Should BLUFFING Be Allowed In TCGs?!

[@williamfalls]

Coder: "I don't know how to explain settle the wreckage to Yu-Gi-Oh players." _proceeds to describe Mirror Force_

[@heyyou9903]

Thats what i was thinking

[@Picmanreborn]

I was thinking the same thing😂😂😂😂

[@zerodono]

Well, a banishing Mirror Force that gives your opponent a resource

[@skyhorizon6860]

​@@zerodonoblack sonic?

[@zerodono]

@@skyhorizon6860 That works too, though it is generic. The only thing missing is giving your opponent a resource as well, since White cards pretty much always do that on their removal spells.

[@redxnightwalker]

if people are allowed to read your opponent and make moves based on their opponent's physical responses then they should also be allowed to fall for people faking those responses. Don't blame the other person

[@quint2568]

Exactly. Me swapping a card to the other hand every time they summon doesn't mean I'm baiting them. Just keeping a count.

[@Diomenesx]

My counterpoint. The opponent is burdened by the existence of the bluff and must now process additional information that otherwise they would not have to add into the mental stack (Why does he have swordsoul tokens out? Is he fucking woth me? This doesnt seem like a swordsoul deck.. but maybe he teched in a swordsoul package i havent seen), even choosing to ignore the tokens is a burden. The opponent didn't ask to see the tokens, they were added by the other player to add a burden of information to the opponent. Blaming them for trying to draw conclusions from information they didn't ask for is not correct for me, imo.

[@ShinkuDragon]

@@Diomenesx if you're sitting across an opponent with a 5 card hand, you're already burdened by every possibility that exists. everything the opponent does, from sighing when he draws a card to setting one face down can be a bluff. a good player (of anything, not specifically YGO) should be able to distinguish or attempt to distinguish what the opponent is doing. otherwise why sit at the same table. just put each player against a screen of their opponent's board. and keep them in different rooms.

[@esseubot]

This is pretty much the entire point. The other person should be the one to consider what reactions are genuine or not. Calling this cheating is completelly absurd.

[@patrickdix772]

Yeah, not having watched the actual video, but reading comments (the joys of watching a 4 year old and not wanting to risk language) I immediately thought "bluffing is like half the tactics in any tcg with any kind of hidden mechanics". You never know what's in the hand or any facedown cards (though you do usually know if the facedown card is either a monster / creature or a trap). Body language, choices made, and what you say without lying all are part of the game. Like there was a video on the Card Market MtG channel, playing with the special top 4 MtG tournament decks they used release. One deck had a card that (iirc) did damage based on the number of instant and sorcery cards the opponent had in their hand. When the opponent played Fact or Fiction (you draw five cards and your opponent splits them into 2 piles, then you choose which pile you get in your hand), they got a 5 to 0 split, bluffing that he had the damage dealing card. He didn't, but knowing it was in the deck bought an extra turn when he was in a bad position.

[@booboothefool840]

What I've learned from this whole debacle is that people genuinely believe there's no difference between "bluffing" and straight up lying

[@Shifterbestcard]

I did this back in xsabers day. was never a problem back in the day, new age kids are just snowflakes

[@booboothefool840]

​@@Shifterbestcard no one asked sis

[@BanditTools]

@@ShifterbestcardPersonally I like winning through my skill and not having to rely on underhanded tactics, but that’s just me.

[@hibarikyoya854]

I'd get my ass banned so fast because I keep forgetting what card does what so I keep checking my face downs

[@EmptyHerse]

​@Phoenix-ff4le bluffing is a skill. Are you saying that poker players have no skill? The game is all about bluffing. Cheating is vastly different from bluffing

[@Jolfgard]

Okay, so MBT already made a call to talk this through with the head judge. Now we get the head judge's perspective.

[@zexionfan15]

Only finding this video and comment now - is there an MBT video of this? I want to see the head judge's perspective.

[@dorianpeyrat8568]

The point about being allowed to look through your sideboard in MTG but not in yugioh is a bit different because in MTG there are cards that let you add a card from your sideboard into your hand. It could still be considered a bluff if youre not playing those cards but if you are imo its closer to looking through your extra deck in yugioh.

[@sam7559]

Yeah so it's basically like real early yugioh where you can have a 15 extra of fusions that you are likely never using but there is the possibility you do.

[@Mernom]

​@@sam7559Real early YGO had no limit on the fusion deck.

[@TehFoamy]

I feel like there are two comments on the original video that should really be stressed, and I'll quote them here. "I feel like one of the problems with calling what LSV and Andrés did cheating or even unsporting is that it only works because your opponent is actively trying to gain information outside of what is available based on the rules of the game, which is arguably the same thing." "Someone trying to next level you with free info is gaming the system more than a player who is misleading those looking to leverage misinformation. In a sense, the ability to mislead makes such information unreliable, thereby putting the game back to a state of uncertainty."

[@zackolot]

Gorz is a good example of how skillful bluffing existed in Yugioh. If you have 3 cards in hand but not a great out to your opponent's board (in 2009-2012 formats), then simply passing turn without setting or summoning anything is a good way to bluff Gorz when all you want is an extra turn to draw. On the other hand, if you know your opponent has an easy way to pop a spell/trap, then setting a spell is an easy way to bluff you don't have a Gorz (since they think that the spell was a bluffed trap and stop considering Gorz). Gorz was basically Nibiru back then since it could out a lot of the strongest effect monsters and steal wins.

[@ZackSparks]

For clarification, everyone has acces to each others decklists in competitive magic, so the other guy knew there was ONE COPY of settle the wreckage, he had both options open, and chose to act as if going for/heavily considering one play over another.

[@raphaelmckerley5912]

This is not true. Open decklists are not standard for tournaments in general. A lot of the game is figuring out what your opponent is playing. People google eachother's names at events in order to find out what decks they're practiced with.

[@ZackSparks]

@raphaelmckerley5912 the pro tour which is where this was played is literally open decklist, lots of high end magic has open decklists

[@Captain_Wasabi]

@@raphaelmckerley5912 well this is not a "standard" tournament (although it's in the Standard format LMAO), it's a Pro Tour, like one of the hardest tournaments of the year right behind the World Championship

[@Humstuck]

@@raphaelmckerley5912 op clearly was not talking about bum fuck nowhere competitive magic. clearly it was about the video so you arguing about it not being standard is kind of waste of time. its clearly identified as pro tour. if you dont know the rules about the pro tour, thats one thing but i think you might know if you want to bring that difference.

[@2LettersSho]

And that's the kinda lame truth of this whole event, both players are fully aware of the possibilities and the whole "bluff" was done mostly for a bit of fun and for the camera. LSV and Dezani are excellent players, they've known each other a long time and Dezani was definitely aware of Settle being an option. So Dezani's trying to make the best play they can, trying to figure out which line leads to victory most often and they decide, "if I don't attack with everything, I'm giving up tempo and losing on board, I think my best chance to win is jamming for damage." If LSV has the Settle, attacking everything into it is game over like we saw but if he doesn't attack with everything, LSV will win just making the token and playing whatever other random cards; that's a far more likely outcome. Dezani is simply playing to their outs, in the game, the bluffing didn't change anything. This wasn't an, "OMG he didn't know about the blowout!", it's a pretty regular, "if he has it, he has it". So what was the point of all the showmanship? LSV's just being a goofball. Sure, it's the top 8 of a massive tournament but that doesn't mean we can't have some fun. Both players have been here before, they know what they're doing. LSV is a really popular player, likes cracking jokes, has friends on the coverage team he wants to mess with too; having fun playing the game they love. And for Dezani, the bluffing doesn't change anything about the game. He's thinking about Settle, he knows Luis is thinking about Settle (whether he had it or not) while doing all this nonsense. As Coder said, "If I had something to stop battle, I still would calculate the damage just to know how much I WOULD take." In fact, LSV's showboating, if anything, made Dezani think about Settle even more compared to a regular poker face.

[@Mimagito]

I immediately knew the ruling guy would touch on this topic sooner or later. If anything, I'm surprised it took this long for this part of the stream to go on KZbin.

[@lanji21]

The biggest reason why bluffing and mind-games is more accepted in Magic is we have a whole color devoted to misinformation and shenanigans. It's blue we have spent years upon years use to instant speed shenanigans. In Yugioh that's more a slow play and delay of game kind of situation. Yugioh you have to have clear and concise language of thinking or answering affirmtive or negative to something resolving. In Magic players often leave mana up to provide misinformation to make opponents think there is a combat trick and or some kind of counter play available. Yugioh especially in major tournaments you're expected to maintain an accurate game state.

[@animalchin5082]

19:00 is funny considering dozens of ex and current pro mtg players also play poker professionally. Magic is a lot like Poker since decks aren't as search and consistency driven like ygo decks,so considering the outs left in your deck and the best way to dig for them is often key. As well as bluffing of course, you can represent having certain types of interaction/handtraps much more than in ygo by leaving mana of certain amounts/colours open.

[@sarthakarora3212]

magic allows bluffing most other battle card games do not.

[@kennypk]

When i used to play irl yugioh in like 07 it was how youre describing it. Checking gy for mirror forces torrnlentials and solemns etc. counting darks to see if they could make a DAD play. Bluffinf made the game fun. Like setting heavystorm to make opp think they were safe to set cards, or setting a dead card and the one you want to keep but always checking the dead card at points of interaction to bait an MST.

[@satansamael666]

Which to me never made sense to me about ygo. Like if the game rides on such fragile rules and tight bans, the game’s rules are clearly problematic and something has to be restructured. In Magic, all you need to balance a card is adjusting costs and for that bans are quite few and far between. Rules change happen so rarely that it’s a historical event if it happens. In ygo, the exact opposite happens because there’s just no fundamentally easy way to do balancing. This extends even to card designs where Magic card designs can be far more ambitious without being problematic immediately and ygo has cards that end up feeling very boring because we’ve seen them so many times.

[@sinfthedruid5153]

@@sarthakarora3212 almost all battle card games allow bluffing. Idk where you are getting this. This is an issue that's pretty exclusive to ygo and is just another reason it's bad. Other games also don't typically have rules and setups that allow you to kill on the first legal combat turn because most of them have heard of the word "balance" before. It's like I always say, if you're smooth brained, play ygo, if not, play literally anything else. Konami hates strategy and loves brainless gameplay so it's not gonna change anytime soon. If you want a game with strategy, play an adult game. If not, play ygo.

[@memeswithcringe1624]

@@sinfthedruid5153alright, I’m interested, what kind of strategy does MtG have that YGO doesn’t? Genuinely asking

[@MrBones-td6qn]

Illegal activations have absolutely nothing to do with shrugging your shoulders when you draw a card or asking your opponent "how many summons was that" while you have cards in hand and tokens off to the side.

[@xerralordfemboy3663]

I agree I feel like his really Is stretching for a reason that the play is scummy when it's not it's smart

[@gavinbarnard2220]

in MTG Arena you are even allowed to "bluff" having an activeable card by holding CTRL and holding priority even when you have none, or an empty hand. This will give a similar look like a player has an activeable Ash or such in hand.

[@johnwoodard7963]

Toggle Andy over here

[@omegacxv8344]

no way, I just thought about picking it up and giving it a try, but that shit would genuinely make me reconsider

[@joebradburnii]

EXACTLY! Yes! This is such a great way to show that the bluffing game is just as much a part of mtg as a game as playing any card!

[@gavinbarnard2220]

@@omegacxv8344 you have *much* less turn time in MTG Arena. The timers to play / respond are much shorter. You can only "rope" for so long in MTG Arena before a literal rope starts burning to let you know you'll auto pass the action. You get 3 ropes, if you burn all 3 ropes you lose the match (if might be remembering wrong, but i think that's what happens). A turn in MTG is usually 30 seconds or less.

[@neonoah3353]

But in yugioh you cant do that if you dont have a card you can activate in the moment you would be asked for a response. The bluff you can do in yugioh is the opposite, you can say you dont have a card in response to make it seem like you dont have a response, and when the moment where you want to play something, you activate what you have in response. For example, me in my dlv max duel, in a luna mirror, let my opponent play as if i had nothing, then when they went for game i activated wight princess to make so i would survive, and then they gave up since i would just have gane on my turn.

[@EnderPryde]

13:07 To expand on this: not only can players look in their sideboards during a game of Magic - there are cards that specifically allow you to add cards from your sideboard to your hand in the middle of a game. Wishes are so much fun! In a weird way, the MTG sideboard *is* the Yugioh extradeck, for some builds - it's a toolbox players go to to solve some specific problem they find themselves in, or to grab a combo piece they don't want just sitting in their deck for Lobotomy purposes.

[@mvanmourik02]

Great example of this is modern tron with Karn the great creator

[@la8ball]

They have a couple of cards that allow you to play as many copies of this itself from your side deck and put it into play. Deck copy limit is 4. Not many people use those type of cards.

[@CommonFolkYugioh]

You can’t tell me you’ve never bricked going second, told opponent enter battle phase, end battle phase to infer you are holding Evenly. I’ve had a scoop or two because of that.

[@rhysjonsmusic]

It's been a hot minute but I definitely remember an interact where I was playing some sort of card of demise deck and so I set my entire hand and activated card of demise, the opponent imediately scooped. What the opponent didn't know was that the cards I set were for whatever reason absolute dog ass and I was desperately for better cards and if they had stayed at the table they probably couldve won

[@bloodarcher7841]

I haven’t cause im not a scumbag… and I rather not risk being disqualified by lying…

[@CommonFolkYugioh]

@@bloodarcher7841 it’s a card game. We all know most of the staples. If I enter BP and say, End BP, and you scoop, you have no faith in yourself of your deck. I’m just going through my phases, any information you think you may have or not have is all worthless inference. It’s definitely not cheating. If I set a card in my spell and trap zone, should I get DQ’d because i’m hoping you think it’s a trap and will respect my board a little more? Is that that the point of a strategy game is to be smarter and get luckier than your opponent?

[@Ephra_wangai]

​@bloodarcher7841 that's not lying, you literally just announce the phases you go through. If your opponent infers anything else on that then that's on them. You haven't lied by giving any false info, all you've done is stated game phases you go through.

[@omarp3066]

@@bloodarcher7841imagine thinking this is lying. It’s a game mechanics to say battle phase. You never say “I have evenly, battle phase?”

[@arkadarkartist]

Reminds me of the previous ygo drama of "legal cheating". I mean, even master duel has an option to "bluff" that you don't have interaction, but I feel that's the specific direciton it works: You can HIDE your interactions but not SHOW interactions that don't exist, and that's why we can report slowplay lol

[@Picmanreborn]

Toggling off isn't exactly bluffing. You're just saying you're not going to do anything😂 it's the same as having a brain fart and zoning out mid duel because you can miss timing

[@arkadarkartist]

@@Picmanreborn Of course just toggling off isn't the bluff, duh. The bluff is that you use the hold mode to change instantly from off to on/auto when you deem it necessary, while your opponent played his previous moves seeing you "had no interaction" but, in fact, you had.

[@blaze41]

@@arkadarkartist yea i've definitely held cards like dd crow with toggle off until the 5th special summon to bluff nib, sometimes stopping them from over-extending

[@StripedJacket]

You can put “bluff” stops in magic arena (like master duel of magic) so it’s just two different rules for the games. It’s like setting it to “on” even if you have no real response and it actually works. So false interactions exist in

[@stevennguyen1586]

@@arkadarkartist If you have no proper response, masterduel wont allow you to interact...because you have no legal play. Switching from off to on/auto isnt a bluff either, if you do not want to chain onto the previous steps BUT want to do so on the other steps AND you HAVE a legal interaction that is fine. EX: PLayer 1: activates drytron nova, Player 2 has ash but chooses to say ok and let it go, and when player 1 makes a drytron fafnir then player 2 decides to think because he has ash...you are ALLOWED to do this. It's different when you try to fake you have an interaction that you DO NOT have, masterduel wont allow you to rope a player. Its the same reason you get sharked for "thinking" when you clearly dont have a play.

[@sagekoko69420]

The magic YGO comparison doesn't really work for the pen trick because most of your resources that do anything on your opponents turn are in hand. The pen trick in Magic is better equated to setting spell card in your backrow then looking at it when the oponet is getting ready to end mp1 as if to telegraph that it's an evenly or battle trap.

[@quint2568]

Which is entirely fine. Ive counted the number of dark monsters in my graveyard to see how they respond

[@ghost-iv8gt]

hate to be the bearer of bad news but double checking a facedown card on the field is not cheating

[@sagekoko69420]

@@ghost-iv8gt the pen trick isn't cheating either, which is why it's a better comparison.

[@Nilmur2]

i think the reason you can look at cards from your sideboard midgame in magic is because there are cards such as lesson cards that can pull cards from anywhere but are limited to sideboard for tournament play.

[@joplin4434]

they are not limited, you can main deck them. But there are cards that allow you to search from the sideboard. Lessons work this way were any "learn" ability lets you discard to draw a card or add one lesson from your sideboard to your hand

[@Nilmur2]

@@joplin4434 that was me wording my sentence poorly, i believe i intended to say limited to search sideboard only, but then changed what i was going to say.

[@marcorodriguez8792]

There is nothing wrong with bluffing. If your opponent falls for it, then its on them. If they didn't, well your opponent was able to read you like a book or better luck next time

[@Envy_May]

i don't know if this is actually a "hot" take but i feel like you SHOULD be allowed straight-up lie about private information, i mean - it's PRIVATE information for a reason, it's your responsibility whether or not you trust what your opponent says about it

[@TJackson736]

​@Envy_May There are times where lying about private information would break the rules of the game. If I have a card that banishes a called name from your hand and/or deck and you lie saying it isnt there, then that is cheating.

[@Envy_May]

@@TJackson736 that's not technically private information, is it ? i mean you're keeping SOME of it private but the implication is that part of it, like whether or not you have the aforementioned thing, is technically public information, you just can't VERIFY it, because if you did you'd also have to reveal private information - i feel like that's an important distinction

[@SventFulgur]

The thing with the token bluff is that if the attacks were not something that needed to cast Settle making a token was a valid play to gradually build to the board because he still wins the long game.

[@creepinator4587]

12:10 I feel like allowing plays like these can actually decrees the overall effect of outside factors on the game. If players aren't allowed to use the "pen trick" to bluff no interaction, then you could look at if the opponent reaching for a pen as a hint for if they have interaction. Where as if you're aware it could potentially be a bluff you kind of need to disregard that information as potential misdirection. Like wise, if you see that an opponent's deck box doesn't have a token in it, and deduce the opponent isn't playing swordsoul, that's outside factors influencing the game. Where as if bluffing with tokens in a deck box was an acknowledged part of the game then players would need to disregard outside factors as potential misdirection. Seing the lack of a token is just as much outside info influencing the game as seeing a false token

[@ghost-iv8gt]

incredibly well said. unfortunately neither coder nor any of his viewers will agree with you

[@serenitysilvermoon]

@@ghost-iv8gt Coder himself said that the match starts from the time pairing are announced and ends when the match slip is signed. The difference here is once the shuffling starts he's not treating the players are part of the game, just the cards.

[@scythermantis]

@@ghost-iv8gt This was a good comment though bringing some balance to the discussion

[@OrdemDoGraveto]

Its rare for the "pen trick" or anything similar to work in high level competitive Magic for that reason. This only worked in the pro tour because everything aligned. And the oponent didnt just atacked because he thoughy the token was the only posibility. He did consider the wreck, but made a decision based on what was more likely, since the guy had just one in the list. Picking the token in hand is what sold the bluff, and thats why it was a good move.

[@reinatheomni-panda7028]

"Duelists may not place any game element in a way that would intentionally mislead their opponent..."

[@larv23]

Nobody knows intent until you admit it yourself. I could use Sky Striker Token and Sleeve up the extra too till the cows come home but the second I say in any way "This Striker stuff is bait" is when probable cause can be used and the line is crossed.

[@reinatheomni-panda7028]

​@@larv23 I'm not so much speaking to the Torres situation, moreso to the hypothetical of if Yu-Gi-Oh tournament policy was applied to LSV's Settle the Wreckage play. Picking up the token and even almost putting it down on the board, making it clear that "I am thinking about this action" but then not really - to me, that becomes "placing a game element to intentionally deceive". I don't agree that "nobody knows intent until you admit it". I think you can infer intention to deceive from what happened, but I also understand that that becomes difficult to adjudicate and up to subjective interpretation by a judge, so maybe you end up not penalizing him for it on the basis of plausible deniability. Had he said something like "I did this to make Jérémy think I didn't have it", then the situation becomes identical to Torres where there is a clear admission of intent and he would be penalized under that rule.

[@brofst]

@@reinatheomni-panda7028 of course he intended to mislead his opponent about token vs settle the wreckage. The point is that "I am going to play settle the wreckage once you declare attackers" is not part of the game state, so it's perfectly fine to misrepresent that.

[@brofst]

He made no argument about mulligans or anything, of course it matters what your opponent *thinks* you're playing. He's not saying it doesn't provide an advantage to know, just that it's not at all illegal to try to misdirect your opponent.

[@Bronymonster44]

20:03 Yes, you kinda can. If my opponent only has monsters that are all unaffected by card effects, I CAN still play something like Raigeki despite them being immune to it.

[@U.F.O]

That has nothing to do with Raigeki, though. The ruling specifically involves the card having it's intended effect. In that instance, Raigeki IS doing what it's supposed to. It's hitting every monster on your opponent's field, and trying to destroy them. If your opponent's cards are immune, that has nothing to do with Raigeki. In contrast, you can't activate Raigeki at all if your opponent controls no monsters, because Raigeki can't apply it's effect properly if there's nothing to hit.

[@tariik.h]

Bluffing is even integrated in the Magic online client Arena. You can activate Full Control Mode that will stop the game at a time where you could potentially play a card even if you don't have any card that you would be able to play at the given moment. So you can use that bluff to pretend you habe a combat trick or a counterspell even if you don't have one. By activating and deactivating Full Control Mode quickly at certain points of time during a turn, you can even pretend the type of card that you are bluffing. Basically it's part of competitive play on Arena to bluff these kinds of interactions.

[@jjay2771]

Master Duel and Duel Links both have the same feature of auto, off or manual card response; used exactly the same way to bluff. This rule is honestly so dumb sometimes. I regularly play with older sleeves like Red Eyes or Dark Magician on newer decks; no problems. If I said I was using them to try and trick people I was playing those old decks though, illegal. I use other tokens too its just if I tried showing them off to trick people that is a problem.

[@HaikBoyadjian2]

Honestly tho sometimes I just enable full control to remind myself at certain times when i need activate an effect like armored scrapgorger to exile a card from their gy. because if i don't click enable. it'll gloss over that and proceed to my draw. And im sitting here like why the hell did you not give me the option at the end step.

[@novvaplays4980]

with the side deck thing, in mtg there are cards that specifically interact with the side board, so it's not exactly comparable

[@cruces1713]

This is an awful ruling from Konami. Using the wrong token isnt illegal so Andreas didnt do anything illegal. Cheating requires intent but it also requires an illegak action. By definition Andreas didnt cheat. Konami should learn what their words mean and stop banning people for bullshit reasons

[@_Vengeance_]

As far as I'm concerned: it's fine to bluff about secret information, it's wrong to bluff about public information. Take Nibiru as an example: counting Special Summons to bluff it being in your hand is fine, but miscounting Special Summons would be wrong (naming 4 on the 3d Special Summon to bluff your opponent into stopping sooner, for example).

[@brofst]

"bluffing public information" is just lying/cheating, that's exactly what misrepresenting game state means. I wouldn't even call it bluffing. I'm 100% agreed with your that private information is NOT game state and therefore bluffing is fine there.

[@seandun7083]

Definitely agree. That's why this example of an MTG play is generally considered fine by the community but someone hiding a Dryad arbor among their lands led to a rule change to prevent people from doing that.

[@omarp3066]

@@brofstexcept somehow counting summons CORRECTLY is actually cheating because you’re misrepresenting the game state saying you have Nibiru. I find this ridiculous

[@daltronius]

See i think magic and yugioh differ mainly due to how big a difference one mistake is between them, in magic you can make a mistake many times and still come back, in yugioh any mistake can potentially end the game on the spot

[@RavenCloak13]

That's 100% the only difference as even the mana cost doesn't matter. Also the thing is unlike MtG, Yugioh lets you use the cards from years back.

[@Curiouzity_Omega]

Amen. So many cards can end the game on its own.

[@Nolandiscool]

I enjoy the micro mind games such as "dropping your shoulders after a draw" or "picking up a card on reaction to a play your opponent does that doesn't effect the game state at all". But, MTG and Yugioh are two different games with two different rulebooks. If its okay to trick with a token as long as you don't tell someone that you're trying to trick them, then do it. But, you must also suffer the consequences if you know that its something that the specific card game you're playing looks down upon.

[@VoidBL]

Might as well give them your deck list. If your entire game is decided on a token then you're probably just bad at the game.

[@Nolandiscool]

@@VoidBL it’s not even that. If these people are fooled by a token sitting on top of an extra deck, than they need to stop thinking so hard. At any rate the whole thing is funny

[@ArborusVitae]

@@VoidBL A lot of high level magic events do give the opponent your decklist.

[@FlareBlossom]

​@@NolandiscoolI'm a ygo player and I absolutely agree

[@RavenCloak13]

This requires people need to know the rules. People don't know the rules in Yugioh and now the Duel Academy in GX becomes less and less of a joke when you need to remember so many cards, card wording and dueling etiquette just to do a match at a tourney.

[@foxoninetails_]

I'm sorry, but no, in no world was this an unfair play and most of the comparisons you made don't hold up under scrutiny. 1) Magic tournaments run on open decklists. His opponent knew full well the StW was in his deck, and that the possibility of it coming out was there. 2) The play he bluffed was entirely legal and on-board, with no hidden or incorrect information involved. 3) The bluff he made did not misrepresent the game state - it only misrepresented _how he intended to change_ the game state. Those are two very different things. It's fundamentally the same as faking a tell in poker. If your opponent plans to watch for that kind of external information in the hopes of gaining an advantage, they get to deal with the potential consequences of you exploiting that to foil their expectations. To call that "cheating" is ridiculous and is the actual bad sportsmanship in this situation.

[@desertrat166]

Only issue is there are adults that are acting like children so there is no point in arguing against them 😂

[@poxy1000]

There are so many cards out there that have the basic purpose of confusing your opponent, the WHOLE PURPOSE of setting cards face-down is to hide your intentions. bluffing should DEFFINITELY be allowed, and I encourage people to start doing it.

[@Zetact_]

There's a difference between bluffing using the mechanics and bluffing by attempting to misrepresent the game state, and the latter is not allowed. Setting cards as a bluff is not misrepresenting the game state because it is strictly mechanical. If you set a Spell as a bluff that's one thing but if you keep glancing at a normal spell during the opponent's turn that you have no means of activating with the intent to make the opponent THINK it's a Trap that's deliberate. If you try and oversell it you might get suspected of slow play but if you outright state, "I wanted him to think I had a Trap to influence his decisions" then that's an admission of going against the rules. The act of setting the card is fine, but trying to oversell it as something it isn't is breaking the rules and if a player admits that was the intent then it is admission of deliberately performing actions that are outright classified as Unsporting Conduct.

[@Justicetom21]

Here's the thing that I think a lot of people are losing in this comparison: Both plays were entirely possible, and maybe even good options, and either option was worth considering. Let's say I side a single copy of Mirror Force in my TCG decklist as a meme. I set a single card in the backrow and pass with DPE on the field. My opponent can either attack with everybody, winning instantly, or attack with just two guys, to avoid losing instantly to Mirror Force but not doing any damage because I can DPE pop the backrow to take out one of their guys. I look at the card in the backrow once or twice while they're making that decision, silently. The question the opponent is asking is "do I play around Mirror Force?". This is the same question they have to ask regardless of my actions. The question I am asking is "Do I have an out to this?" when I look at my backrow. What LSV did is barely an actual bluff, because considering the possibilities of both lines - it IS Mirror Force, and attacking with everybody loses instantly, or it's just nothing and I can use it for my obvious, on-board play - is... just playing normally. They are considering both of my potential options, and I am considering both of my potential options. I am not introducing a mystical third option into the gamestate by, for example, showing a swordsoul token.

[@arthurrosa9403]

Yeah, the only part where it would be punishble was if you had a mirror force and kept asking for time to think and looking at it during the main phase. Looking at your cards in play is ok, but in yugioh you can't manipulate you opponent's cards or cards outside of play for no reason.

[@mistervader]

@@arthurrosa9403in the case of Magic, there was a plausible reason to grab the token - it was a legal play to make one, and doing combat math is a sound way to be thorough with your play. It might signpost that combat WILL happen, but that doesn’t mean it absolutely won’t.

[@arthurrosa9403]

@@mistervader Yeah, I was specifically referring to YuGiOh. Magic you can even check sideboard during the game because of some very old cards that allow you to interact with it.

[@arthurrosa9403]

@@mistervader I must add people underestimate how much this is bad for the game. Maquiavel said "if one can do it, it's part of the game"(paraphrasing). Just like if you allow steroids, you just forced all the competitors to take it. Then we have Chess, which holds it's position in the western imaginary, and Go in Asia. they are so prominent and respected because there are no excuses, it's pure game skill. While Poker is seen as something dirty. So YuGiOh tries to steer away from that, as do most other cardgames, while Magic ,which doesn't, was taken by poker players.

[@mistervader]

@@arthurrosa9403 I can't say I agree with that, respectfully. The thing is, anything can be construed as a bluff. From the color of your sleeves, to the presence OR absence of certain tokens in your deck box, to how you react when you draw a card, all things you may consciously or unconsciously do can be construed as a tell. So where is the line drawn between a tell and a bluff? Intentionality? But even within the rules, playing a Slow spell in your second row is a legal play, yet it's often done obviously to bluff a Trap card or something relevant. This isn't like rules lawyering or some person being obtuse about the rules like presenting their deck for you to cut when they're about to lose a match and you absent-mindedly walk into a DQ because you did it. This is literally them signposting that a certain play is possible, and in LSV's case, it WAS possible. It's not like he was signposting he COULD make a vampire token while actually not having the ability to do so. Nothing he said or did was a lie - he could do it. And let's face it - if the other player decided NOT to go all-in, that's most likely what he would have done in the first place. I believe in Magic, it's part of the game, and to me, that doesn't make it bad. It's just a different animal from YGO's rules, and if I want to do well in either playing field, I would best learn these subtle differences and abide accordingly. Simple as that. This is like saying basketball players should shut up and never trash talk. Can't have that. It's inextricably a part of the game now and has been for ages. TL;DR - If the game rules say it isn't part of the game, then it isn't. If they say it is, then it is. But to say one way is right and the other way is wrong seems incorrect to me. There's more than one way to skin this TCG cat.

[@matthewradabaugh1635]

I think an important factor being considered is that LSV wasn’t actively lying about his deck, for multiple reasons. They were at that point in open deck list territory, meaning it is radically different from Andres trying to misdirect his opponent.

[@YukiFubuki.]

its not just misdirecting the opponent but directly against the rules too, to quote the rulebook *"Intentionally giving false information about something that is considered Private Knowledge, or intentionally revealing information that is considered Private Knowledge, may result in a Disqualification penalty."* what andres revealed was that he was violating the first part of this rule "Intentionally giving false information about something that is considered Private Knowledge"

[@Thewallace7347]

There is a vintage tournament that LSV topped (ended up splitting in top 4) by bluffing the entire time because he forgot to include his win con and it was closed deck list

[@emilm91]

But even misrepresenting what is in your deck is fine. Indicating you have a card that isnt in your deck, hell, even telling your opponent you have that card is fine for example during sideboarding "I was really hoping to draw a settle the wreckage there" to put that in your opponent's head when you dont play it.

[@brofst]

"From the moment you sit down it's part of the game" Part of the match perhaps, but not the *gamestate* specifically. Game state here does not mean "anything related to the game", it's specifically about things like # cards in hand, which cards are set where, what game actions were taken, life totals, etc. Also, in MTG having tokens on the board (off to the side perhaps) that you're not using, specifically to mislead your opponents, and declaring that's what you're doing, is all perfectly legal. Because that's not misrepresenting the *game state*. Basically, you can't misrepresent nonpublic information. You can say whatever you want as long as your opp has no way to confirm. You can say "I have mirror force in hand" as much as you want. But once there's a confirmation (e.g. they looked at your hand) you can no longer misrepresent public knowledge.

[@sambrown9475]

In Mtg there are specific cards that allow you to pull cards from your sideboard and put them directly into your hand. They are known as the Wish Cycle. Because there's one printed in every color. Edit spelling

[@XTempestBuster]

Isn't that also the same with lessons from strixhaven?

[@sambrown9475]

Lessons are weird but work very similarly. You have cards that have the keyword "learn" on it that allow you to add "lessons" to your hand from outside the game. A "lesson" board if you will

[@ArborusVitae]

More recently/commonly with Karn the Great Creator as well.

[@sambrown9475]

@@ArborusVitae exactly, a much more modern example of this effect and much more powerful

[@saprikt]

As a Pokémon player, I HAVE activated illegal searches in Yugioh to bait out my friend's negates when I was starting to learn the game, genuinely oblivious to the rules about this topic.

[@luminous3558]

How do you consistently have illegal searches(assuming 0 targets)?

[@trubruzzontiktok7987]

hey at least it's with friends :) the rules then are "trust, it's a rule" 😂

[@wickederebus]

​@luminous3558 activate Reinforcement of the Army with 3 Razen and a Riseheart in hand, with no Warriors left in deck. Just bait an Ash, special Fenrir, search with Fenrir, normal Razen, search with Razen.

[@plastictrumpet6862]

The amount of times that I’ve paused after activating Dante or Cherubini to see if my opponent attempts to imperm me or bait handtrap info out is immense.

[@vibrantoucan8890]

Doesn't that depend on when you played? I think in goat activating an effect and then "failing to find" is allowed, not sure when the rules changed.

[@jenostheascended7818]

By this logic it's pk for me to look at my hand when the opponent plays a card, but all of a sudden if I admit in any public media that I had no interaction in hand it becomes a ban worthy offense. Under such a rule set I would always be afraid of touching my cards, that's not how a card game is supposed to be played, at least 50% of the interactions and skill in card games is trying to play around the possibilities of what your opponent could have. I guess Konami wants players to never share the intent behind their card choices, the environment this creates is anti competition and feankly just generates toxicity for no reason.

[@forgottenvalues3293]

Blue especially like the bluff in mtg because its largely a reaction style so making your opponent question whats in your hand can save your ass

[@sam7559]

Yeah there's a reason why two untapped islands is a meme in the MTG community. Countless blue players have won games leaving two blue up while having bricks for hands

[@vxicepickxv]

The weirdest part of Magic is that the rules aren't identical for each format. For example, if you include cards from a certain set(or older), you can't change the order of your graveyard. Also, in that format, the sideboard is considered outside the game, and there are some cards that allow you to grab those cards mid game. Okay. The ability to activate effects that do nothing is conditional on private information. You cannot play a card that says "destroy target creature" if there are no legal targets. If you search for a type of card "search your library(magic name for a deck) for a dragon" you can fail to find. If the card says "search your library for a card" you cannot fail to find with any cards left in your library.

[@Ragnarok540]

Magic sounds wild. That would be like playing a trap from your pocket in Yu-Gi-Oh.

[@davidescobar9309]

I really like that you brought up the "sideboard being outside of the game" as thing, I am a MTG player (primarily) and returning to YU-GI-OH after a big hiatus of about 6 years. When playing MTG I play a format called Pioneer, where I play a combo deck (very degenerate one btw) called Lotus field, and you literally win playing cards from your Sideboard (which is basically the side deck in Yu-gi.). Fail to search is such a broken mechanic, in Pokemon TCG for example, there are lots of drawing card effects in the deck that require certain amount of cards in hand, so failing to search is a very used and popular bend in the game mechanics.

[@todddalton4579]

​​@@Ragnarok540the funny thing is that sometimes "failing to find" is intentional. Take Gifts Ungiven: "Search your library for up to four cards with different names and reveal them. Target opponent chooses two of those cards. Put the chosen cards into your graveyard and the rest into your hand. Then shuffle." In practice, because of the "different names" modifier on a private zone (your library), you can find two cards, and fail to find the other two. Since you found only two cards, your opponent is forced to put those in the GY. So the common use is to get a strong game ending creature like Griselbrand (draw 7 for 7 life points, you start with 20) and Unburial Rites, a Monster Reborn castable from your GY. They bin those cards, you reanimate, and probably win on the spot. Gifts is instant, which is a quick play with no phase restriction. So you can set up at the end of their turn.

[@benroseberry1598]

The graveyard order comment is incorrect, it is always a rule that you cannot change the order of the graveyard, however there are only a few specific older cards that actually care about the order

[@zizou00_]

Rules being different for different formats isn't too out there. The rules for GOAT vary from the rules in TCG which varies from the rules in OCG. GOAT has things like turn 1 draw, different priority, field spell rules and even the case in the video where you can activate a card and fail to find a target. None of those things are that way in TCG. OCG has different rulings for Trigger effects. Granted these differences are due to GOAT being past TCG and TCG rulings changing over time, but it's relevant.

[@islandultra]

for anyone watching 19:56 only some cards without legal targets can be activated assuming you have the mana to cast it

[@Happymasks]

Wait, how can you say messing around with the token he has the ability to create at the time has nothing to do with the game but having a token on top of cards before the game even starts is part of the game?

[@OrdemDoGraveto]

Its because the guy said he was using the token to mislead his oponent into thinking he had another deck. You can have a token there to mislead your oponent, as long as they cant prove thats the reason you had It there...

[@seraphim7179]

​@@OrdemDoGravetothe token being inside or outside the game is a completely different line of argument than if it's intentional misleading or not. Please keep to the original point

[@OrdemDoGraveto]

@@seraphim7179 But thats the point. Acourding to Konami, you can have anything you want to represent a token, including another different card token. What you cant do is mislead your opponent.

[@seraphim7179]

@@OrdemDoGraveto I'm not talking about misleading or not misleading. I'm talking about what is construed as "inside the game" or "outside the game"

[@Inu3KL]

​@@seraphim7179Regardless of whether the game has started or not, if you try to trick your opponent before or during the match in a way that goes against the rules, it is considered a foul for the same reason a deck list is required and respect its structure. once presented. Therefore the correlation between the two concepts

[@konkydonk4809]

personally I really like subtle stuff like setting useless spells to bait out interactions or not setting anything to make my opponent believe that I have evenly or gamma (or Gorz lol) but intentionally (or rather actively) leading my opponent towards making an assumption like playing with a token or being very obvious about counting the amount of summons the opponent has done etc. is something I find scummy.

[@charnor2727]

I have set dark rulers because I had nothing else to just fuck with my opponent. It has yet to work out, but it has confused them before

[@ghost-iv8gt]

so in your opinion, keeping track of summons even if you dont have nibiru is scummy/cheating? get real

[@konkydonk4809]

@@ghost-iv8gt Audibly counting to deliberately misguide your opponent is counted as "misrepresenting the gamestate" and therefore (to my knowledge) punishable, yes. Reason is that someone might make a different play because of that which might lose him the game, all because of a lie.

[@yuukihanato9691]

@@konkydonk4809 but at that point the person hasn't lied they just counted summons same as asking how many cards are in your grave or extra deck it's technically info that is fully reasonable to ask at any given moment cause it could affect your plans. that's how bluffing works the opponent now has to decide whether to call their bluff or not.

[@LookingForTheTop]

One of the favorite plays I ever did was on Duel Links attacking with Magician Rod against a Neos, bluffing I had Apprentice in hand, forcing my opponent to waste his Super Poly to keep board presence. Since he used Super Poly early because of my bluff, I was able to win summoning my boss Dark Magician fusions without worrying about Super Poly interruptions

[@sdedy379]

I don't know in magic but in yugioh information is a big key to straight up win. When i go first playing labrynth and i know exactly my opponent playing deck full of spell then it's a no brainer to not just set up EEV and kill them on the spot the next turn.

[@sergiodelatorre9127]

I’m a mtg judge and imo if there is something outside the game that impacts your decision and you get punish for it is your fault for using outside the game information that you should not have to make your decision. Judging from the 2 examples in the video, directly lying to your opponent still is not allowed.

[@erfarkrasnobay]

You could lie about any hidden information. Not about public or derevative.

[@raze667]

I mean there is something i see YGO players do IRL with fair regularity. Effect is activated: You check your set cards. It doesn't matter if those set cards can do ANYTHING in the situations, you check them to put the idea "hey I might have a chainable card here," into their head. 20:00 Searching rules are a bit... different in magic. You cannot normally "activate" a spell without valid targets. The reason you get an exception for search cards is because the only way to confirm you don't have, as you said, "a dragon card in your deck" is to reveal your entire deck when you go to search. That's too much information to give off a bad play. So, you can always "fail to find" any specific kind of card if you don't want to be forced to reveal it. Anything that searches for something specific, you must use the "cherry picking rule" and reveal your chosen card to confirm you are not cheating in that search.

[@RavenCloak13]

Or I look because I don't know if I can or not because even years of reading cards makes you not remember how the card actually works. I never knew Nib was Light, not Earth.

[@raze667]

@@RavenCloak13 It never ceases to be funny to me that YGO players can't remember what their cards do. As a MTG player I have an almost encyclopedic knowledge of what cards to. I guess problemsolving card text solves a lot of issues.

[@crawdaddy1234]

21:32 the “two minutes thinking” without action could be considered stalling to run out the clock (rounds are timed). But if my opponent shuffles their hand or moves to count something that causes me to make an action that leads me to getting blown ou - good on them, they got me good.

[@Vinicius-Bigode]

Just for context/clarify: In Magic, activating cards with "no effect" isn't typically used to mislead your opponent (it could happen, I've never seen it being impactful), most of the time they are used to trigger other effects on the field (prowess) or stack a future payoff like storm or delve. That's why they are still a thing, so they don't become a completely useless card once you lose a target or something.

[@Marksmaan]

Or the most common example, cracking a fetch Land with no targets to shuffle your brainstorm.

[@kaitengiri]

Here's another angle to consider. Not a "right" or a "wrong" thing. Just another angle. Yes, the game does happen around the game, and taking minor actions around that could affect game state. However, there is the thought that you should accept this and allow it anyways. The main reason for this is that there is absolutely no way to enforce MANY instances like this without declared intent. Yes, there are obvious things like if a player threatens another player. But going into minor things like having tokens out there, your choices for enforcing this are to ban players who state they had nefarious reasons for it, or to ban ALL players who do it regardless. The problem with the latter is there are many legitimate reasons to be carrying around tokens that don't come into play with your deck configuration (Something in your sideboard uses it, the player doesn't have another space to carry them, maybe it's a common token and the player likes to leand them to peoplel who use it, etc.) Therefore, when you take a look at the former and take a step back: Ultimately what happened here is that a player was punished for being honest. The other players who are doing things like this are going to keep doing it, they'll just be dishonest about it when asked. So strangely enough, making a rule for banning a player for a mindgame winds up encouraging players to be dishonest. So there is consideration to allow a minor bit of psychology and dishonesty to prevent there being ALL dishonesty in the situatioin.

[@sebastianpfau1174]

9:08 I don't think the comparision to Nibiru is fair in this instance, simply because the card creating the token is already open on the field and his opponent would know about it. He doesn't imply any hidden knowledge. Summoning the token is a possible play and his opponent already knows this, he is only reminding him. It is a little scummy, but in my opinion less scummy then bluffing any impossible plays. This is also an important difference when it comes to the rules: He is not misleading about the Game State, only about his intentions.

[@Lord_Phoenix95]

And that's where you would possibly get banned in yugioh. Misleading your intentions is a bannable offence. MBT covers this in his video.

[@seraphim7179]

​@@Lord_Phoenix95the whole point of having hidden hands is to not allow your opponent to see your intentions. The only way to not "mislead" your intentions is to open your hand and tell them exactly what you are going to do with your cards

[@thebigbear4696]

Not even LSV’s best bluff. He once won an entire tournament after forgetting to put his win condition card into his deck and sideboard list. He spent the entire tournament doing all the steps for the combo until the final step at which point his opponents would concede assuming he had the card. Honestly the example in this video isn’t all that special. It’s not much different than keeping up counter or removal mana while shuffling specific cards to the top of your hand to bluff having the answers in your hand.

[@zacharymiller4162]

In LSV’s case, until the mana is spent and the ability is declared then the token is a factor to consider. In MTG, open mana has to be something that’s considered in all actions, and you have to make your decisions accordingly. He never explicitly put it on the battlefield, so he never misrepresented the game state. People bluff having counter spells/removal all the time by leaving mana up. Some people may even “hold priority” and choose to pass it to create some doubt

[@OBrienMagic]

I used to “smokescreen” at tournaments back in the day and had an opponent call a judge on me for it. The judge said not to do it but didnt penalize me for it. Thoughts? Smokescreen: When you shuffle your entire side deck into your deck then remove 15 cards from your deck. The goal is to do this every time so your opponent doesnt know if you actually side decked or not or if you did for how many cards.

[@CaptinHavoc1]

As MBT said in his video, Magic has a huge problem with rule sharks and "mind games" that basically amount to lying. For example, imagine in Yugioh you had an effect that activated at the beginning of the battle phase, so you said: "Go to battle phase," your opponent could then stop you from activating that effect because you didn't say "Go to the beginning of the battle phase." There have been plenty of outstanding Yugioh plays that don't rely on outright deception. I remember one feature match where one player had Dimensional Barrier set against a Branded player, and the Branded player activated polymerization. The player with Dimensional Barrier let it resolve because he knew that the opponent did not want to resolve polymerization because the end board would actually be worse. High level Yugioh play isn't about tells and bluffs (though you can absolutely bluff in Yugioh provided you aren't just actually lying), it's about game knowledge and understanding card interaction, not colluding with judges (yes this actually happens) and demanding to reconstruct gamestates from three turns ago just to cheese a win.

[@midwesternviking_ttv2986]

I am curious, if you brick and set a card to make your opponent think you have Imperm or some other interruption/floodgate is that not bluffing? People do that all the time that I've seen in Yugioh. Talking about someone waiting two minutes with set normal spells is DEFINITELY slow playing no questions about it.

[@Kingbroly11]

There is an interesting case of failed to find in Yugioh that I have come across. With Pacifis the sunken city because the search in mandatory and tied to the token summoning effect it still activates. I've had opponentsi in master duel use ash blossom on it even with no targets in deck.I am not sure how this would work out in paper Yugioh though.

[@SuperSayianWarrior]

At one point, back when verification checks in game were legal, you'd confirm with your opponent you have no legal targets, as White stone of Legend was a mandatory search for BEWD though you only did that if you couldn't confirm that all copies were in a Public knowledge state, I forget how it works now

[@thorscape3879]

In modern play it still activates because it is mandatory. You don't have to prove you have no legal targets though.

[@MrOuter]

On the whole "Can you use a card if you can't resolve it?" thing, MTG has that as well, but it's tied into specifically the word "target". You cannot cast a spell if you can't give it a full set of legal "target"s. That said, there's plenty of cases where "0" is a legal full set of "target"s. Searches (Or Tutors as we call them in MTG) don't even do that though. Searching your deck is an action that doesn't specify targets, therefore you can do it even without anything to get. This leads to MTG's entire philosophy when it comes to deck searching: No player can be assumed to know what's in their deck at any given time, something I honestly think YGO should pick up considering that you have cards like Pot of Desires that can change your deck in ways you can't confirm until you search. This then lead to some rulings which, at the time felt scummy, but were a valid play with the rules as they were and ended up leading to errata to clarify that certain plays were legal, as with most notably, Gifts Ungiven: Entomb 2. Gifts Ungiven is a card that let you search for up to 4 cards, your opponent would send 2 to the graveyard and then you get the other 2 to hand. But one of the most powerful things you could do with it was only find 2 cards, your opponent would have to send those two to grave and then you'd be able to get value off those two cards. But the original printing didn't say "Search for up to 4 cards", it just said "Search for 4 cards". The card still worked as I outlined above because of Fail-To-Find, combined with your opponent not being allowed to check your deck. Even if it was blatantly obvious that you had other legal targets, you could say there was nothing else you could get and your opponent couldn't prove you wrong.

[@acetraker1988]

You can cite most of these psychological gimmicks as unsporting conduct... So when people make a video saying "I did with the intent to mislead, that's when you get hit with a ban."

[@RavenCloak13]

Meanwhile, soccer: *pretends they have an injury to get penalty kick which is completely normal thing to do in soccer*

[@stevennguyen1586]

@@RavenCloak13 You mean flopping like basketball? Yea thats illegal, its only allowed because of bad refs.

[@RavenCloak13]

@@stevennguyen1586 Yeah legal. All of them are bad with how frequent it is. EDIT: Oh yeah, basketball to. See that all the time.

[@stevennguyen1586]

@@RavenCloak13 Flopping is illegal dude, it happens doesnt mean its legal. Its like 5 step traveling and all the nonsense. Bad refs does not equal to legal play.

[@benito1620]

@@stevennguyen1586 when refs are bad enough that it happens constantly then it's de facto legal, and only becomes illegal when the refs decide to selectively enforce it.

[@BD-el1yc]

I was playing draft in MTG and my deck was loaded with removal spells, and every time my opponent put down a creature, I killed it off. Problem was, I was just out of removal, and I needed him to not play any more creatures to have a shot at winning. He went to play another creature, so all I did was I reached out and touched my lands as if I had a response before pulling my hand back. Let him chew on it and he wound up not playing his creature after all. Dude held the creature back for the rest of the game and I was able to stabilize and win.

[@mikey10126]

So wouldnt this be almost the same as going straight to battle phase to pretend you have evenly? But pretending to have evenly is more legal because you technically go thru the phases

[@RunRunRun1901]

21:28 (written before seeing your answer) I would not call a judge. My opponent was trying to make me consider my attack. I could see how it might be slow play. I don’t think it is, because the opponent has to consider what you think the two face down back row cards may be, and by not taking any time, they would be giving you information about those cards.

[@EwMatias]

The idea that the game begins with the pairing is an insane ruling. The game clearly begins with the first game action and ends when the rules say it ends. Any other interpretation is absolute madness and will only lead to more and more insane rulings.

[@cruces1713]

Right! Pretending that finding your seat is a game action is beyond ridiculous

[@MrHappy-jj2vl]

The reason we can look at our sideboard in mtg is there are cards with effects that add cards "from outside of the game" and to resolve effects like that the card for intent has to be in the sideboard for the effect

[@joebradburnii]

As a magic and yugioh player, I have some insight here. The problem is that in magic, you and your opponent are part of the game. Your words and actions are a part of the game and the mental disruption/mind games is as much a part of the game as playing a card. It’s part of the game, so not only is it allowed, it’s encouraged and looked at as such. Thats just not the case in yugioh, which is totally fair.

[@UmbrasMercy]

This! Its also why Politicing and alliances in commander are not only allowed but encouraged.

[@breslin90]

I don't see the difference gameplay wise. In either game you can't just ask your opponent if they have relevant information. And in either case you should be allowed to bluff a little, for example if you had no legal plays left to do that shouldn't be free information to your opponent that would be the case and that you would have to pass priority immediately that would be totally unfair

[@quint2568]

It features the exact same thing in the anime so I say it's fair game.

[@LucanVaris]

The thing is, bluffing has been a thing in Yugioh, since the first duelist set a Flute of Summoning Dragon face down, pretending it was a Mirror Force. People have bluffed swapping cards in and out of their side-boards, they've faked tells, they've pretended to have ace setups in a hand full of dead draws, they've raised non-Nibirus straight into the air, upon seeing that _fourth_ Special Summon. Yugioh players have bluffed and bluffed and bluffed some more, all over the playmat, and all over the floor. You cannot sit there and tell me, without _lying,_ that _bluffing_ doesn't exist in a game of cards.

[@ianslee4765]

making up a rule and saying "its not allowed so its fair" is not really a solid reasoning.

[@pocketfluffal2134]

Anyone remember the high profile yugioh player during nekroz era that said he was siding out his djinn during a mirror match as a gentleman's agreement, which he did, but he also sided one in from his side deck?

[@olavtetteroo4204]

Intent to fool someone is scummy. You could argue that you want to try everything to try and win, but personally I’d rather battle on even ground than give myself an unfair advantage. But I also play for fun, so for a tournament with money on the line I get the mindset.

[@luminous3558]

Yeah but at least don't self report in the deckprofile after the event.

[@VoidBL]

Don't talk about fair when most yugioh games end in 1 or 2 turns and then when someone plays floodgates they all cry.

[@memeswithcringe1624]

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@VoidBL”rescue-ace can set 4 from deck and skill drain exists, therefore you should have no problem with lying to your opponent” is one hell of a take

[@drastic6411]

@@memeswithcringe1624 I mean, it is kind of fair. Most TCGs allow you to mislead your opponent through tells and body language. People use and send that information subconsciously regardless so doing so in a game shouldn't matter. Is it scummy or unsportsmanlike? Could be seen either way per person and that's fine. At the end of the day it is a game where you play with the specific intention of winning and should be prepared for your opponent to be doing the exact same thing. There are a lot of unfair mechanics and cards in Yu-Gi-Oh that are still legal so realistically unless you specifically say that you are actively *trying* to mislead your opponent then it isn't even necessarily able to be called out when you can claim you were just fidgeting with the card or token specifically to calm yourself in that moment. I myself fidget with tokens so that I can pay attention easier and have had it called out but it was a token that was obviously never going to correspond to my deck and that information was known so idk

[@memeswithcringe1624]

@@drastic6411 “could be seen either way and that’s fine” “unless you specifically say that you are actively trying to mislead your opponent” this is...... just agreeing with what the original commenter said. If you think that some degree of bluffing should be acceptable, fine. But the idea that because powerful cards exist, and floodgates exist, and a lot of people dislike floodgates, that you can’t possibly think that bluffing is “unfair” simple isn’t coherent at all.

[@memeswithcringe1624]

Based on the “intent” thing, and the “you can’t actively reveal hidden information”, would you get suspended if you loudly counted summons, with the intent of adding pressure, even if you *did* actually have Nibiru?

[@thorscape3879]

Yes. Not only are you not allowed to lie about your responses you also aren't allowed to tell the truth. It is common for players to say, "Go ahead. O have no interaction." This is illegal to do. Your cards are secret and they remain secret until they are seen.

[@TheElly750]

Maybe TCGs should go the chess route. Bluff through gameplay only. Interactions between players restricted to the bare minimum. Are we playing a game of skills or not? And while being able verbally manipulate people is a skill it is not one pursued by the rules of the game.

[@jk844100]

Yugioh already does that

[@Benzinilinguine]

All he did was leave the tokens exposed on his deck. I dont think he called attention to it. When the opponent was confused, and then says something like "What? But I saw your tokens! I looked at the card in your deck! That was a swordsoul token!" Like bro you peeked at your opponents deck and didnt think that was an issue? The issue is you got tricked. And embarassed. Its the opponent's fault 100%. They looked. They tried to get extra deck information before the duel began. Its on them.

[@fireheart8878]

@@Benzinilinguine Except that the player literally admitted to doing it for that purpose. Yugioh does not allow you to intentionally misrepresent the gamestate. If the player never admitted to doing it on purpose, they would be fine. It's the same thing as the Trif Cowboy debacle. Playing burn cards for winning in time is only not allowed if you're stupid enough to admit to doing it. But also, children play these fucking games. Sure, two adults playing mind games can be entertaining, but for every one of those games, there's some adult MTG player bullying a child that just wanted to play the game. MTG has a sharking culture that Yugioh really doesn't have, and it's pretty cringey.

[@jk844100]

@@Benzinilinguine the reason he got banned is because Andreas admitted the reason he flashed the token to his opponent was to mislead them. If he didn’t say that he wouldn’t have been banned.

[@kusanagi-no-tachi5303]

TCG's are most of the time determined by luck anyway, courtesy of "drawing the out." You can't do that in chess.

[@cookiesandstreams]

8:15 Yeah, if I was in that position I would want to calc out the damage to weigh my options and see if I could get away with holding Settle for another turn.

[@WillisPtheone]

In MTG there are cards that interact with the sideboard so looking at it mid match is allowed. We also have cards that let you control your opponent during their turn. This created a rules situation where as you are in control of the player for their turn and they can look at their sideboard you could look at it while in control. Only thing a player controlling another player can't do that the player can is concede and they can concede in response to you trying to look at their side. There major difference here is not that MTG is ok with things "outside" the game playing a role its that MTG considers those aspects PART of the game. Placing a nebulous line about what is and is not "outside" the game will always run into the issue of the reality that things outside the game will ALWAYS influence the game intentionally or not. Relying on proving "intent" in these situations just says its ok to do it even intentionally just not ok to tell people you do or did. If everybody does something and some of them did it intentionally to mislead and everyone knows people do it the rule against it is pointless its not a rule against outside interference its a rule against talking about it. Its one of the huge issues with Yu-Gi-Oh the rules are more guidelines while for the most part in MTG the rules are clearly defined even when it is stupid to enforce a rule in that way. Look at Pleasant Kenobi's video about the MTG Riot, the Pithing Needle, and the Combat Shortcut controversies. All times where the rules where enforced as written to the letter. If your favorite architype is X but Y is the best deck in the meta is it ok to run a Y deck in X themed sleeves? What if its not your favorite but you want to mislead your opponents? Is it ok to do it if I lie about why? What is the difference if the outcome is the same? If something is a problem if it happens just ban it not banning the intention behind it because that does nothing to stop the problem from happening.

[@robinsimon4176]

10:26 wouldnt that also possibly be seen as "stalling for time" like, asking for the dmg, making the calculations while you dont intend to take said dmg

[@sauceploxx4565]

It really is intent I guess when it comes down to it. I could be using the sky striker sleeves with the intent to lure my opponent into thinking I'm playing that deck; granted the deck is a meta relevant contender at that point. The only time I see ppl really playing towards a deck in a specific manner is at locals because you play against these ppl often and usually they are the same deck so your board is catered to such. Otheriwse, you're trying to stay in a neutral manner that benefits from the most flexibility.

[@StripedJacket]

I started playing purrely and changed my name to Mikanko so that people would give me first during duelist cup Worked like a charm, did it specifically for the advantage

[@valtorixfive3468]

I remember when my brother wanted me to play in a magic tournament for him to get some prizes, I had two creatures and went into the combat phase. Declared an atk with one dude, it went through, then declared with the other. My opponent was furious at me and called out judge over. I never played magic before (-_-)

[@zertamtg1334]

The difference in perspective is that what lsv did IS part of the game at this point the bluffs are part of the game because of the hidden information, like stopping to think if your opponent makes an ashable play but you don't have an ash

[@ljaquos]

I will never understand this whole debate. Like, that's not even what Andres did, really. He didn't fuck with the tokens, he didn't do much with it, they were just on top of his extra deck. And he's like "lol infer what you will I'm not even gonna acknowledge it." The MTG version of this is "I'm going to do a genius 5head play by fucking lying to you." and they're like oh, genius. Phenomenal. Genius. And it's like...why is that considered a good thing lmao

[@OneRockyBoi77]

I would 100% call a judge in the scenario he mentioned. If we had different time rules then maybe I'd let it go, but a lot of people do things like this to win in time. Imagine you play Rikka Sunavalon and do your super long combo, pass and then you have 2 minutes on the clock and during the standby phase you say thinking and look at your backrow that you can't even use yet. Of course you're stalling, you gained life.

[@tinkerer3399]

Yeah except the situation that he was listing was a clear example of slow play. Where as the situation being discussed was more like if someone took 5 seconds looking at the cards. Or an even better comparison would be if they took no time looking at the cards because they were looking at them while the opponent was doing something.

[@matthewbryant2972]

I think distinguishing between Angle Shooting vs Bluffing is useful in this conversation. The pen trick is angle shooting, to an extent. In poker, there are rules about angle shooting vs bluffing.

[@Slender_neet]

I wouldn't say that play would be the same as bs-ing with a nibiru token on hand, if anything it would be like having nibiru on hand AND mirror force on field then you reach for the token but instead activate mirror force, a totally legal play

[@amethonys2798]

The biggest issue with Torres is he self-snitched and showed malicious intent. If having mismatched sleeves/mat/tokens/etc. when compared to what deck you are playing was illegal I would've been banned day 1 of going back to locals in 2019 or 2020 or whatever since I was using a custom blackwing mat and was playing Earth Machine. Even now I still use an official OTS field center featuring the Live Twins and could theoretically use a Live Twin mat (I believe a regional or YCS mat features Lila) and proceed to normal summon Air Lifter instead of a Lila. Should I get banned for that?

[@Lord_Phoenix95]

No because everyone would have different things for their decks. It's the intent of misdirection thats happening here. Torres said he did it on purpose but if yalll you had was that mat and field centre then I wouldn't take it at face value until the first card was played. One of my friends had a Dino Mat with Dino Sleeves and while he did play Dinos he actually put his Sky Striker into the Dino Sleeves. That wouldn't be misrepresentating the game state or what he's playing, we knew he did it on purpose because he likes to toy with people but he did it out of jest and wasn't intentionally misleading people for wins. It's a very fine line in yugioh.

[@MansMan42069]

Farfa is no more. Enter, Fartha.

[@lampshade6579]

I think the main problem with things like these is the culture built around the game. If we just made it clear "Hey, don't try to make decisions based on opponent's actions, that don't directly effect the board." No one have a single issue with any of this. Like I'm a huge Poker player, that whole game is about trying to mentally juke out your opponents. So when I show up at a local, I just automatically purposefully ignore any of my opponents actions, that isn't effecting the board.

[@luminous3558]

Kinda annoyed at Pleasant Kenobi's example because its one of the tamer MtG angleshoots and that makes the whole situation look more ambiguous. MtG angleshoots often are just blatant sharking or cheating that get supported by judges.

[@aaa1e2r3]

What would bea more egregious or infamous example of an angleshoot?

[@rgbcgroup]

​​​@@aaa1e2r3First and foremost, I disagree about the example discussed in the video being angleshooting or sharking. It is sort of ridiculous to me that YGO actively forbids bluffing. Bluffing is a natural part of games with variance. That being said, here is the scummiest thing, which even MTG players agree was a top 3 asshole move: In MTG exists a card called "Borborygmos". Years later, a card named "Borborygmos, Enraged" was released. At a Grand Prix (MTG equivalent to a YCS) a player ran a deck built around Borborygmos, Enraged. His opponent plays Pithing Needle, which has, basically, the exact same effect as Prohibition in YGO. He verbally declares his intended target, then writes "Borborygmos" on a strip of paper as a reminder to the table. His opponent then plays his Borborygmos, Enraged. A judge call was made because this was supposed to be stopped by Pithing Needle. Judge rules that Borborygmos, Enraged was not the specified target, as Pithing Needle requires the full name of the card, even though it was abundantly clear which Borborygmos was intended as the name. This cost the player who played Pithing Needle the round. This, in fact, lead to a rules revision which forced acknowledgement of a partial name on reminder notes, as long as there is no doubt which card is the intended target.

[@swiney2279]

​@@aaa1e2r3At Pro Tour Aether Revolt someone used a very old ruling that saying "go to combat" was short-hand for go to declare attackers. This caused him to miss all of his beginning of combat triggers.

[@amethonys2798]

​@@rgbcgroupYuGiOh doesn't forbid bluffing though. It forbids actively misrepresenting the gamestate or slowplay. You can attempt enter battle phase to threaten evenly matched to have the opponent blow through resources if you so choose even if you don't have the card. In the MBT video on this the example provided was you get trap dustshooted a previous turn (your hand was revealed) and they know you have scapegoat. Your turn starts and you set one card. They attack with everything to beat over supposed goat tokens, but you set a topdecked mirror force instead and blowout the game. This would be a completely legal play and is 100% considered a bluff.

[@nathanaelwaters2509]

​@amethonys2798 then why did the Geyser get banned for having the tokens in his deck box? That's just a bluff, not slow play or misrepresenting the board state

[@Starfire_Dragon]

19:33 In Magic, you can fail to find if you are searching for things with a specific value. So if ROTA were in magic, it would be able to fail to find, since it searches for specifically warriors. But if something searches for "a card", generally, you have to resolve it. The way Yu-Gi-Oh does it is a bit strange to me. I imagine it's to stop your opponents from wasting a negate on something that wasn't going to do anything anyway?

[@YukiFubuki.]

you are right in that it prevents trying to bait a response from the opponent but it also relates to the rule that you cannot activate a card if it knowingly fails to do anything during resolution for example say if you have a card in your hand that you would like in the grave instead and you have lightning vortex in hand a card that says to discard 1 card to destroy all faceup monsters the opponent control then that sounds perfect, use vortex to get it to grave but then there is 1 problem in that the opponent has no face up monsters on their side of the field and so you cannot activate vortex if the opponent has no monsters to destroy in the first place because you would be activating a card that would fail to resolve this rule is in place to prevent abuse or preemptive abuse of card effect depending on how its worded for example a trap card called ice barrier while in the grave allows you to banish itself from the grave to send 1 lvl 5 or higher water monster from your deck to the grave and then you can add any water monster from your grave to your hand, both actions is part of 1 effect though the wording used shows that these actions happens in sequences and that the second effect is optional so you simply need to be able to send a lvl 5 or higher water monster from deck to grave to be able to even activate this effect and only after you preform the first action can you choose to add or not add any water monster from grave to hand and this can include the monster you just sent to the grave with the prior action on the other hand there is a monster card called deep sea artisan whose text states that when special summon you can send the top card of your deck to grave then and then special summon 1 lvl 4 or lower water monster from your grave, its similar to ice barrier as its 2 actions as 1 effect that happens in sequence but the second action is mandatory instead of optional so in order to even be able to activate this effect when special summon you must have both at least 1 card left in your deck to mill and an already existing target in grave to revive even if during resolution you choose to instead revive the monster that was sent to the grave by the first action instead

[@hibarikyoya854]

I think small things like checking backrow or your hand when you dont necessarily have a response is ok within reason like how coder said if you take 2 minutes doing nothing that's slow play 100% but just checking your backrow once then saying proceed is ok. Maybe thats just me because im not a good player and i keep checking my cards to make sure there legal to play

[@peekay120]

When you opponent special summons their 5th monster and you start fiddling around with the cards in your hand: Opponent: "what are you doing?" You: "Pfft, Nothing... just hanging around"

[@JonNuclear]

On a particular point: Coder mentions at 15:30 that he doesnt believe the token action happening before the game actually starts matters because "the moment you sit down at the table...anything you say and do it part of the game". But also earlier in the video he makes the point that his stance is based on actions outside of the game effecting the game and reinforced that by sating the action in the magic game might "not be a magic moment" because it was influenced by things outside of the game. I think these are both fair points, but in direct contrast with eachother, my personal believe in inline with the first thing I mentioned, everything happening there is part of the game, which is also why things "outside of the game" are not really outside of it and therefore should be allowed just like any legal form of misdirect like different playlines or starter use to misdirect what you have in hand or setting meaningless backrow. And also because the vast majority of the community will agree with what Coder said I believe that its hard to argue that these outside the game things are not a skill and a part of being a good player or making a good play, aspects that are being stifled by the current rule set.

[@therealfriday13th]

"A lot of the decklists are standardized in Yu-Gi-Oh" Thank you for UNselling me on starting up YuGiOh again. Because the creativity in the deck is part of why I play Magic. Because while netdecking exists in MtG, these decks usually end up modified by the users after a few games.

[@koko61336]

As a huge yugioh fan that was not too invested or interested in magic at all , to someone that is consistently going to multiple commander nights a week , just don't please do not try to get back into yugioh so many rules are so lame the decks are all just eye roll and whatever is newest set , yugioh is only really fun for me anymore with friends when we aren't playing the craziest hand traps and combos I love yugioh but it feels unplayable at anything beyond casual

[@The1337Chronicles]

if you know what you're getting into with yugioh its not that bad. i feel like when people say yugioh is trash not theyre looking through nostalgia tinted glasses. @@koko61336

[@cephalosjr.1835]

It should be noted that while decklists become standardized relatively quickly in Yugioh, different players’ decklists for the same archetype will tend to differ even after standardization, and decklists are continually innovated both before and after standardization begins.

[@Donaldsangry]

10:19 asking how much you're taking is different then just picking up the pen

[@JustJustKen]

"Would you argue that that is a moment of competitive Magic?" Exactly! If there is at least no penalty made for such actions by the player(s), this kind of out-of-game strategy will incentivize other player(s) from doing such dirty plays. Strategies should only revolve around the deck they are playing, not some "mind game" BS they are banking their hopes on cause that ruins the competitiveness of the game at its core.

[@acetraker1988]

Just because there is no penalty doesn't make it a legitimate action.

[@animalchin5082]

LSV's plays and actions were all legitimate. This was an open decklist tournament, he can arrange his lands however he likes and was representing a valid line of play. Passing the turn with mana open in an Aggro mirror looks like a desperation play to use Adanto to survive a turn by blocking. It's a brilliant bluff because it looks like a regular play in the aggro mirror, even without the token fiddling.

[@VoidBL]

If it's that big of a deal then just make only specific tokens usable with their respective cards.

[@paytonyoder1260]

If its all about the competitiveness of the game and not about some BS “mind game” then why do the players not reveal their hands to each other at all times? Isn’t it a mind game for your opponent to have cards in their hand that you don’t know what they can do? For saying that you care about the competitive nature of the game you’re ignoring the most important part in a card game which is, “what cards does my opponent have in hand?” Card games have a mind game in them by nature of not revealing your hand to your opponent at all times.

[@ArborusVitae]

The mind game is part of the game. Bluffing, mind games, and reading your opponent are core parts of in-person card games. I personally believe it adds a fun and interesting aspect to the game. It's just another part of the whole package that makes a skilled player alongside deck construction and piloting. It's ultimately a game of information, being able to determine what your opponent has, signal certain things to your opponent, etc. and manipulate their perception of the information available is a skill and a very important one.

[@cerberyn]

The art of mis-direction has been a tactic for millennia. People have just gotten too soft and butt hurt when they feel like they've been duped. If you get fooled by a misdirection, then thats on you and you alone. I swear people just get more entitled every year.

[@jkid1134]

In MTG this play gets you a handshake, but in YGO this play gets you socked in the jaw.

[@elitearmsgaming5732]

To answer the question about using cards in magic without a legal target, the answer is kind of. effects that search your deck or use a hidden information zone like a sideboard can still be used if you have no legal card, this is known as "failing to find" and the spell or effect resolves without you adding anything. However, if you attempt to cast a spell that requires a target and affects a public zone, you will not be able to cast the spell if upon casting you do not have legal targets. If a spell has already been cast, but a target becomes illegal, the spell resolves as much as it can if it has other targets, or fizzles if there are NO legal targets remaining even if the spell has another effect.

[@seandun7083]

Small note: you can only fail to find if the search effect has conditions on what you are allowed to find. So for example a card that said "search your library for a creature card" could fail to find but a card that said "search your library for a card" couldn't (assuming you have at least 1 card in your library).

[@ETREDROOMREVIEWS]

The bluff i do in Earth Machines called (Early Birb Gets the Nib) is summon 5-7 times and then say battle phase, either they nib and eat the board and then you just continue your main phase and combo more or you go to battle and get free damage, combo off and gustav max them for game.

[@helloitsme472]

my guy that isn't bluffing. that is just you playing around Nib

[@RavenCloak13]

​​@@helloitsme472 Yes, bluffing. That's what baiting is.

[@passtheyaoi]

how often does your opponent have nibiru in their hand going first

[@syzler8664]

@@RavenCloak13 no you're literally just playing around nib there is no bluff, you're not baiting shit you can play around nib

[@lifequality]

You really fully realize how f*cked the yugioh game and its community is when yugitubers are actually looking at other TCGs to discuss their drama. Yes, this is a controversy, but there really are so much better things in MTG compared to modern yugioh

[@Raz0rIG]

By Konami's standards, Atem was a big cheat since he bluffed Mai into not atking him and "misrepresented game state". And we know how Atem is all about dueling with honor.

[@quint2568]

I set my credit card in defense position and lay my business card in the spell and trap zone

[@syzler8664]

bruh he stacks his deck, he's the biggest cheat

[@thedudeonmars]

This is a hard subject , bc I personally believe that’s the difference between TCG VS OCG . In person there’s more than just the card game you got the table talk and little misdirections you can get away with .. HOWEVER even poker has rules when it comes to bluffing , one thing is to bluff and a other is to angle shoot . In poker setting angles is illegal , that’s when you do something to cause a reaction by the dealer or other players . Like holding your chips moving them to the table and then take them back real quick to see how your opponent will react or pretend you heard a small raise and call it then take it back when they tell you it’s more To act like your hand is weak. Playing with a Nibiru token IMO is the same as me saying “you sure you want to attack I have mirror force “ you showing me a token is the same as “you sure you wanna summon again I have nibiru “ But I can also see how it can be considered an angle .

[@veleon_]

MTG has a similar rule about intentionally misrepresenting the Game State. You cannot knowing lie about things like life totals, number of cards in decks/hands. What creatures are on the battlefield, etc. I think a big difference is, what exact cards are in my hand/deck are not part of the game state. And I can lie freely about hidden information. I can say that I have a counterspell in my hand when I don't even have on in my deck. I think for me, the biggest issue is that in case someone just legitimately playing sword soul and has the tokens, their opponent could see the token, accidentally or not, and they can make plays in accordance with that outside information. I think most people would view this as undesirable, but with nothing we can really do about it. And a magic players stance is that if a lie/bluff about hidden information causes someone else who is trying to take advantage of outside information to blunder, then that is ok. In the case of someone taking 2 minutes to look at their irrelevant face down cards to fake interaction, I think I would call for slow play. But if the same person took 5-10 seconds to think, and then give the action back, in order to sell the idea of a relevant trap, I would not have any problem with it. The onus is on me to treat hidden information correctly.

[@sam7559]

Two minutes would be slow play regardless if those two cards were the perfect cards for the situation, but taking a quick second to look at an irrelevant card and passing priority should never be considered slow play even of it was a bluff

[@crawdaddy1234]

I am two seconds in. YES, bluffing should be allowed. Otherwise, what’s the point of playing without your hand revealed? Like, you can just look and say, “Oh, if I do this, you’ll do that…” and it’s no longer a game.

[@villainousTCG]

Just wanna say that this video was LEAGUE'S better than stevies. You not only stopped multiple times to speak on points and give insight. Meanwhile stevie watched it for multiple minutes on end before saying a few things that meant nothing at all then hit play and fell silent again. But you also watched the actual video and not a reaction to a reaction.

[@kevinstanton5998]

Bluffing is great! Especially if you have 2 untapped blue mana...even if you dont have a counterspell. you can touch the lands like you "might" tap them to counter a spell, and then tell them your not gonna counter that one.... they then hold cards they dont want countered and olay worse cards instead.