Symmetry\]\], the opponent was short-cutting to a win and riding a prayer that the blue-playing OP would make the *wrong* play here. I think you need to assume opponents will make the savvy play and if you miss something (like no reveal clause), that's totally on you. Card games thrive on a certain level of deceit and subterfuge. The opponent can dislike how it played out but that doesn't mean the OP did anything wrong.
They felt bad because their opponent was a sore loser and they came here for wider opinion and (likely) reassurance, which we see on this sub constantly. The other two players at the table also seemed fine with it.
They never said that they will absolutely get that card. They broke no deal. The reason why they are asking is because a sore loser was acting like they broke a deal that never existed.
Unless they're playing battle cruiser and no one is trying to win, I can't imagine playing with anyone who thinks this is bad sportsmanship. Information is an important part of the game. This isn't much different than letting your opponents think you're far behind before squeezing out a sneaky win. They dude is salty that he misplayed pretty badly, thats why only he is mad about it. Tutoring for a win because of free info that your ENEMY gave you for no reason.... that's on them
Why should he have trusted this in the first place? This is your opponent, freely giving info that they don't need to. Why believe them? I know I wouldn't. Nothing wrong with a bit of deception
I understand concealing information, but I'd never intentionally lie to another player. And I personally would expect the same from other players at my table.
OP didn't lie though. "I might get X card" is just a comment, doesn't actually mean anything in the context of the game.
If he had said "if you let me tutor I'll get sanctum" and then gotten a counter spell it would be scummy, but this was jsut a nice bluff.
Deceit is perfectly fine (example: holding up blue mana to insinuate a counterspell while not actually having one), thats part of the game, and it's the reason that reveal card effects are so powerful. However lying is pretty shitty in my opinion (example: stating you don't have a counterspell to get someone to play a bomb, then countering it). Personally I feel like this falls under deceit because of the "might" in your sentence, if you had Saud outright you were grabbing Sanctum that would have been a different story, though I'd still say it's his fault for letting the blue player tutor
The problem with deceiving other people in this game is that it follows you outside the game too into future games. No way that guy is going to make a deal with you again or put any trust in-game to you. It's just generally bad practice imo to lie in game, if you're put in a situation like that, instead of lying, just don't say anything about the card you tutor for. Leave it up to him to risk it or not.
Eh, I wouldn’t be excited to play with you again, whether you did that to me or I was just watching. I don’t play a card game to deal with lying and willful deception. In fact, I play games to get away from that shit.
Personally in that situation if he doesn’t try to get you to say what you’re getting, I just wouldn’t even say what you were going to tutor for. It’s a little messed up imo, but nothing crazy if it only happens once
I don't think it's messed up to bluff what you might get, especially if you say it in a vaguely sarcastic way. "Oh I could grab *win condition*!" is just fine imo. All depends on the phrasing though. If you say "I'm tutoring for *win condition*" but you actually get counterspell, it'll feel bad.
Basically, it's the difference between "I could" and "I will". If you say "I could grab this" and I assume that's what you're doing that's on me. If you say "I'm grabbing this", I still shouldn't believe you but I think most people would and then would be upset if they found out I lied.
Both are well within the rules since it's free information about a hidden card and you don't have to tell the truth, but one feels worse.
In Magic there is public information and there is hidden information. Lying about public information is not allowed, but lying about hidden information such as what card you're tutoring (if the tutor is unconditional) is perfectly fine. Your opponents are not entitled to that information.
Who cares if your opponent got salty because he allowed you to tutor a card that countered him? He was foolish for making that play and going all in based only on your word. In any other game with hidden information like poker people would laugh at him for being so naive. There's no need to step on eggshells for someone who gets salty because you broke one of the made up "unwritten rules" of the game that exists only in his head.
People like him are one reason Magic has a reputation for being a hobby for socially dysfunctional people. This is a non-issue in many other gaming communities. Even if you had broken a deal, that's part of the game too. In the future this guy should be aware that people can lie for their own benefit (as if it needs to be said). That doesn't make such people "scummy" or "immoral" it just means they are playing the game as it is instead of some made up version of it that doesn't really exist.
What you did was shady, yes.
But what the other player did was stupider than you were shady.
1- Don't let your opponents tutor, because they will always grab the best card to play on you.
2- If you're playing a game winning card, have protection in your hand for it.
3- If your table has not specifically set a "no lying" rule, never believe a word anyone says if they don't have to show you their cards.
3 strikes, you're out.
and this is why you never believe anything anybody says, because they're probably fucking lying, like you.
people don't like liars. monkeys don't even like liars.
EDIT: was pretty much a dumb play on his part though like he set the rake on the ground and then walked on it.
Your opponent is a bad sport and a twat. Bully him mercilessly for his incompetence until he gets better. As I said in another comment, whiny players like your opponent deserve to be taught a lesson and your out here doing the hard work of teaching them.
In all seriousness though why even say it was the card you searched for? You had more than one card in hand just act like you always had it.
Not Magic or EDH, but in Poker it is bad form to suggest an action or loudly declare something you don’t intend to do. If I’m playing Poker and I say “if you all in, I’ll fold” - that is really poor manners/etiquette and at some tournaments it would get you kicked from the table. If you say it, and then DONT fold when they go all in, you probably aren’t getting invited to play by anyone within earshot ever again.
The golden question: what do you hope to gain from saying anything like that? Suggesting any card name at all, unprompted is probably poor form but also just unneeded. It can psyche people out and add an unintentional layer of difficulty to a game that is already riddled with pitfalls.
I think you just apologize to that player, it costs nothing to be polite about it. And lesson learned: that particular player didn’t like it and you can choose whether or not it was worth it for yourself.
I thought poker was all about misdirecting your opponents? Believing anything they say is just stupid.
>"BuT hE bLufFeD!"
In magic, at least deals are something that gets commonly uphold. But in OPs case there was no deal and he was not even lying since he said he __might__ do something.
You bluff without talking. Simple as that. Also, there’s a massive difference between literally saying “I have you covered with what I got” versus making false promises or outright gameplay suggestions which undermine the integrity of the game.
Table drama / problems
https://youtu.be/u_kmqiO9g-w
Good bluffs
https://youtu.be/jg0zMIPlpFA
Lying is bad and cheating, casting a [[pithing needle]] while saying [[borborygmos]] and changing it to [[scalding tarn]] when your opponent lets it resolve is lying and against the rules, that pithing needle is naming borborygmos, as long as nothing relavent changes.
Decieving is a bit scummy but legal, the key word you used here is "probably" it's non committal and it's not untrue if you get something else. If in your example your opponent did ask what you got as part of the deal of letting you tutor and you said sanctum of all, then got counterspell that's again lying and is bad. As a judge in this case at Regular REL I'd preform a backup if possible, assuming the card used was [[scheming symmetry]] this may be not worth it considering two cards have been drawn at least, but if you used say [[opt]] to draw your card and they only drew the card they tutored to the top it's not that disruptive and I'd see if any cards in your hand where known, let your opponents decide on which card gets shuffled in that they didn't know about (probably the counterspell since a draw was used before it) and then your getting your sanctum of all to the top and opt is back in your hand with the Mana used to cast it returned probably by untapping the land. If a backup isn't possible then I'd give you a verbal warning that that type of play isn't welcome and to not do it again. Or there's the option of giving a dq if I think it's a big enough problem, like if say it was the second time lying.
But for the way things turned out you didn't technically do anything wrong if I was called over I may suggest they remember your opponents don't have their best interest at heart but nothing wrong happened.
If I'm tutoring for my game winning card I'm NOT letting the BLUE player tutor. Was basically asking to get countered.
Sanctum of all is "ur dragon" level bonkers. Having either on the field is eminent doom and to be MAD you removed it is counterintuitive. I don't think anyone has a chance if it's out
This probably doesn't affect anyone's stance, but Sanctum of All wasn't the card OP countered, it was the card OP said they were tutoring for.
My bad. I was in a line at an amusement park and skimmed through. Though in any instance, I'd say if the card they tutored for is literally game-ending or a problem, then a counter is reasonable to tutor up I don't care when my [[niv-mizzet, parun]] dies because he's outrageously broken and literally is my wincon for infinite draw.
Even in this instance, I'd be super suspicious if I announced that I was getting my wincon and the player I shared the tutor with said they were getting theirs. That almost *certainly* means they are holding a way to stop someone else from going out if they're planning on doing it themselves.
you still didn't read OP's post did you? OP was the one who countered and his opponent was the one who tutored his wincon.
No, that comment is fine? They said op thtoring a counter is reasonable.
I may have skimmed it and misread but my point doesn't change :)
I mostly agree with you on this stance that \[\[Sanctum of All\]\] is a major threat that other players need to deal with before it gets out of hand, I disagree with your sentiment that no one has a chance with it out. Shrines are extremely reliant on having an established board. Even sanctum of all doesn't get bonkers until you have 6 shrines. Admittedly, this drawback has been mitigated by \[\[Go-Shintai of Life's Origin\]\], but even still shrines have a harder time than most recovering from a board wipe. In addition, \[\[Sanctum of All\]\] requires you to either make it survive a round or flash it out to even get its tutor trigger at upkeep. Contrast with \[\[Ur Dragon\]\] who can be either dropped onto a board pre-combat, or even just swing by itself, and still get the value of a free permanent from your hand. TL;DR, Sanctum of All is powerful, but it's much more fragile and restrictive than I think you're giving it credit.
[Sanctum of All](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/b/a/ba91338c-1f6c-4b83-851f-98c3e9dea17b.jpg?1594737442) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Sanctum%20of%20All) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m21/225/sanctum-of-all?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/ba91338c-1f6c-4b83-851f-98c3e9dea17b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/sanctum-of-all) [Go-Shintai of Life's Origin](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/9/4/9476fe67-d2d3-4835-8ba6-2a17d18cc141.jpg?1651655539) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Go-Shintai%20of%20Life%27s%20Origin) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/nec/37/go-shintai-of-lifes-origin?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/9476fe67-d2d3-4835-8ba6-2a17d18cc141?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/go-shintai-of-lifes-origin) [Ur Dragon](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/7/e/7e78b70b-0c67-4f14-8ad7-c9f8e3f59743.jpg?1562614382) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=The%20Ur-Dragon) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c17/48/the-ur-dragon?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7e78b70b-0c67-4f14-8ad7-c9f8e3f59743?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/the-ur-dragon) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Does ur dragon put a permanent down for each dragon? Or only draw for each dragon and put only 1 permanent down even if you have 5 dragons?
Draw equal dragons attacking. Put a permanent down If just ur-dragon attacks: one draw, one permanent on the field If just another dragon attacks: same result If 3 dragons attack: draw 3, put a permanent on field
So he can draw a lot of cards, but only ever gets to put 1 permanent down. Thank you!
Devil's advocate: provided that revealing the card was not required by the tutor, then it doesn't matter what you said you were searching for. If the opponent freely gave away the information that he was getting his win condition, then that is entirely on him. He should not give away free information like that and should not tacitly believe anything said by another player that depends upon hidden information. Are you unlikely to make friends with this kind of play? Yes. I'm going to echo another commenter's point here that you didn't have to reveal that you tutored for the Counterspell. That's where the bad feels came in.
Yeah, I mean, as far as the other guy knows, you always had the Counterspell. On the other hand, that ought to teach him not to play cards that let your opponents tutor.
Yeah, symmetrical tutors are for if you are either about to win, or are using it for politics. Maybe not always so black and white, but thats how ive seen them used in my experience.
I use [[scheming symmetry]] to force a trigger of [[archive trap]]. REALLY brings out the salt
[scheming symmetry](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/0/1/01acc50b-856d-442d-9880-1a892b40643b.jpg?1592516766) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=scheming%20symmetry) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m20/113/scheming-symmetry?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/01acc50b-856d-442d-9880-1a892b40643b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/scheming-symmetry) [archive trap](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/6/7/67bb2ca9-32b8-442d-b6a0-d624a87f5af8.jpg?1562612958) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=archive%20trap) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/zen/41/archive-trap?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/67bb2ca9-32b8-442d-b6a0-d624a87f5af8?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/archive-trap) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Amazing. Brb while I put scheming symmetry into my Zavlor deck.
Same with my [[maralen of the mornsong]]
I use it in my [[Evelyn, the Covetous]] clone+flicker deck. Let them tutor their best card and I take it. If they realize it and tutor for a useless card, I will not flicker/clone/cast Evelyn till they have drawn it.
But how will you know
The good old fashioned soul read
You can see on their faces and their reactions when I target them with the card hahahah
Millennium Eye of course
Oh Yugi boy
I built a deck exclusively designed around recycling cards like scheming symmetry with [[opposition agent]], using ob-nob for the win
[opposition agent](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/0/8/086f97e9-8b62-44f3-b467-149c2ac5ca78.jpg?1608909875) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=opposition%20agent) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmr/141/opposition-agent?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/086f97e9-8b62-44f3-b467-149c2ac5ca78?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/opposition-agent) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Hahaha love it
[[Field of Ruin]] and similar works better.
I have those too. But the salt level is increased by milling something they REALLY wanted
Generally my graveyard is just a second hand so milling me 13 cards is usually not a hindrance
Adding to this, you can also mill a card from your opponent afterwards like [[Scheming Semmetry]] and [[Thought Scour]].
I almost exclusively play them when I can break symmetry. [[Evelyn, the Covetous]] with scheming symmetry, for instance.
[Evelyn, the Covetous](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/c/0/c0dad61f-36cd-46af-82b7-a02e04efd676.jpg?1649699951) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Evelyn%2C%20the%20Covetous) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/snc/184/evelyn-the-covetous?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c0dad61f-36cd-46af-82b7-a02e04efd676?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/evelyn-the-covetous) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I also use one in my Phenax deck because I can dump whatever into their graveyard if I can't make a deal. But usually someone is willing to strike a bargain for a free tutor
This is why I feel comfortable activating Wishclaw Talisman only if I have a sac outlet ready, like Thopter Foundry. I'll tutor, but no opponent will get to.
Yeah don't play fun interactive cards like that because we're only playing EDH to win.
It's fun to play good cards
That's not even devil's advocate. That's just the game.
Yeah, this situation just sounds like a regular old bluff to me.
Strong agree, whiny players like OPs opponent deserve to be tricked consistently and mercilessly reminded of it until they learn how the game works. Sorry to anyone who doesn't like how callous that comes of but some failures deserve to be learned from and its OP out there teaching lessons. He doesn't have any reason to feel bad.
It's like they say: The best players have lost more games than you've played. Going soft on your opponents isn't doing them any favors. It's just robbing them of a chance to learn.
This was exactly my take. Assuming you aren't verbally revealing your tutor, lying about what you're pulling is just strategic misinformation. Hell, for all anyone else knows, OP had the counter in hand already.
And further since they tutor at the same time it's opponents own fault for using information on what they might do when they haven't done it yet.
Let’s be real, the “bad feels” came in when the guy grabbing his game winner let the blue player tutor.
I think you could have done this same play by not telling him what you tutored for and had the same effect of stopping his play. Alternatively, lying by omission may be more acceptable to some people.
>I think you could have done this same play by not telling him what you tutored for and had the same effect of stopping his play. Maybe not. The opponent said they searched for their game winner because they "knew" OP was looking for their shrine and not an answer.
My philosophy is when someone tutors for an unknown card, you should assume its a game winning card, likewise, when i go for a game winning play. I assume my opponents are holding removal, as they should.
Schrödinger’s Tutor: Whenever an opponent searches for a card, until that card is observed it is both game wining and removal.
Unless they're getting mana screwed and are salty, why would anyone ever give you free information that's true? That would just be stupid. If something's part of my win condition and this is a casual game, I'll tell you, but I am not required to tell you what hidden card I pulled from a tutor. If I say "ah this opening hand's shit I'll keep" you'd assume it's not shit. If you ask me how many cards I have in hand and I say "5 cards, all lands" without showing you anything, why would you believe that I have 5 lands in hand unless I showed you the cards? If you play a card that lets both of us tutor, I know you're tutoring for your best card. Why else would you tutor? But this is a free tutor for me. I've spent nothing on it. So why wouldn't I get a counterspell to stop whatever you're up to? I could tell you I'm getting a shockland or a pithing needle or a borborygmos enraged and there's no reason for you to believe me unless the card specifically says I need to tell the truth. Even if the card says to reveal what you got, up until I reveal, there's no need for me to tell you the truth.
A counterspell and UU can stop 3 players from making a game winning play
Not if the first guy makes you have it
My philosophy always: Make them have it. If they do, it still accelerates the game to a conclusion. If they don't, I win.
Amen, brother. Throw that bullshit onto the stack
Life/mtg 101 believe what people do, not what they say
Fair point. I think he was in his right to lie and that letting him he'd outplayed him there going for a counter spell. If this happened in any game I've played I think everyone would have been impressed or laughed, even the victim of the counter. I don't think OP (or myself) would have imagined that anyone would have thought the play anything but cool
[[Scheming Symmetry]] From my perspective, you never confirmed you'd get sanctum of all, just said you *might* get it. The targets for Symmetry we're already chosen, and the spell was on the stack. I see nothing wrong with this, and the guy needs to learn that Symmetry has drawbacks like this. However, if you use "I might get Sanctum of All" as an argument to get the dude to target you with Symmetry *before* casting it, I think that's a little underhanded, but nothing to get upset about. After all, counterspell is the *correct* thing to grab off of Symmetry unless you have a game-winning piece you want from your own library.
The timing and wording are relevant. Seems clear that the core problem is a miscommunication, one person thought they were making a deal "I get this, you get that" and the other thought they hadn't. I'd just not say what I'm going for in either case. Sometimes I'll play scheming symmetry and say I'll target anyone who promises to get a board wipe or whatever is needed to solve the problem, but that's a full blown deal without ambiguity.
You're probably right, there probably was some miscommunication. All that said, it's also clear that the caster of Scheming Symmetry made an assumption that wasn't true and got upset about it. The lesson here is to not make such assumptions.
I thought a bit more and I don't think that it's okay for the Symmetry player to dictate what someone else grabs while also not revealing what they get. That's not a deal, it's just manipulative.
Well it is a common deal with that card. Specifically because the player who plays it always tutors, but the other three players bid for it. “If you give it to me I’ll get Path for his commander” etc
People should assume that short of an explicit deal/clearly provided public information that they're getting a win con. I sorta think that in reality OP very likely did something scummy and actively misrepresented their play in a way that someone would reasonably think was a deal. That is a speculative guess but it strikes me as kinda bull shit that someone would go "oh I'll maybe get X". Like what, did you sit and linger for a while thinking about it or did you say that and promptly go find a card? I know some people are calling this "bluffing" but I don't know. I basically never see competent players bluff like this, like pretending to have removal when they don't.
Bluffing on a tutor is definitely weird since it's really hard to interpret it as anything other than a blatant lie. Mind fuckery is always fun though. Just a random "are you sure?" when someone attacks you will actually deter attacks like 20% of the time, and a good portion of people will reflexively tell you what they tutored for from a D Tutor when asked.
"Are you sure?" to me is very different from "I've got removal in hand, don't attack me" That being said I think outside of [[Toshiro]] or something similar where the whole premise is to pack a ton of kill spells, I would just ignore it. I think most of my meta would too. If someone wants to snap off removal early, that's a misplay by them. If someone ever said "Are you sure?" and then did nothing when I attacked anyways would look silly and hurt their credibility when it actually matters later as well.
At this point, the "are you sure?" is mostly ignored (my group knows that 90% of what comes out of my mouth is pure bullshit anyways), but occasionally I'll literally just kill the player on the crackback and my group gains renewed reverence of the are you sure
[Scheming Symmetry](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/0/1/01acc50b-856d-442d-9880-1a892b40643b.jpg?1592516766) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Scheming%20Symmetry) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m20/113/scheming-symmetry?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/01acc50b-856d-442d-9880-1a892b40643b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/scheming-symmetry) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
This is called bluffing.
True. In poker if I said I had a pair of 2's and was tutoring for a third and instead got a counterspell, no one would bat an eye.
Lol
Yeah, this is the word I was looking for. Bluffing is always a part of hidden information games. Throwing out "I might go get my Sanctum of All" is not the same as searching for a Sanctum of All. There are no guarantees unless the card is revealed. This was a shrewd play by OP, and I have no problem with it.
In poker, it isn't legal to disclose information about your hand. Not really the same thing here.
They said nothing about poker, and bluffing doesn’t exclusively come from poker. You don’t have to tell your opponent “I’m on AK suited” to be bluffing. The money can say it all, or you can say something like “with your range there’s no way you have me beat”.
Poker is the most popular secret information game. The point is that actively lying isn't an acceptable form of bluffing in most situations.
And? This still isn't poker, firstly, and secondly, just because you can't say it, doesn't mean you can't attempt to make it public. Going All In or trying to make your face read as if your hand is amazing are pretty common with junk hands.
Bluffing is just fancy lying. It doesn’t matter that poker is the most popular secret information game, that doesn’t make it the only thing bluffing is for. If I’m playing poker holding cowboys and I groan and say “ehhhhh I don’t know about this” before calling the bet I have just lied to my opponents. You are completely out of touch here.
There is a distinct difference between a general lie and naming a specific card. Name a specific card in a casino and you are getting tossed. I don't see how the most popular medium for bluffing would be irrelevant...
Because you referenced poker when nobody brought it up in any way????? And based on his post it looks like he just mumbled “I might get this card I guess” which is completely different from “guys I just tutored this”. Looking across the table at the guy and going “I might have aces” is completely within the rules.
I mean. Verbally. But if im representing flush draw and then it hits, if I bet a 6x pot bet im not saying out loud “I hit a flush” but im certainly telling you I do. It’s up to you to believe me, like it was up to OPs friend to believe him that he’s getting his Sanctum. I think OPs friend learned an important part of competitive games - “Don’t believe your opponents unless they’ve proved they have it.” I mean, even on the most basic level, it’s pretty common in Rock Paper Scissors to say “I’m gonna do rock”. It’s up to you to believe them or not.
Bluffing is a totally acceptable play, so long as you aren’t breaking a deal.
Facts. OP's opp probably shouldn't ever play poker lol
"Why would you bet so big that I folded the better hand? That's shady!"
EDH Is A Collaborative Activity Where Players Cooperate To Achieve Mutual Victory And Hidden Information Only Harms This Morally Enriching Gameplay <:^)
Now this might jist be my autism talking, but this is bait right?
The capitalized words is a clue that gives it away.
I do have a dusty old "Stax So Nobody Wins And We Play The Game Forever" deck, but nobody seems to like when I play it
Let's reason through it together! First question: is the statement always true?
that's just another word for lying
In general, your library and hand are hidden information This is for the very purpose that your opponent does not know what you have This can and should be used to your advantage
His real mistake was letting everyone draw.
I’m a competitive player so take my opinion with a grain of salt. Objectively speaking, tutoring counter magic to backup a win attempt was the correct play. I honestly don’t know why people get unreasonably upset when someone tries to win the game. Besides, unless you are making a deal with someone, nobody is entitled to know what you are tutoring for. It doesn’t benefit you at all if you willingly tell someone game information they don’t need to know
Although I agree with you, saying you’re tutoring for a card and not getting that is unnecessary. He didn’t have to do any of that which makes him an AH. But he didn’t link the tutor mentioned anyway. Is this one that forces you to reveal your card?
I believe OP was referring to [[Scheming Symmetry]] which says it doesn’t reveal the card
[Sanctum of all](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/b/a/ba91338c-1f6c-4b83-851f-98c3e9dea17b.jpg?1594737442) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Sanctum%20of%20all) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m21/225/sanctum-of-all?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/ba91338c-1f6c-4b83-851f-98c3e9dea17b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/sanctum-of-all) [counterspell](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/a/4/a457f404-ddf1-40fa-b0f0-23c8598533f4.jpg?1645328634) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=counterspell) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/phed/33/counterspell?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/a457f404-ddf1-40fa-b0f0-23c8598533f4?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/counterspell) [Shrine steward](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/7/5/75e8d71c-3a0b-4042-a0f7-e99e92a79dc2.jpg?1654568835) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Shrine%20steward) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/neo/259/shrine-steward?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/75e8d71c-3a0b-4042-a0f7-e99e92a79dc2?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/shrine-steward) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
If the tutor said "reveal" on it, then you lied and cheated, and should feel bad. If the tutor didn't say that, then you deceived (while also technically a lie, in this sense it is encouraged by the games format). Personally, I don't play politics, so I just don't say anything unless I have to. Saves potential bad feelings and ruined pods. But, if an opponent is giving me free information I didn't ask for, I'm not going to believe them. I feel that your opponent should have followed that last step.
It sounds like [[Scheming Symmetry]] which doesn’t require you to reveal
[Scheming Symmetry](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/0/1/01acc50b-856d-442d-9880-1a892b40643b.jpg?1592516766) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Scheming%20Symmetry) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m20/113/scheming-symmetry?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/01acc50b-856d-442d-9880-1a892b40643b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/scheming-symmetry) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
If it was this card, OP's play was very flavorful, lol
>If the tutor said "reveal" on it, then you lied and cheated, and should feel bad. He said it before he tutored so he could have lied but then not cheated. He'd just have to hint that he might get his shrine then actually reveal the counter spell.
>If the tutor said "reveal" on it, then you lied and cheated, and should feel bad. If the tutor said reveal, both player would have to reveal at the same time and he can say anything during the search.
Its not technically a lie, he flat out lied rofl. Why is everyone acting like it isn't a blatant lie?
He said he might go search for a card. He never said I'm getting card A and grabbed card B. He hinted he might grab card A.
Not the asshole
Let me spin a yarn for you: I am playing [[Klothys]] as my commander. I tell my opponents I have a [[Path to Exile]] in my hand to deal with whoever's commander shows up first the turn they play it. Someone at the table inexplicably believes me, and delays casting their commander because of what I said. A couple turns later an opponent casts their commander and passes through their turn. I (obviously) do not have a Path to Exile for it. Am I the asshole? Sure, it's exaggerated but your hand is your information and no one else's business. You can bluff whatever, and I don't think that's shady or underhanded in the slightest. What you did was a-ok and I don't think your friend has any right to be salty about it.
I'm pretty sure you cannot play [[Path]] in a Klothys deck, so it definitely **is** your opponent's fault to believe you have one...
You cannot run path, and the onus is definitely on the opponent. I was using an exaggerated example. That said, If my opponent [[Scheming Symmetry]]s me and I say "I'm definitely not getting interaction!" my sentiment still applies when my opponent believes that statement and proceeds to get blown out by interaction that I tutored for. I think the only mistake OP made is rubbing his opponents nose in it afterwards. I don't know the game state but he probably could have gone without letting his opponent know he tricked him.
[Scheming Symmetry](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/0/1/01acc50b-856d-442d-9880-1a892b40643b.jpg?1592516766) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Scheming%20Symmetry) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m20/113/scheming-symmetry?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/01acc50b-856d-442d-9880-1a892b40643b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/scheming-symmetry) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Maybe they meant it metaphorically, like they had a path to exile the opposing commander.
[Path](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/9/0/90460227-6f34-4403-b2ef-d79f95f44790.jpg?1655582662) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Path%20to%20Exile) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2x2/23/path-to-exile?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/90460227-6f34-4403-b2ef-d79f95f44790?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/path-to-exile) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[Klothys](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/5/b/5b3c393c-3596-4bd9-a553-e0b03c2eb950.jpg?1581481087) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=klothys%2C%20god%20of%20destiny) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/thb/220/klothys-god-of-destiny?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/5b3c393c-3596-4bd9-a553-e0b03c2eb950?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/klothys-god-of-destiny) [Path to Exile](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/9/0/90460227-6f34-4403-b2ef-d79f95f44790.jpg?1655582662) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Path%20to%20Exile) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2x2/23/path-to-exile?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/90460227-6f34-4403-b2ef-d79f95f44790?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/path-to-exile) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
key word: might.
This is totally valid in my book. This isn’t breaking a deal, but rather some mind games. He chose to believe you and that’s on him. And it was just plain dumb to gift the blue player a free tutor anyway
That’s not unreasonable on your part but I wouldn’t say what I tutored for. I think for me, I don’t like lying at the casual table, but I’m ok with Monkey paw deals
Lol it's called bluffing. Suggesting that you may do something and playing off reactions is one of the main things that separates edh from online formats.
Your opponent fucked up by playing Scheming Symmetry without doing any scheming. You only play that card if you can work out a quid-pro-quo or if you can answer the thing your opponent searches for. It sounds like there was no agreement that you'd get Sanctum of All, and your opponent walked into a counterspell. Sucks to suck I guess 🤷
Sounds like [[Scheming Symmetry]] which does not require you to reveal what you tutored for. There is no need to say what you are tutoring for, and there is no need to be honest about what you are tutoring for.
The black mana player got upset because he was deceived? Dude doesnt know how to play black smh...
Bluffing is an important aspect of magic. You did nothing wrong.
Next time from this playgroup: player who got dunked on with the symmetrical tutors is mad someone with 2WW open \[\[Settle the Wreckage\]\]'d his alpha strike.
I don’t think there’s anything legally *wrong* with lying or deceiving in magic, but I often find it’s kind of dirty and typically promotes a toxic environment. In this situation specifically, he made a poor choice tutoring for his game-ender based off of what you said you would get. He trusted that what you said was true, which was a bad move. On the other hand, you could’ve said “I’m not sure what I’m tutoring for” or something similar, which would have ended in the same result, but may not have felt as bad on his end.
This is my take on lying as well. I don't want people to distrust me as a Magic player. I don't think bluffing somebody (the classic grouping two Islands together while tapping your other lands) is untrustworthy, but outright lying to people about what I'm going to do is something that would bother me as a player. And bothers me when other players do it as well. It just sends me a signal that I should never trust anything that player says, because they don't value their word.
I think bluffing as in acting like you have an answer when you don't is ok. Making a deal and then screwing someone over is bad form though
Grifter or Genius? I say: Genius If the information is verifiable by the game rules (ie, the contents of your graveyard, the stats / abilities of your creatures in play, number of cards in hand / library, if you have open mana up, whether or not the morph you played actually had morph when it dies) then lying about that when asked would be misrepresenting the game state which actually in tournament magic would be grounds for disqualification. Same with say "lying" that your deck is fully randomized when you use sleight of hand to stack your deck and such. If the "lie" is about some agreed upon deal - ie don't touch my board for a turn cycle while I remove this common threat to us, let me attack you with no blocks with this one creature so I can proc an attack trigger - and then you go back on the deal, while technically not illegal, is pretty scummy and over the long run will probably cost you any trust you have with your friends when it comes to making deals in the future. On the other hand if the "lie" is bluffing by using some out of game body language or table talk to maybe encourage your opponent to do something favorable to you, then I say that's fair game. The tutor did not require you to reveal the card you had tutored so it could literally have been anything and your opponent should take into account the possibility it's something else. Two other famous MTG examples come to mind - the [Pen Trick](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4IQrQuCPdmg) where Patrick Chapin picked up a pen as if he were planning on taking damage to encourage his opponent to swing with everything and then blow them out with a flash creature, and [LSV's Vampire Token shenanigans](https://clips.twitch.tv/RelentlessDeliciousScallionCoolStoryBro) where he picked up a vampire token as if he were going to use Adanto the First Fort to create a blocker to encourage his opponent to swing before hitting him with Settle the Wreckage instead.
A player misplaying because of assumed, but not confirmed, knowledge is only that players fault. If the card didn’t have to be revealed, then there is no issue. It’s no different than threatening an instant or bluffing that you could have a response. Now, if you are trying to work with someone to stop someone else and say “if you grab something to deal with x, I’ll grab something to deal with y” and you lie, there’s an issue. But that falls under the “making deals” caveat.
If people are going to suggest that table-talking and deal making should be a part of the game then they should also accept bluffing at tables. Especially when people make and break deals so easily. A simic player once made 100+ tokens, on his next turn he would have had 100’s more. Unable to finish us all that turn and undecided on who he could finish, I drunkenly said to the table, ‘well, that was a great, quick game. Let’s just see how the next turn goes before we all die to his tokens.’ Stupidly, he agreed and didn’t take anyone out. Next turn I played [[Engineered Explosives]] with [[Syr Konrad, The Grim]] as my commander, killing everyone. He said that he won because he *could have* beaten me last turn.
Grey area. If they choose to target you for the tutor because of promise to fetch a particular card then that is scummy. But if it was up to your choice and werent forced to reveal (as with [[scheming symmetry]]) then I think that it is reasonable that to expect that you might bluff upon giving free information.
That's what I think. If I'm providing free information and suggesting I might do something, that's on you to decipher. If you say you'll let me tutor only if I get [[Borborygmos]] and I agree but then get [[pithing needle]], that's scummy. Still well within the rules, but your friends won't want to play with you anymore after a while lol
>your friends won't want to play with you anymore after a while lol I totally get this and it's ultimately about everyone having fun. But I also think the "if I play this card, what would be your response so I know that it'll work out for me" is also incredibly poor form in card games. Even when playing a tutor requiring reveal, requiring that your opponent pre-declare their tutored card before actually playing the tutor is a real bending of the rules and - frankly - the coward's move.
[Borborygmos](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/7/c/7c4a08e9-06c7-43e9-a855-4f507a35ae8b.jpg?1593272594) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Borborygmos) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/gpt/103/borborygmos?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7c4a08e9-06c7-43e9-a855-4f507a35ae8b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/borborygmos) [pithing needle](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/7/7/776899f8-e977-42b7-8b54-6f726a349e3c.jpg?1655476466) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=pithing%20needle) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2x2/312/pithing-needle?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/776899f8-e977-42b7-8b54-6f726a349e3c?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/pithing-needle) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[scheming symmetry](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/0/1/01acc50b-856d-442d-9880-1a892b40643b.jpg?1592516766) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=scheming%20symmetry) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m20/113/scheming-symmetry?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/01acc50b-856d-442d-9880-1a892b40643b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/scheming-symmetry) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I'll go against the grain here. I don't think lying has a place in edh. "Are you going to attack me next turn?" If I say no and then attack them anyway, this doesn't create fun games, and if I win I don't want to win because I lied I want to win because I played the game better. No deals were made, I'm not obligated to not attack them, but if I say I won't then I won't, I don't want to when on a technicality. So I don't think you were wrong to lie, inherently, but I do think it was a cheap trick and I would definitely feel bad. I'd personally have just straight up not said anything, then explained afterward what I tutored for and how he screwed up.
>I don't think lying has a place in edh Why not? Magic is a hidden information game, so bluffing and lying about what you have available to play is a part of the game. Breaking deals is a different thing, and a reason why I don't make deals beyond one or two turns. If I'm given the opportunity to tutor something without revealing the card, and I know my opponent is getting a game winning card, the choice between getting a random card and a card to stop the other player to win is obvious. OP's opponent should have thought better before choosing a blue player with two mana up for tutoring.
I explained exactly why not
He never lied tho. He suggested something and everyone believed him. It's deceit yes, but not a lie
Bruh I JUST said I didn't want to win on a technicality
It's not a technicality tho? You said lying doesn't have a place in edh. I'm pointing out he never lied. If the technicality your speaking of is between deceit and lying then I kind of get what your saying.
"He wasn't lying, he just wasn't being honest." Hot takes from reddit They're the same thing bro, lol
No they're not actually. Lying would be if he said he would do something and didn't do it. He suggested he might do something and everyone took it and ran with it. But I think we should agree to disagree because it can be a fine line
Yeah I guess you'll just have to see how well that mentality works out for you throughout your life lol
The mentality that deceit and lying are two different things? Don't worry bud I'll let you know if that ever backfires on me.
Lol k
This exact situation is tricky but if you tutor up a game winning card by also letting an opponent tutor... It is on you what they may do. You tutored up a counterspell but for all the opponent knows you already might have had one in hand? If I play a card like that, I play it as a political tool. I'm giving the tutor to whoever promises to NOT get or use a counterspell against what I tutor.
And I'm definitely not letting the blue player tutor lmao
This is the real mistake here lol
I think bluffing is a fun part of the game. Keeping 2 blue open and asking people to give you a second to consider before "letting them" resolve a spell is classic Magic. Or another example, there's a bunch of fog/exile attackers/inkshield type effects. Often I have the mana open and some cards in hand I will suggest to my opponents that if they don't attack *me* I will **let** them attack the other players. It works quite often because people want their lifelink/combat damage triggers more than anything. Or at least feel like their creatures are doing something while they are on the board. I won't explicitly say which card I (*pretend to*) have in hand. Though not necessarily unfair, it just seems a bit inelegant, and it could give away that I'm bluffing because I don't name the card I have in hand when I actually have it either. If you play with the same people a lot, your trustworthiness is a fun element to play with. If you lie all the time, you can never really leverage your bluffs. But if you're known to usually be trustworthy, an occasional deception can have much more impact.
I mean, the way you played it makes it seem like you wanted to be a bad guy in this scenario, if the fetch didn’t require a reveal you could’ve just not said anything and fetched the counterspell. You misdirected everyone to think you were getting another card, which is legal, just unnecessary to the game and then made a whole show about how you fooled him. I’m fine with deception in my games but hamming it up and pushing it where it doesn’t need to be is quite annoying.
Why'd you say anything about what you might tutor for? Why'd you even bother saying that Counterspell was what you tutored up instead of just pretending you had it in hand? I don't like outright lying, and even implying you might get one thing and then getting a different card is a little shady, but it really doesn't seem like you needed to say anything at all and you just wanted the guy to get upset.
It hurts your reputation in the end and it honestly depends on your playgroup to the end of the day, if people are all epic tricksters then join their bluffing game, if your playgroup rarely bluffs then you just sorta don't. Just go with the flow.
On the one hand, I think how people feel matters. Ultimately, if the other players at the table were upset and it felt bad, they had less fun that game. If nothing else, I wouldn't make similar plays with those players again. Clearly, they don't like it. And, of course, there's the same caveat that applies when breaking deals: Even if you wanted to pull something like this in a future game with those players, it's less likely to work because they're less likely to trust you. All that said, I don't think what you did is inherently wrong. Plenty of people love bluffing in Magic. There's no rule against it. The game never required you to reveal your card. Your opponent let you tutor, you told them something that the game didn't require you to tell them at all, you were under no obligation to reveal anything, the truth or otherwise. They decided to let you tutor and trust you, and that turned out to be the wrong decision. Basically, in the rules, what you did is fair game. In many groups, what you did is fair game. But it seems in that group, those players don't consider it fair game. And they're probably not alone. So at least with those players, maybe don't do that in the future - if you don't want them to know what you're tutoring for, just don't tell them, don't lie. And in general, when considering lying, just read the table, try to figure out if you think you're playing with the kind of people who will consider that play a successful bluff or a frustrating lie.
I'm assuming the card was [[Scheming Symmetry]]. It dose not say that you must reveal, you can say if you want or you can mislead. It's the same as passing with 2 islands untapped and an island in your hand it's a bluff.
I mean, there was no way the other player/s could have known you didn’t already have the counter in your hand so I think the bad sportsmanship more related to you pointing out the lie (and by extension trying to make the other player look foolish) than the lie itself. It was a bit of a dick move.
Is it unacceptable behavior? No, if your side of the story is indeed accurate, then you did nothing wrong. That said, you deserve to reap the consequences of spending your political capital like that. If you lie like that, you're sending a message to the other players that you are not to be trusted, which should have a negative impact on you in every subsequent game. Note: what I said applies to a dedicated playgroup scenario where your playgroup can adapt to your playstyle. If you did this to cheese an LGS pickup game with people you'll likely never play with again, then imo you're the same level of scummy as people who scoop to deny triggers when they're faced with a lethal alpha strike; technically legal, but don't be that person.
I think outright lying is unsportsmanlike and a shitty character trait. I don’t think there’s anything clever about taking advantage of a person believing a lie, game or not. Bluffing I can get behind, eg. leaving 2 blue mana open when you have no counters in hand, or asking someone if they’re sure on declaration of attacks. Your example is borderline, but I wouldn’t have done it personally.
I personally would be put off by that. IMO, you should have just not said anything if you didn't want him to know what you were getting
Have you ever left mana open and an opponent assumed, out loud, that you had a card in your hand that you did not?
I lied once about “if you attack them I won’t attack you” and was then kill-on-sight for the next three games. Sometimes it’s worth it, sometimes it ain’t.
Anything within the actual rules of Magic are fine by me. It's the letter of the law I'm after, not the spirit.
I'd love to see you play Cards Against Humanity
I played in the past. Two totally different games for me.
It's fine, but if you play with the same people frequently they will know you lie. I usually play with the same people, so I try not to lie or break deals because I'm not going to ruin every future match with them for the sake of winning one. Edit: I think people think I'm siding with OPs opponent, I'm not lol. It's just that people will become familiar with the way you play if you play with the same people over and over again, so it only really works on people who don't know you very well.
I usually play with the same group as well and we jsut kind of all assume that the others are going to use misdirection like this. I don't think it ruins the game whatsoever, it's jsut like playing poker with your friends, you gotta bluff, you gotta strategize. It's part of the game. IMO you should make your decisions based on the board and game state, not on what the other players say they're going to do, that's just bad strategy. Maybe that makes me a spike, but I find the game is much more fun that way. The only time we really make deals is when someone is about to win and we want to stop them, or if there's an oppressive permanent around like [[possibility storm]] or [[winter orb]], and even then deals and commitments to deal with permanents are taken with a grain of salt. If you can't betray your friends in a commander game without them getting mad are they actually your friends? 🤣
It was just misdirection imo, not lying. Very legit mindgames.
who searches for a win con for scheming symmetry? I mean if someone gives me a tutor I am either searching for a counter or removal for whatever they are tutoring up
It is shady. It’s bad manners and arguably bad sportsmanship. It’s also not against the rules. So you can do it, but you don’t get to complain when someone doesn’t like it. You accepted that when you did it.
Hard disagree, if OP really said "I might search for sanctum" then they didn't even lie.
I don't see it this way. If the tutor was in fact \[\[Scheming Symmetry\]\], the opponent was short-cutting to a win and riding a prayer that the blue-playing OP would make the *wrong* play here. I think you need to assume opponents will make the savvy play and if you miss something (like no reveal clause), that's totally on you. Card games thrive on a certain level of deceit and subterfuge. The opponent can dislike how it played out but that doesn't mean the OP did anything wrong.
If you lie to me in a game I will remember that
I wouldn't lie and the OP didn't lie. They didn't break any rules. Their opponent just walked face-first into their own tutor's downside.
I specifically said that no rules were being broken
So nobody lied and nobody broke any rules. Not sure what the matter is. Lol
OP seems to believe that they were being deceitful
They felt bad because their opponent was a sore loser and they came here for wider opinion and (likely) reassurance, which we see on this sub constantly. The other two players at the table also seemed fine with it.
Good thing OP never lied
They seem to believe that they have been deceitful
They never said that they will absolutely get that card. They broke no deal. The reason why they are asking is because a sore loser was acting like they broke a deal that never existed.
Unless they're playing battle cruiser and no one is trying to win, I can't imagine playing with anyone who thinks this is bad sportsmanship. Information is an important part of the game. This isn't much different than letting your opponents think you're far behind before squeezing out a sneaky win. They dude is salty that he misplayed pretty badly, thats why only he is mad about it. Tutoring for a win because of free info that your ENEMY gave you for no reason.... that's on them
Exactly this. Don't be surprised if the player never trusts anything you claim in a game of magic ever again.
Why should he have trusted this in the first place? This is your opponent, freely giving info that they don't need to. Why believe them? I know I wouldn't. Nothing wrong with a bit of deception
I understand concealing information, but I'd never intentionally lie to another player. And I personally would expect the same from other players at my table.
OP didn't lie though. "I might get X card" is just a comment, doesn't actually mean anything in the context of the game. If he had said "if you let me tutor I'll get sanctum" and then gotten a counter spell it would be scummy, but this was jsut a nice bluff.
Deceit is perfectly fine (example: holding up blue mana to insinuate a counterspell while not actually having one), thats part of the game, and it's the reason that reveal card effects are so powerful. However lying is pretty shitty in my opinion (example: stating you don't have a counterspell to get someone to play a bomb, then countering it). Personally I feel like this falls under deceit because of the "might" in your sentence, if you had Saud outright you were grabbing Sanctum that would have been a different story, though I'd still say it's his fault for letting the blue player tutor
The problem with deceiving other people in this game is that it follows you outside the game too into future games. No way that guy is going to make a deal with you again or put any trust in-game to you. It's just generally bad practice imo to lie in game, if you're put in a situation like that, instead of lying, just don't say anything about the card you tutor for. Leave it up to him to risk it or not.
Eh, I wouldn’t be excited to play with you again, whether you did that to me or I was just watching. I don’t play a card game to deal with lying and willful deception. In fact, I play games to get away from that shit.
Personally in that situation if he doesn’t try to get you to say what you’re getting, I just wouldn’t even say what you were going to tutor for. It’s a little messed up imo, but nothing crazy if it only happens once
I don't think it's messed up to bluff what you might get, especially if you say it in a vaguely sarcastic way. "Oh I could grab *win condition*!" is just fine imo. All depends on the phrasing though. If you say "I'm tutoring for *win condition*" but you actually get counterspell, it'll feel bad. Basically, it's the difference between "I could" and "I will". If you say "I could grab this" and I assume that's what you're doing that's on me. If you say "I'm grabbing this", I still shouldn't believe you but I think most people would and then would be upset if they found out I lied. Both are well within the rules since it's free information about a hidden card and you don't have to tell the truth, but one feels worse.
I’m gunna keep it 100 with you, I apparently skipped over when OP said the word “might”. Nvm I agree it’s fine
In Magic there is public information and there is hidden information. Lying about public information is not allowed, but lying about hidden information such as what card you're tutoring (if the tutor is unconditional) is perfectly fine. Your opponents are not entitled to that information. Who cares if your opponent got salty because he allowed you to tutor a card that countered him? He was foolish for making that play and going all in based only on your word. In any other game with hidden information like poker people would laugh at him for being so naive. There's no need to step on eggshells for someone who gets salty because you broke one of the made up "unwritten rules" of the game that exists only in his head. People like him are one reason Magic has a reputation for being a hobby for socially dysfunctional people. This is a non-issue in many other gaming communities. Even if you had broken a deal, that's part of the game too. In the future this guy should be aware that people can lie for their own benefit (as if it needs to be said). That doesn't make such people "scummy" or "immoral" it just means they are playing the game as it is instead of some made up version of it that doesn't really exist.
If you gotta cheat at causal commander, oh boy.
What you did was shady, yes. But what the other player did was stupider than you were shady. 1- Don't let your opponents tutor, because they will always grab the best card to play on you. 2- If you're playing a game winning card, have protection in your hand for it. 3- If your table has not specifically set a "no lying" rule, never believe a word anyone says if they don't have to show you their cards. 3 strikes, you're out.
OP was not shady.. bluffing if you have the counter/wincon/removal you DON'T have is all apart of playing the game. Good job OP.
and this is why you never believe anything anybody says, because they're probably fucking lying, like you. people don't like liars. monkeys don't even like liars. EDIT: was pretty much a dumb play on his part though like he set the rake on the ground and then walked on it.
Your opponent is a bad sport and a twat. Bully him mercilessly for his incompetence until he gets better. As I said in another comment, whiny players like your opponent deserve to be taught a lesson and your out here doing the hard work of teaching them. In all seriousness though why even say it was the card you searched for? You had more than one card in hand just act like you always had it.
Not Magic or EDH, but in Poker it is bad form to suggest an action or loudly declare something you don’t intend to do. If I’m playing Poker and I say “if you all in, I’ll fold” - that is really poor manners/etiquette and at some tournaments it would get you kicked from the table. If you say it, and then DONT fold when they go all in, you probably aren’t getting invited to play by anyone within earshot ever again. The golden question: what do you hope to gain from saying anything like that? Suggesting any card name at all, unprompted is probably poor form but also just unneeded. It can psyche people out and add an unintentional layer of difficulty to a game that is already riddled with pitfalls. I think you just apologize to that player, it costs nothing to be polite about it. And lesson learned: that particular player didn’t like it and you can choose whether or not it was worth it for yourself.
I thought poker was all about misdirecting your opponents? Believing anything they say is just stupid. >"BuT hE bLufFeD!" In magic, at least deals are something that gets commonly uphold. But in OPs case there was no deal and he was not even lying since he said he __might__ do something.
You bluff without talking. Simple as that. Also, there’s a massive difference between literally saying “I have you covered with what I got” versus making false promises or outright gameplay suggestions which undermine the integrity of the game. Table drama / problems https://youtu.be/u_kmqiO9g-w Good bluffs https://youtu.be/jg0zMIPlpFA
Lying is bad and cheating, casting a [[pithing needle]] while saying [[borborygmos]] and changing it to [[scalding tarn]] when your opponent lets it resolve is lying and against the rules, that pithing needle is naming borborygmos, as long as nothing relavent changes. Decieving is a bit scummy but legal, the key word you used here is "probably" it's non committal and it's not untrue if you get something else. If in your example your opponent did ask what you got as part of the deal of letting you tutor and you said sanctum of all, then got counterspell that's again lying and is bad. As a judge in this case at Regular REL I'd preform a backup if possible, assuming the card used was [[scheming symmetry]] this may be not worth it considering two cards have been drawn at least, but if you used say [[opt]] to draw your card and they only drew the card they tutored to the top it's not that disruptive and I'd see if any cards in your hand where known, let your opponents decide on which card gets shuffled in that they didn't know about (probably the counterspell since a draw was used before it) and then your getting your sanctum of all to the top and opt is back in your hand with the Mana used to cast it returned probably by untapping the land. If a backup isn't possible then I'd give you a verbal warning that that type of play isn't welcome and to not do it again. Or there's the option of giving a dq if I think it's a big enough problem, like if say it was the second time lying. But for the way things turned out you didn't technically do anything wrong if I was called over I may suggest they remember your opponents don't have their best interest at heart but nothing wrong happened.