About the idea that it's really easy to become a judge: Recently one of the Cardmarket MTG guys (also a very high level MTG player) talked about how a friend once called on him to be an emergency judge for a Yugioh tournament somewhere in Europe, when there just weren't enough local judges available at the time. Apparently he made it through without any complaints just based on "reading the card explains the card" and I guess his excellent understanding of how games work in general.
@@hasmond6808ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-9VRkkgGbRiE.htmlsi=ZqcxU9FlolveoXwr about a minute in thoralf talks about how he quickly judged a YGO event.
If only “reading the card explains the card” really worked for Yugioh. Sometimes those cards don’t make any sense even when you read them and the way you think they would work sometimes doesn’t work
I find it amusing that you mention the Infernity rumor (I hope it was just that), because in MtG, there is an actual rule saying that when something face down changes zones or is still eace down when the game ends, it must be revealed to ensure that playing it face down was legal.
In YGO, there's a card called "Nibiru, the Primal Being" which, if your opponent summons 5 or more monsters that turn, you can tribute all the monsters on the field, summon Nibiru, and give a token to your opponent that is big as all the ATK/DEF of all tributed monsters. It's a board breaker. I think (and i could be wrong) that what MBT meant to say is that is illegal to count the summons of your opponent without Nibiru in you deck, technically saying "if you summon 5 monsters, you're done for" and preventing him for keep their combo or whatever is doing.
@@WhiteBorderMTG The counting summons thing is a very subtle issue. Technically, there's nothing wrong with counting the summons to yourself, even if it's just because you're curious as to how many summons they will perform. What's illegal would be trying to imply to your opponent that you have a Nibiru in your hand so that they play around it by not summoning more than 4 times. That's why the rules have that "intent" clause. The reason you did it is what determines if it was cheating or not. That being said, if you're in the middle of a tournament and you are counting out loud every time your opponent summons, or you ask your opponent how many times they've summoned this turn, it might be a bit difficult to convince a judge that you were not trying to telegraph Nibiru.
Edit: at MTG major events the tables are set up so that all tokens any player might need are all freely available on the side of the table, LSV didn't actually take out his own token, he was only touching legally known and usable game items, a very fair difference to make note of I think Konami wound get weird about it when LSV picks up the token then puts it back on the side of the table instead of back inside the deck box. That one element to it all is where i think Konami would stick
That part is super sketchy to me, I mean the card that makes the token says what it is there’s literally zero reason to actually look at the token unless you are trying to shark.
Just to clarify, the token isn't being taken out of a deckbox. In the feature matches MTG will have all the proper tokens available for the players to use at the side of the table, so its not like he is randomly leaving it there, that's where its supposed to be if hes not using it.
@bird__xyz9520 OH yeah I forgot how the stage is set up at that level of the event! I've only gone to locals and minor events where people would bring or ask for tokens from organizers.
@bird__xyz9520 made an edit to my og comment cus that is a great point, it'd be equally different if the ygo example of mirrorforce or scapegoat token scenario had Konami set up the game table with scapegoat tokens available for any player to use at any time
Lsv once won an event with a deck list that keeps its win condition in the side board only to accidentally replace the win con accidentally. He won because players are trained to concede to save time and would never get to the point where he needed to reveal the win con
Just to clarify, he made Top 8 and then all the players chose to split the event for time/personal reasons. LSV would probably not have won the event because by that point decklists are made public.
what people DON'T realize is yes he was counting along; BUT the other player ASKED for him to get the token out to do the maths. its not spoken in the video BUT was stated was a thing at the event. if you tell me to get a token out even though i don't have the way to make said token in my hand (but they know its in my deck due to some "one of many" reasons) then i will get the token out. i am not saying i can MAKE that token; the other player is EXPECTING me to make said token.
Dropping by as a magic player that has frequently played at tournaments. LSVs play received only little blowback at the time - most people understood it as a version of the so-called "pen-trick" that is mentioned in the original video by PleasentKenobi. The "Pen-Trick" in magic is essentially picking up the pen to indicate that you expect your life total to change now signaling no interaction on your end and therefore luring an opponent into overextending into the interaction you have. This trick is super common. In my own experience these tricks and mindgames are an integral part of the game. Watching this video and the one by MBT makes me realize that by YGO standards I break the rules many times each game. From bluffing interaction to misleadingly asking my opponent to clarify the number of cards in their graveyard to bluff a certain card to talking to a teammate in a team event in a language I know my opponent doesnt speak and sprinkling in an English card name as though I had said it by accident only for them to think they picked up on something and then play around a card I don't have in my hand. I have talked many people into making bad plays. The psychological warfare above the board is the main reason why I love paper magic so much in comparison to online magic. It is wild to see that basically all of them seem to be illegal in YGO.
@@meathir4921 I mean yeah... I get that... thinking about it it seems like an entirely different play experience and while I prefer to wage psychological warfare and have it waged against me I can see where you're coming from :)
I'd be more concerned about having conversations about games you are in with people who are not in your game. I would find it very easy to get you warned for accessing information you shouldn't have about the gamestate when you just had a conversation in a language you believed I don't speak. "My opponent just had someone come by and tell him about cards in my hand in a another language." Better to just let the cards do the talking.
It's blatantly obvious ygo rules are made up for a bunch of babies that don't learn to play situations but learn decks and how to counter them only, banning someone for HAVING a token in a token box is literally just saying they don't know how to react to things being played they only know how to learn every popular deck and how to specifically beat it and if they get tricked they cry ban
One of the big differences in the LSV play is that Adanto, the first fort's ability to make a token is public knowledge and decklists were open between the players, so his opponent was informed before the match that LSV had 1 copy of settle the wreckage. His intent was misleading by feinting the activation of the token producer, but at no point did he misrepresent the game state.
This is I think the most important point. The scapegoat example in the video isn't a perfect analogy. In that case the player would be implying that the card they have set is something other than what it is, aka misrepresenting the game state. LSV had a totally viable and legal action to make that token after declared attacks, so implying he can create the token is a 100% accurate representation of game state.
Additionally, had his opponent only swung with one or two creatures due to the fear of Settle, he absolutely would have used Adanto's effect. It's not that he was feinting a possible play, but a play that was going to be used if the opponent didn't full swing.
Yeah, he wasn’t misrepresenting what he was capable of, just showing his opponent how he might react to a scenario. Lying about what you’re ABLE to do is different than lying about what you WILL do.
There's no misrepresenting of a game system before a game if someone sees a token in a box and thinks someone is playing something different than what they are , that's on them and that's literally them being stupid you shouldn't guess what your opponent is playing based on seeing a token maybe put some more emphasis on the players actually learning to recognize how a game is going and play it rather than just knowing a deck and playing to counter it
he basically misrepresented his hand, not the game state. Thats part of bluffing and in my oppinion one of the aspects that makes physical card games fun. Like openly representing mana for counter spell even though you do not have one.
"setting monsters in the back row to empty your hand" Do you not have to flip over all face down cards at the end of a game to verify that they were played validly??? This is completely standard in MTG
Not in Yugioh. There's not much incentive outside of infernity, so it doesn't really matter. The revealing Morphs was added in Khans block after Onslaught and Time Spiral cards kept mysteriously gaining the ability.
The same thing happened to me at school back when heavy storm was legal. He scooped after that, and I saw the monsters he set facedown cus he put them on his deck, and they were facing up lol like really..😂
In a tournament I was at back in the day with Infernities you could call a judge over a the end of a game to verify or what most people did was ask the person next to the player to verify.
@trysephiroth007 that's good to know! Like some form of confirmation would be nice. It saddens me that people have to cheat at such a fun game. No skill, not even trying to hone them. I have 0 respect for that kind of behavior.
@@trysephiroth007 Asking someone to give input on the current game is something that happens in the joke sets for Magic. Most Magic players will find it strange that Konami didn't address this, if it was an issue. Most Yugioh players will be used to Konami's radio silence.
This reminds me of when Nibiru first came out, and people used to count summons on a die, regardless of if they had Nib or not, just to force slightly worse boards from the opponent to dodge a Rock blowing them out. And there are plenty of ways to draw during the opponent's turn, especially with things like Phantasmay gaining popularity, or cards like Dark World Dealings in rare combo decks. Are you not allowed to keep track if you see Nib from those draws? What about things like Ty-Phon that count extra deck summons? Not being allowed to keep track is stupid, honestly.
You are allowed to keep track of everything that has happened. What you are NOT allowed to do is openly be keeping track of something to pretend you have a certain card that you dont actually have. If you do have a Nib in hand and you need to count summons then do it, but if you dont have a Nib then keep your mouth shut.
@@AndyBrixton999 Nib was created for one purpose and one purpose only, to stop endless plays. Before Nib was a thing extremely long plays with dozens of summons was rampant and a lot of players did it purely in the hope their opponent would scoop. Nib pretty much put an end to that. There are still plenty of decks which will run the risk and have long plays with a dozen summons but it is far less common than it used to be. Nib is a card with a single job and it does it VERY well. Any pro player worth his salt will tell you that it is a pain in the ass but a necessary one.
@@ASavageEyeokay, you have no clue if I Nib. Did courting special summons also be illegal before the printing or Nib or are you mad that you had to play against interaction.
@@sam7559Nib is the only card that cares about the number of summons. By counting summons openly you are giving the impression that you have nib even if you dont actually have it. You are effectively lying to make your opponent make sub optimal plays. You wanna keep track? Go ahead. But keep that in your head and not just blab it in a way that might result in you making a violation due to misleading intent
@8:40 wow that's such a funny 'alleged' story, I can't imagine anyone 'allegedly' doing such a stupid angle shoot. Wouldn't it be funny if I was the one 'allegedly' activating battle butler and having the world's competitor try to explain why he can skull meister it. While streaming. Would be funny if it happened
I think this was covered in the original video, but I think in Magic there's the difference between manipulating "known information" and "unknown information". Messing around with known information, like say intentionally or unintentionally missing a trigger for something that you control that would leave you in a disadvantageous place(advantageous triggers are your responsibility and "optional" even if wording on cards says otherwise), or trying to bend what cards actually do, is a rules violation. The trigger effects are things that directly impact the game state, and because of that if you intentionally ignore a negative effect, you're cheating to not pay the cost of whatever benefit you got from that card. Then with "unknown information" that pretty much just relates to cards that haven't been revealed yet. So stuff that's in your hand, deck, or a few mechanics in MTG that let you place cards face down, either on the field, or in exile (removed from game). Sometimes this information can become known through card effects that let you look at an opponents hand, forces them to reveal something, or a few instances where you can search their deck for cards. Also in regards to those face down cards you do have to reveal them at the end of the game to prove they have the effect that lets them be face down. There's also the thing of people knowing one another's deck list. However, that knowledge is only known until the game state changes. Decks get shuffled, cards get drawn, etc. At that point any new changes become "unknown" and in the same way you might play around the two new cards your opponent drew since you used the spell that let you look at their hand, they get to bluff whatever it is they have in hand, or what they might play because of it. I will say I understand why Yu-Gi-Oh doesn't treat this quite the same, and I think that's because MTG is a resource game where as Yu-Gi-Oh just kinda lets burn through whatever you have so long as you can. As far as I know Yu-Gi-Oh games tend to last very few turns compared to magic, and tend to have card effects that will just let you keep belching out cards from your hand, deck, or extra deck until you've assemble your combo and won, barring counter play. So because of that each player has to commit a bit more to what they're doing than in Magic. In magic if I know my opponent will only have four mana open to cast spells next turn, I have a rough idea of what is possible for them to do in response, even if I don't know their hand/deck. I know if they can play a board wipe, or a single target kill, or maybe just drop something large to force me to answer on my next turn. In Yu-Gi-Oh I might not get a next turn, meaning them manipulating that unknown information has a much greater impact on the game.
I just find myself remembering the dozens of times I have finished a game of magic with 2-3 extra lands that I could have played but didn't because I was actively trying to represent options I had to respond to what my opponent does. This is prerelease at the local card shop territory even, and we are 100% expecting this kind of misdirection. Not being allowed to do essentially the same thing at the professional level is just weird.
not the same thing at all, you explained it yourself, there is a cost to keep a card in hand to bluff, that guy was creating missinformation before the match started without any downside
@@devforfun5618 The intent to deceive would still seem to run afoul of the Yu Gi Oh rules though. I 100% held those lands in hopes that my opponent would play more cautiously thinking I had options I did not in fact have. My intent very clearly and explicitly was to deceive.
That's bluffing based on a card state. There's a difference b/t bluffing with denying yourself resources or simply doing slight of hand to mislead your opponent. Your hands should be on your cards and judges should be doing the life totals at least after the first few rounds of a pro tour. I despise how high level mtg play is just people saying that misleading your opponent is the meta and should be allowed. Fuck that.
To me, it's the person who's trying to make decisions based on their opponents out of game actions. Play the game knowing scapegoat is an option, as is mirror force or magic cylinder or whatever. They might have a kuriboh in hand. Choosing to have multiple options and choosing to deal with your opponent's multiple possible outs is part of the game. Doesn't make sense to me
11:30 ... As a magic player, I would argue that THE CARDS IN YOUR DECK ARE NOT PART OF THE GAME STATE! How many cards are left in deck would be, but what cards are left are not. This is not public information, therefore, it is not part of the game state. On the other hand, placing monsters as traps / spells is 100% cheating. Bluffing needs to be part of the game.
it is for the player themself, yugioh does not have a "fail to find" mechanic so the player has to keep track of what card is left in the deck that can be a target for any of their searching effects to not accidently make an illegal play
RE: Angle Shooting: Funnily enough, in the YGO anime, there's one infamous instance of a character using angle shooting to trip up one of the main characters, the cheater Bandit Keith pretends to accidentally drop the card Zoa onto the field, and gets everyone's favorite incompetent moron Joey Wheeler to use a spell card on it which he could then punish by using metalmorph on Zoa to make it a machine and thus immune to spell cards, because the rules during Duelist Kingdom were whatever the fuck the characters said they were and nothing made any fucking sense.
if you are old enough and were around in the early days of Yugioh then you will remember how we used to actually play by those very same rules. I literally used to have machines in my deck and tell my friends that machines are immune to spells and because they too had seen the Anime they went along with it. By the gods we were stupid but we had WAY more fun than players today😆😆
Bro I remember playing by Forbidden Memories rules back when I was at school, and since nobody could remember the guardian stars bullshittery we just made it up as we went... would be years before we learned the actual rules.
its more like they were playing a different game during the duelist kingdom arc instead, yugioh up to that point was going by the original rules takahashi created on the fly when the game first appeared in the manga with some add-ons iirc and it wasnt until battle city arc where the rules were rewritten to be more concise and filling in blanks
@@YukiFubuki. Actually the Battle City rules were specific to the battle City Tournament. Kaiba even explains it in detail during his announcement on the first day after all the contenders arrive in the city. To be fair that is the point where the rules would start to become more concrete within the Anime itself but even by the final season they were still making up stupid rules. In the first Movie, which is set just before the last season, Yugi is about to lose the duel and comes up with a totally new made up rule...the "Double Spell" rule, where he can for some unknown reason dump 2 spells in his hand in order to get one back from his grave.( This was eventually made into an actual card and in the Japanese version of the movie they even edited the scene so Yugi has the card in his hand, though he still technically shouldnt be able to use it without a third card in hand) The entire series if full of strange "rules" like that 😄
i cringe when i remember i abused flip cards, because the anime never explained that you could only play a card face down, and not change than face down later@@ASavageEye
17:30 ... I have seen so many people use the "Good Game" emote on Arena trying to bait an alpha swing when they have Settle the Wreckage in their hand. Would this be illegal in Yu-Gi-Oh? It shouldn't be.
Yep, or turning on full control mode on your opponents turn so the game prompts you to resolve triggers, bluffing removal when you don't have any instants in hand. I don't see what's wrong with any of these things, if your opponent can be baited into making a sub-optimal play that's on them for not playing around cards they should be playing around anyway.
How do you "emote" in real life? If you say "good game" in a way that represents a surrender in ygo, then its treated as exactly that and the opponent wins.
@@Nuck_Chorris69 you count the damage and say "shit...", or you ask "is that lethal?" while looking crestfallen (perfectly valid question). The fact that there are so many insidious along with so many innocent interactions you can have across a game board is what makes this "intent" rule very relative.
"this is like reading baronne just for you to negate prosp with ash" Twitch chat complaining about their locals Ls with some of the dumbest takes of all time
The issue with Yu-Gi-Oh is a lot of reasonable questions you can and SHOULD ask to clarify gamestate can bite you in the ass. Another big one is "columns matter" cards. If it is not clearly defined what zone a card is in you can't realisticly ask which it is in since it gives away that you care about say setting up Mekk-Knights, Anima, Razen, or what have you and they can go "nah that's in the middle column".
Personally, I think bluffing should be legal in Ygo. Simply asking the opponent how many times they've summoned or asking if they've activated any effect are questions of known information. It's also the reason why asking what someone "tutored" for should also be a legal question since this is known and public information. Something Master Duel allows you to see in the logs. Whether or not you have something that interacts with those portions of the game is ambiguous and would be considered hidden information regardless. The opponent can think of ways to avoid potential risks the same way you can avoid potential risks of someone setting spell/traps. You don't know what they set but can infer based on known knowledge and general knowledge of the format. Ygo's rules try and make the game be like chess when it comes to not hiding information but the game itself plays more like poker. You have to read the person more than the cards themselves.
asking how many times someone summoned something isnt against the rules, its whe its done to imply that it may enable nibiru when it doesnt exist within the current game state that it can possible misrepresent the game state and thus becomes classify as an "intent" to cheat
@YukiFubuki. But how would they know it doesn't exist if it's considered hidden information? It's the same thing as holding two blue mana up in MTG. You're IMPLYING you have negate, but you aren't outright saying you do. It's up to the opponent to deal with that information. I think it's better to ALWAYS be thinking about Nibiru even if it's not likely. The mentality changes, and the pace of the game will, hopefully, slow down a bit.
@@kanga2468 they wouldnt, its up to the player to prove it if you can successfully prove that what the opponent just did was an intent to mislead then you found yourself a cheater there is definitely a fine line between bluffing and misleading the opponent or misrepresenting the game state so there is a level of subjectivity here but the rule is basically saying that if intent to mislead/misrepresent the player or gamestate is discovered then their actions is against the rules not the existence of the actions themselves tldr; cheat all you want, just dnt get caught
@YukiFubuki. Asking for an update on the gamestate is not misleading the game state imo. The opponent assuming you have a certain card isn't on you as the questioner. If anything, it's a reminder that cards like Nibiru exist
@@kanga2468 there are different ways to go about it such as asking how many summons they've done so far or if they did 5 or more yet, specially counting the summons out loud as they happen speaks more about the player then the game state
Gonna jump in quickly on some things about current magic. From my experience magic, if not necessarily the rules then the players, have become a lot better at differentiating mind games and bluffing from sharking and trying to draw a line there. A pretty good example is pithing needle, which (simplifying a bit here) lets you name a card and have its effects not be able to be activated. Originally if you didn’t name the exact right card opponents would ankle shoot by saying “oh you only name borborygmos, not borborygmos enraged which is what I’m playing”. Realising this is incredibly stupid and scummy the rules were changed and now even if you don’t name the exact right card, as long as it is clear which card you mean then that’s what’s stopped. Additionally if your op isn’t sure what card you mean it’s up to them to have it be clarified, not to conveniently assume you’d name something useless. There’s still several thing I’d really want to be specifically addressed in mtg rules (chalice checking is the big one) but in those cases they tend to be heavily frowned upon by the general player base.
I will say Chalice checking, while frowned upon, does still have a SUPER simple answer within the MTG rules. "It's not your opponent's job to remind you about your triggers, so just remember your triggers." The old rule where you were required to remind your opponent of missed triggers led to SO many warnings, infractions, people accidentally pointing out MISSABLE triggers to an opponent and therefor accidentally helping them, etc... There's a reason the rule was changed.
@@KunouNoHana whilst yes the old rules did have plenty of problems and I wouldn’t want to go back to them, chalice checking sucks. It should be placed in the same position as sharking because you are knowingly making an illegal play with the hope your op won’t catch you. The ‘cost’ of chalice checking is incredibly low. It’s not a mind game, or a bluff, or even intelligent. It should just be straight up cheating but there’s no good way, unless your op is really dumb and just admits it, to know whether or not the player genuinely just forgot about the chalice or not.
@@barbedwire9975 Here's the thing, and I have had to tell people this a LOT. Chalice checking isn't an illegal play. Playing spells into chalice is totally legal because it just counters them, it doesn't prevent casting the way a Sanctum Prelate would. There are even a number of reasons to deliberately play spells into chalice anyway, mono-red burn does it to trigger prowess, storm does it to increase storm count, etc... At no point is the person playing a spell into an opponent's Chalice breaking the game rules. Now, a Chalice player Chalice checking their own Chalice? Almost certainly cheating.
@@KunouNoHana that’s not what I’m saying. I know it’s not illegal. I’m saying it should be. And also purposefully playing something into chalice for storm count etc isn’t chalice checking. Chalice checking is specifically playing a spell you know should get countered by chalice and hoping your opponent forgets about the trigger. I know it’s not cheating, but it is scummy and doesn’t do any good for the game.
Infernity in the backrow locals "are you sure you want to mst that one because if you mst that one its game" i have to imagine fk loads of pro players were doing that
It’s so wild to me that this rule is a thing, like totally unfathomable to me that playing mind games isn’t allowed. How would that be any different than holding up two blue mana to bluff a counter spell or something lol, it’s insane. Just have everyone play digitally if you want to take the human element out of it
For sure. The only real difference here is that he picked up the token like he was about to play it, but I still don't see how it's a problem. He never declared an action he was just thinking about what he could possibly do. In an imperfect game, like MTG, being able to bluff effectively is what separates a good player from a great one
@@jshultz7699well, this video and the "sampled" video both say LSV's play is on the legal side of the line if this were by Yugioh standards, but pretty close to the line. It's still bonkers that bluffing isn't OK in Yugioh, but because it was a legal play he was "considering" he's fine. If he was representing a Raise the Alarm that wasn't in his hand instead of an on-board trick his opponent can see, it'd probably be illegal by their standards.
I used to play a Black/Blue counter destruction deck in MTG. When I was feeling try hard I was constantly asking clarifying questions, because some of the cards had qualifiers before you could counter or destroy something. You can counter target card with X cost, or pay the cards cost to take control of target card. The idea that I could have been penalized for asking questions about the cards my opponent is playing is wild, especially if I was doing it when I had the ability to make the plays but it wouldn't have been optimal
As someone who plays Magic the Gathering since 2013 and Yugioh since 2002, mind games should be perfectly legal. Konami are way to uptight. I remember getting a verbal warning for having a Six Samurai playmat and Six Samurai sleeves while playing Prophecy Spellbooks, in good faith. Edit: After watching more of the video, I want to add a story. Back in the day of Mtg there is a card called Cavern of Souls, basically when you play it you declare a creature type and when you type the Cavern for it's 2nd ability to add 1 mana of any color, the card becomes uncounterable. I typed 2 islands and my Cavern and played a card called True-Name Nemesis. I opponent casted a counterspell to counter it. I reminded him of my land and he said since I didn't declare I was using it for its 2nd ability to add that specific type of mana to make it uncounterable. I looked him dead in the eyes, in a very stern voice and said "You know damn well my intent; now quit being a douchebag and play the fucking game." He kind of shrunk in his seat and continued playing the game.
And if you have named corect creature type you should have called judge. Most likely counterspell whould being resolve withour effect. And you will have CA over opponent. Yes while he trying to catch you on shorcut he could get backlash.
From my perspective he probably shouldn't have grabbed the token, however setting up his mana like that would be fine because he COULD make either play and its between that split or all mana cards, he could be thinking. I think the GOAT example is a bit more nefarious because you're grabbing tokens for a card that can't be activated. At that point you aren't deciding between 2 plays but intentionally misrepresenting a set card.
Here in Argentina there is a very popular game called Truco (Trick) that revolves almost entirely in angle shooting. If you bluff well enough, you can win the round against an opponent with a way better hand by tricking them into making a retreat. Yugioh is definitely not the same, but let's say I set a random brick bluffing a Mirror Force, would you call that clever or cheating?
That would depend on what you do or say when you set the brick. If you simply set the brick, say nothing and end your turn then you are perfectly fine (that would be clever). If however you set the brick, smile and say 'talk about a lucky draw' and then end your turn you will probably get in trouble (that would be cheating).
I always hated these rules on bluffing. If you fall for a bluff it was because you were already trying to gain an advantage based on your opponents tells instead of the game state. You can always fully ignore the mind games aspects.
yeah by looking at your opponents deckbox and then playing around it in the game youre intentionally playing different due to outside of the game information you gained. If thats ok, than so too should bluffing.
i'm searching for this comment. why people dont understand bluffing doesn't mean anything if your opponent ignore the information. the example of counting nibiru is the best and worst example, if pretend to count summon to bluff nibiru is illegal, then why changing your line of play the moment opponent start counting is legal? let's bring it up a bit to extreme to make it very clear : by intention rule, lets say if your opponent start counting summon, you can legally ask your opponent "do you have nibiru in your hand?" and he have to answer. that will make it clear there is no intentional misleading/bluffing play. is that rule even fair? anyone can start counting summon i dont see the problem, it's your opponent that take in the info that "when he start counting, he might have nibiru" so isn't that mean he gaslighted himself? i dont see why it's my fault someone gas himself i have nibiru is my problem?
@@bankkunarak if you ask your opponent if he has nibiru because he was counting summons he is not allowed to answer either yes or no to that question because he cannot disclose private knowledge or even falsify private knowledge so he would have to refuse to answer such as responding with "no comment" or something along those lines instead counting summons for nibiru isnt illegal, its when its done in a way that implies that you may be dropping nibiru on them that is because that can be interpreted as disclosing private info false or not
As a magic player, its hilarious to see that asking a game state clarifying question and my opponent gaslighting themselves into losing could get me banned. I understand WHY these rules are in place and are so specific but ita kinda dumb IMO. The person im playing against matters just as much as the board state and playing based off analysis of said player and them using that against me shouldnt be bannable or really even frowned upon. After a CERTAIN POINT its scummy like placing a card face down and saying "oooo I might be dead soon" only to reveal a game winner Anything before that is "Skill Issue, GG go next"
not the opponent gaslighting thenselves, only if you gaslight them, which is why the rules specify intent, for example you asking a question that would be of no value for you because you cant act on it but only because it could cause them to missplay, for example if you have counters in the deck, it is totally fair to pretend you have a counter in hand, but if you dont have any counter and you ask the mana cost of a spell or if they have 2 mana open implying you have a counter when you dont have, that would be cheating
@@devforfun5618at mtg there is perfectly fine to lie about hidden info. Never trust to words, only to actions and open information. I could say that Im have 4 counterspells in hand while playing monored agro. And that would be illigal only if I have less then 4 cards in hand.
Its just psychotic that YGO thinks that asking a question is sometimes cheating, but only sometimes. Look, if you don't want people asking questions then fine, ban asking questions. But this weird middle ground where it's only illegal if your question intended to make someone think you were leaking information that was false. Which is... How can you run a game like that?
@@lostalone9320 asking a question about gamestate is legal. what not legal is counting out loud how many summons there are or any things that would imply you have a certain card in hand. it is legal to ask how many summons there have been but if you start counting out loud or taking visible taking notes of everytime they summon something that would imply you have nib.
@15:22 you can ask how many summons have you summoned this turn as that is apart of the board state, however you can not be like 1, 2, 3... you cant just count out loud as one is asking about the board state the other will be considered like a form of goading. they do the same thing but I guess counting aloud may make them change their whole line as apposed to asking how many monsters have you summoned this turn
its more like counting out loud can be taken as a cue for having nibiru thereby revealing private information which is directly against the rules, you also cannot misinform private info too so even if you dont have nibiru that can still be taken as disclosing false private info
I think the important part of the token thing in both magic and yugioh is that both players were capable of actually taking that action with the opponents knowledge. In a situation like nib, if you’re counting summons you are actively signaling you have it, and since you actually have it, it is to your disadvantage to signal as such.
@@meathir4921 to be more precise, you arent allowed to disclose private information even false information so visibly/audibly counting summons can be interpret as attempting to disclosing private info in your favor
thanks that's excatly my thought. Just saying "ok which monster will attack first" was somethimes enough that the biggest one either didn't attack at all or at last to finish
i think it depends. are we wanting it to be player vs player or deck vs deck? Player vs player (which i think it should be): each player can use mind games and such to outplay each other, possibly giving them an advantage in a disadvantageous position. Deck vs deck: the players are just tools to activate their cards, strategy is really only available in how and when they play those cards.
andres torres' situation is a bit misrepresented in yugioh its directly against the rules to disclose or misinform anything relating to private knowledge and this includes the contents of the deck so trying to mislead the opponent isnt the issue at hand here but the fact that he admitted in a video that the purpose of the swordsoul token was to mislead the opponent into believing he had certain cards in his deck regardless of whether this is true or not this is why its the video specifically that ousted him since hes literally admitting on camera that the "intent" of the swordsoul token is to disclose misinformation on private knowledge (thereby misleading his opponent)
@@krizzz7940 the issues isnt that he was misleading someone or that someone was misled but how he was doing it because its literally a rule that you cannot disclose private info or falsify private info, to quote directly from the tournament policy document; *"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. "* so if he made statements such as he was playing an aggro or control deck, hes running more handtraps then usual or that he is specifically running or siding in cards to counter a non-specific meta deck then this can mean a whole bunch of things about his deck while also not explicitly revealing anything at the same time that is classify as private knowledge this would not result in him being banned however he instead directly stated on video that having the swordsoul token on top of his deckbox, a token that can only be generated by certain swordsoul cards including its purpose being to mislead the opponent into thinking he was playing swordsoul instead of his actual deck which is branded despia, a deck that cant even mix with swordsouls and has little to no capacity to even generate tokens then he is basically confessing on camera that he is violating the rules of falsifying private information
What i do as mind games is use extra deck monsters that could be devastating if they came out and that i can technically summon so if they play cards that let them look and remove them so i can’t use them, they are more likely to remove those rather then the extra deck cards i really want. works most of the time unless they are super familiar with what i really want to go for.
The nibiru counting thing is sort of a matter of context and intent. If you're just asking how many summons was this turn, or better what was summoned this turn it makes it a mater of clarifying game state, which is completely legal and while it telegraphs nibiru, any sane player should expect nib during long combos. That said, in the context of counting out loud with every summon, or very clearly hand counting as to show your opponent you're counting. That's a needless action done only to telegraph a nibiru which you may not even have. The result is the same in telegraphing nib, the INTENT is to misrepresent game state, not to clarify it. You can just as easily count in head as to not reveal the nibiru in hand, but trying to wink and nod that you have it is just needless and misleading.
If your opponent decides to make an assumption based on a bluff, it's entirely their fault. Lying about public information that needs to be available to both players is cheating. Bluffing about private information that the opponent had no right to know is playing. Allowing bluffing makes games *more fair* if it allows individuals to ask for publically available information without putting them at a disadvantage by letting their opponent know for sure what they're planning. If you can't ask misleading questions about public information then that creates a situation in which public information (which is free in a fair game) has an unfair cost attached to it since it provides the opponent information they have no right to know. So bluffing isn't needless, it's needed for a fair game. The exceptions being digital games where all public information is tracked and available through the UI.
That is not misrepresenting the game state. You clearly do not even understand what that means. Bluffing a pointial or possiblity of a response or outcome during the game is not MISREPRESENTING THE GAME STATE. THE PROBLEM IS WHEN PEOPLE SPEAK ON HALF THOUGHT AND UNDERSTOOD conept and words. You all are conflating bluffing and game state. Please fully understand both before saying things, just like MBT, he made the same conflation. Thus mudding the waters and giving people completely wrong, false, unaccurate talking points. It's up to the player, which comes with a skill to try to see if it is a bluff or not. It's called yall are obsessed with the whole do you or do you not have interruptions BS that takes place now a days. You should never ever give up hand information willing. Yet you all fail to see and willing par take in the very poor game sense/iq move/habits. All for the sake of "time" which would b the only reason is that it is a viable or reasonable point to tell your opponent you have nothing say in a game 3 and your going second.
the point is that "whether I have nibiru available" is not public information to my opponent, therefore it's not part of the "game state" that I can mislead them about.
Reminds me of during rabbit format I was playing lightsworn and they was playing rabbit. The judge kept saying to show the soldier. Gozen match was locking them down. Mole was my MVP especially since they didn't negate the summon. They said they didn't negate due to being afraid of judgement dragon. Which I didn't have the conditions of the dragon, or had the dragon in my hand. Also didn't have condition for soldier. Won because of mole.
Through more on topic. Was playing against dogmaticka and think I was playing with a deck that didn't care about the extra deck. Dumped tri-bradge monsters and others that would be triggered. They surrendered. Note to self. Add Revolt to Floo.
i dont know much about yugioh (i stopped playing when they added extra colors after blue), but i think this would be like the "of blue eyes" set, or another set that cares about cards in the graveyard. It would be like pondering an effect, searching through the graveyard for a card, pulling it out of the grave, reading it, then putting it back, and allowing your opponent to continue the play. I understand where the player's head is at. He doesnt want to activate settle the wreckage (it would give his opponent 4 land cards, which would allow him to play all the gas cards in his hand next turn. he doesnt have enough on the board to win on the one turn his opponent is shields down). Lifelink on the token matters, as you only need 1 life left to win the game. so he is calculating the blocked damage plus the 1 heal damage
Farfa did an interview with a konami judge at one point, and he said that there’s nothing wrong with asking your opponent how many times they’ve summoned to bluff a Nibiru
Tbh someone tried that on my bro back in the day, he just made a retort saying you don't know how many times u summon? That's your problem. Tbh the other guy had friends around probably hinting out my bro had nib. The guy gives the weirdest question on a g3 when both g1 and 2 didn't had those questions.
Also, there seems to be some disagreement I think between the YGO and MTG side from the various videos I've watched ---- namely that YGO somehow seems to treat *intent as part of game state*. If I lie/misrepresent *what I plan to do* (e.g. by grabbing a token and hovering it over the game board), that is still not misrepresenting the *game state*. The latter would be something like declaring that I'm making a token, but not using a physical object and hoping the opponent forgets.
in yugioh you're not allowed to disclose private info even if its false info so if you have a card that can create tokens nad the opponent knows so then reaching for a token card or even playing around with it is perfectly legal, however if the opponent doesnt know you have a card that can generate tokens even if they're aware such a card may exist or does actually exist in your deck and took actions that you would be summoning tokens that your actions can be considered suspicious
I think a lot of people in this discussion are getting caught up on if something IS illegal or not in each game and not whether it SHOULD be. I dont think it should be, those kinds of bluffs are a skill in and of themselves and make of more interesting mental game, dismissing them as "scummy" just denies an entire angle of the game. It's also kind of ridiculous in a competitive setting where everyone is trying to get as much of an advantage as they can because there are real stakes. Also not a fan of the intent part of the YGO rules it makes for a very inconsistent rulebook that you as a player can't rely on, especially at a competitive level; I think hard and fast rules make for a much better system for judges and players. Additionally, why is my opponent allowed to play around the meta knowledge of what tokens I'm running but I'm not allowed to mislead them about that information? Seems rather arbitrary.
well for andres torres’ swordsoul token, its something that can only be generated by certain swordsoul cards when the deck hes actually playing which is branded despia has little to no capabilities to even generate any token let alone using swordsoul cards either since any swordsoul card that can generate their token applies a restriction to the player who summon it while the token is out on the field and this restriction absolutely cripples branded despia to the point you might as well consider the player throwing the game if they even so much as attempt to summon it another thing mentioned is that the swordsoul token doesnt exist in official capacity so he went out of his way to make it too but the real nail in the coffin is that he more or less confess on camera otherwise without proof of intent no one can really claim he was violating any rules, maybe shady to some but nothing that would implicate him to the point of being banned as for private misinformation, this one overlaps with how yugioh does not have a “fail to find” ruling so you cannot even attempt to deceive the opponent regardless in any way regarding private info
[edit: I should note that I’ve never played MTG, and have only played yugioh a handful of times again a friend borrowing one of his decks. I do play a digital CCG, which admittedly doesn’t have much of an opportunity for doing non-mechanic-based bluffs, unless you count the emotes. So, maybe if I had more experience with the kind of deception being discussed, I could better see a reason to discourage it.] It is a game of hidden information. Shouldn’t giving your opponent misleading signals about that part of the game state that is known to you but not known to your opponent, be, part of the game? Now, *maybe* I might want to forbid directly making false statements about parts of the game-state hidden to them, just because having people telling blatant lies doesn’t seem like it should be part of the meta (though I would think it wouldn’t be even if it was legal). But like... The entire point of the information advantage, is the chance that a player might make worse plays than they would make if they had the information, and like, idk, I feel like misleading plays, is just the flip side of avoiding making plays that do too much to forecast your future plays (and suggest things about the game state that your opponent wouldn’t know)
MTG and YGO simply has many difference in determining legal play. In MTG Cabal Theraphy works by naming a card then opponent reveal hand. But in YGO Mind Crush naming card yet not reveal hand, so opponent can simply lied and play that card safely after drawing another card. You just have to trust that your opponent had just drawn that card, totally not in his hand when you activate Mind Crush. Oh you also cannot call a judge to verify if your opponent has the named card.
Yeah. Coming from magic that just seems crazy. I guess that explains why they are so set on not letting people mislead their opponents about private info. Still, it seems like designing the rules to make that kind of cheat impossible is just the much better way to do things.
@@seandun7083 they actually use to allow players to look at opponent's decks or hand to confirm whether the opponent is lying about declared cards but players were deliberating using these types of cards beyond the scope of their effects by purposely declaring the name of cards they're sure the opponent does not have just so that by checking if they're lying they're scouting the opponent's deck so konami eventually changed the rules regarding this in 2019 that unless the card's effect explicitly states you're allowed to verify by looking at hidden info you are not allowed to do so thankfully along with mind crush there is only 2 other cards that does not allow you to verify private info in dark designator and lullaby of obedience of which both mind crush and dark designator are incredibly old cards having debuted in 2004 in the case of mind crush and 2001 for dark designator in the manga while lullaby of obedience is a relatively new card having debuted in 2016 its original appearance is from the manga though nothing on the specific date the chapter it appeared but in the anime it was in 2002 so its original debut is at least 2002 or prior basically all 3 of these cards were conceived in a time when yugioh was just barely out of its infantile years and the developers still havnt gotten yet a firm grasp on how to word effects
It's so crazy he mentions Alter Reality Games because I currently WORK for them and it's unreal to still hear people talk about the circuit days. Surreal.
While its not as bad as the guy who hid a Dryad Arbor underneath his other lands to misrepresent the number of blockers he had from the opponent when they went to attacks, what LSV did is still pretty scummy. MTG really should introduce rules to penalize players who conduct these underhanded tactics more.
Well it’s kinda impossible to not contemplate reactions even if you can’t do anything. Like you can read your own hand trap and it may not cover what you think it does. So it’s hard for people to say anything is intentional.
Reminds me during the monarchs structure deck. Some of the regionals my opponent would keep their extra deck in their deck box to make you think they played monarchs.
@@thatoneguy4101 yes, but still happened. When I called a judge they dismissed it as just a mistake. If you can’t prove intent then they get a slap on the wrist.
@@109968shadowboythat's a game loss and if they got hit with that two or three times it would be a DQ and a suspension at least today it would be even without intent.
One problem I see with penalizing someone for trying to mislead their opponent, is that as a player, you are supposed to block that stuff out. you aren't supposed to expect the opponent to tell you everything that they do, so if they start doing something like that, a good player would just block it out and play the way they are supposed to play. The only time a player is going to show exactly what they are going to do, they are going to be misleading. If you ignore what they do at all times, then the game plays normal. The rules imply that the players aren't very smart and are very gullible.
the thing about the scapegoat mirror force act is both cards legitimately in hand and one was was actively set while so this type of mind game is fair because regardless of what the opponet does you have a response compared to the initial issue of him having a token for something he is not running same idea in the case of the mtg play he had both playes and settle the wreckage was actively on his deck list albeit in a side board so in both of these scenarios if the opponent was able to see the decklist prior to match start there is the ability to make an informed gamble
As a magic player this is weird to even have debate about. What LSV did was not cheating and it shouldn't be published. Yugioh sounds like it has very weird rules
the circumstances may seem similar but its not precisely the same, as already mentioned what lsv did was misrepresent his own intended actions as but in andres torres' case he basically admitted on camera that the intent behind letting the opponent see that he has a swordsoul token is misinform the opponent about the contents of his deck which is considered private knowledge and that is in direct violation of the rules that states that you cannot disclose private knowledge including falsifying private knowledge
@@YukiFubuki. people do that swordsoul token bluff all the time in magic. You can even include extra decks that you don't have any to access like stickers and attractions and have your opponent cut those decks as a bluff and that's totally allowed
@@YukiFubuki. you can admit to doing this on camera in magic and there would be no consequences because no rule was broken. I don't understand why there would be a rule like this
@@pokepat460 beats me, i can only guess that its to preserve a more pure game state or something since knowing the content someone's deck can affect how you would play since its not like players actually know the content of their opponent's deck prior to actually dueling against them it also could just be that this rule wasnt designed for this scenario specifically and was meant to be something enforced elsewhere like in the middle of a duel and it just so happen to reach into this territory too
I'm kinda meh on all this because I don't pay attention to stuff like that. I don't try to ignore it like Vince. I'm just so focused on my stuff before the game starts. Did I shuffle well? Some of my sleeves got caught, did they split? Oh, I forgot to write down out life totals or I forgot to reset my life from last round. Do I have time in-between rounds to get a milkshake next door?
I see it like this as a player that has played both. In LSV's case he was looking at his options and if the opponent would of swung with only 1 or maybe 2 creatures he could of created a token in response. Since he could of did that as an alternative move then it legal because he didn't bluff and misrepresent the game state. I feel like it's different when it's something you could do. He was able to either cast the spell or summon a token. Now since the guy all out swung yeah its spell because it wipes the board. If he would of swung with 1 or 2 guys it's summon a token and chump block it.
it is because of nibiru that asking summons is illigal. uyou just have to remember it, is what they say. same for infinite impermanents. as having the colllm negated and both forget it, the player who gained most from forgetting it, can lose just for forgetting that a set imperm was activated in that collom.
I'm not a YGO player and don't know much about the history of ruling in YGO. I think sharking and deceitful plays are punished in YGO because Konami targets this game for kids mainly (even if lot of adults play it) and don't wanna promote this type of behavior. In MTG this is kinda lowkey celebrated as the majority of players older and the tournament scene grew up in that atmosphere where deceit was part of the game early on. Psychology of players are to be exploited and some people like this game within the game outside the constraints of game set rules. Some may look iffy like the token without context, but one rule professional players should abide to is never make assumptions of opponent's intentions and always assume they will try to give wrong information. Every player should be assumed that are fishing for advantages within boundaries of legality and scum play. In that token "play" was within the boundaries of legality and quite frankly the opponent played itself. Anyone sharp would have smelled this moment of psychological weakness and take advantage of it and some watchers would celebrate that as big brain "play" (although others didn't like that as it was in a limbo boundary of legality as seen as an abuse instead).
I recently built a meme deck for a few mtg commander games. 97 lands and such. Obviously, I didn't need any tokens for the deck. It's somewhat weird for someone to show up with a deck and no tokens for it though. Almost every deck makes some kind of tokens, and the players at my LGS know I try my absolute hardest to have all my tokens, so I threw a few bullshit tokens in my deck box to place on the side of the table so nothing seemed off. If I'm understanding the situation correctly, that would absolutely be penalized under Konami's rules. It seems almost exactly like the original situation. Someone else pointed out something about manipulating "known" vs "unknown" information and I think a distinction has to be made there. If someone is trying to misrepresent what should be known information, that absolutely should be penalized. Not tapping your lands all the way to try and trick your opponent into thinking you have more mana open than you do, placing an artifact creature with your artifacts to try and make your opponent think you have less blockers, etc. That is actually misrepresenting the game-state. The poker situation is another example of something that should be penalized. If someone said "Hmmmm, combat" to try to make their opponent think they were going to combat when in fact they were staying in their main phase then they are intentionally misrepresenting the action that they were taking, which should be known information and shouldn't be misrepresented. But unknown information should be fair game. Why shouldn't I be able to bluff that I have a counter-spell, or kill spell in hand? What I have in my hand should not be part of the relevant game-state for my opponent's decision making (unless they have looked at my hand recently of course). What tokens I have brought with me should not be part of my opponent's decision making. Trying to make your opponent think you have called already in a game of poker is scummy, but bluffing is a strategic part of any game with unknown information. Bluffing is not cheating.
I've seen other people saying the Nibiru ruling is dumb because it's overlapping with clarifying game state and I can't agree more. What an absolutely terrible ruling. This puts you in a position where if you have nibiru, you absolutely CANNOT ask to clarify the game state because it will 100% telegraph what you have.
I get what you are saying but you are not thinking it through right. Lets say you DO have Nib in hand for instance. You know you have it and therefore you know you need to keep track of the summon count. KEEP TRACK OF THE SUMMON COUNT! You should not need to ask anyone how many monsters they have summoned. If you do need to ask then it means you are not paying attention to the game and that is YOUR fault. It is not difficult to count to 5 in your head. Watch the game, keep track and when they hit 5 you can play your Nib. On the other hand if you DONT have Nib in hand and you are asking your opponent how many summons they have made or you are counting out loud then you are purposefully deceiving your opponent into thinking you have one and that is simply not allowed. Side note, I think those sort of mind games should be allowed but Konami say different so this is where we are at.
> you need to keep track of the summon count. KEEP TRACK OF THE SUMMON COUNT! @SavageEye This is public information. Both players need to keep track. You should not be penalized because you had a 2 second brain lapse in the middle of a turn.
@@ASavageEye " If you do need to ask then it means you are not paying attention to the game and that is YOUR fault" That's the whole point, you shouldn't be penalized for briefly not paying attention. It's PUBLIC information
@@brofst That's what I'm saying lol. Imagine you go, "hey, can I look at your gy?" and then they call a judge over to see if you have gy interaction? I think as long as you aren't stalling by asking or counting along with summons, it seems like it should be allowed. Like, it's not even something I would really do, but I wouldn't mind it done to me. It just makes no sense to me. How is it any different from setting a card that does nothing and then pretending to think on attack or when phases change. I guess good thing I don't play irl yugioh lol.
@@brofst NOBODY is penalising you for not paying attention, so what are you getting hung up on if for? I mean you have now posted TWO comments to make that point and it has nothing to do with the actual topic at hand. You are penalised for making false indications around the game state, nothing more. The only penalty you get from not paying attention is purely self inflicted because you now do not know how to respond in the given situation.
I love mtg mostly play pioner and edh bluffing is great like holding 7 mana up and saying i have cyclonic rift when i dont is great a good bluff can test the mental deduction skills of players and i dont think its sketch at all to grab a token and put it back
How this is even close to yugioh players is wild to me. I get angle shooting, but angle shooting and what LSV did are very different. Also showing literal cheaters as B-roll for what top players do seems a bit leading. But what LSV did seems like 100% ok. If I can't bluff what i have then what's the point of playing a random card game. If we look at poker, if someone says "all-in" and I have a straight flush but there are 2 other players at the table, I will almost certainly hem and haw for like 2-3 minutes to try and get other players to join in. Is that angle shooting? Or is it bluffing? The other 2 players that get caught into the pot will feel bad, but I doubt any poker tournament will call that foul play, but instead just good bluffing.
the countering the cascade spell vs the spell being cascaded into example has actually been reversed. I had a judge call at SCG Baltimore where I presented a Spell Pierce before my opponent's cascade trigger resolved To my surprise, the judge asked if my intention was to shortcut and counter the cascaded spell, and I said yes, he asked my opponent if he had any reason to think that wasn't my intention, and the opponent said no, and the game state was resolved in the way that benefited me, crashing footfalls getting countered. Magic is slowly moving to more intent based enforcement and is discouraging angle shooting more and more. However, bluffing, including what tokens you have in your deckbox, should remain allowed imo. It's a hidden information game. Walking your opponent into the wrong line has been how many high level games have been decided for decades. Getting into the weeds with what is and isn't allowed for that seems like it would lead to more feels bad moments than it would prevent
best cheat imho was way back when Gadget was the best grind deck. Some players played a gadget...searched their deck but instead of searching for the gadget you were supposed to search they searched for ANY card which would be useful in the situation, put that card face down on the fiel, shuffle their deck, put the card into their hand and present the appropriate gaged that was already in their hand to their opponement. Also ONE BIG THING you are forgetting: the Tokens he grabed are already on the table in the finals. You don't have to "grab it out of your deck box" same with Pokemon everything which is needed to play are on the table (like Tokens or any plastic token stuff for pokemon). So the tokes were provided by MTG. He essentially was playing with a card.... that could be the same if (way back in ygo) you played with one card in your hand pretending it would be gorz
Whats wrong with bluffing? Its one of the main forms of strategy in a lot of traditional card games. Pretending u had mirror force set was part of the fun of childhood yugioh. I understand why the token thing might be an issue but youre not allowed to verbally count summons if you dont have nibiru?? Why? Just takes a bit of the fun out of cardgames imo. I guess i still understand its for sportsmanship and making things more clear and reasonable. But afaik, games are social, people seem to treat these things way too seriously.
count summons for nibiru in head, theres little to no reason to do so out loud beyond telegraphing to the opponent they will get nib'ed or that you might be trying to mislead and especially when it might not even be in the hand
Lets say theoretically Nabeiru or however that's spelled is in your sideboard. If you count your opponents summons in their combo game 1 and discover that it would be enough to activate that card you can use that information to make your deck better for game 2. If you count your opponents combo and it wouldn't be enough then you know not to sideboard it in. Or the inverse, you sideboard it out when you discover it wouldn't save you anyway. Even if it's not in your hand it is a useful thing to know. Even outside the tournament there is a real chance you play another tournament, and knowing that card would have saved you is the first step to improving your deck. That rule is just weird.
Yes but also you can count *in your head* , if you do it out loud you're gonna get DQ'd for sure bc your words have implications, whether you want it or not and the implication here is that you have Nibiru, making hand motions to count up to 5 seems like it's a thing you either did involuntarily, or on purpose to misrepresent your hand depending on how overt your gesturing is, in that case the judge is going to tell you to stop doing that, give you a warning (this is one of the penalties they can give you) and if the judge gets called again for the same thing they HAVE to call the head judge in case they want to bump up the penalty, usually they abide by the 3 strikes rule unless you're bad at pretending you didn't do it on purpose, or if they are called for something else that would be on that grey area of deniability between unintentionality and intentionality the judge may or may not attribute malice to it but if they want to do so, they need to call the head judge to investigate the matter, if the head judge determines it was intentional the penalty is DQ, if they determine it was unintentional or they're unsure then it goes back to being a warning, usually accompanied by a verbal warning that if you do it again that's a DQ (And no you can't abuse it and call the judge a billion times on a guy unless they actually do a lot of shady stuff because if the HJ determines you are rule sharking You are the one that's gonna be DQ'd)
@@matiaspereyra9392 It's in my sideboard. It's not my fault you jumped to an assumption about why I'm counting. That's on you, not me. Hell, maybe it's not in my sideboard, but I'm considering adding it for a later tournament, I may not even own it, but it may be worth my time to go get a copy. Your rules are weird.
@@grantharriman284 you are allowed to count or ask how many summons has happen. you arent allowed to verbally or visible count each time they make a summon. even without the rules they mentions keeping track of summons is considered note taking which beyond a few exceptions is illegal to do. but considering that nib is the only card that keeps track of summons then by visible or verbally counting how many times your opponent summoned this turn would imply that you either have nib in hand or running it in main deck with the possibility of being able to draw it.
Quick! Get someone to give their perspective on your perspective on MBT's perspective of Pleasant Kenobi's perspective of the controversy! You won't even be able to SEE the original video under all the reactions!
This is some next level bullshit from Konami, how the hell are you supposed to police your opponent's inference from your actions? That guys examples of Nibiru and Triple Tactics Talent make this even more clear. Asking a question to clarify the game state is not in any way misrepresenting the game state. If I ask the question about Triple Tactics Talent and I actually have it, is that OK? Trick question, that shouldn't matter at all. In the ban example in question, the player isn't even misrepresenting the game state because the game hasn't begun. Making your opponent make mistakes is a huge part of all games of limited information, thinking around these things is part of the skillset.
Asking a player on how many times they have summoned monster(s) is fine. But if one says "I have Nibiru on hand" and turns out they actually don't it's straight up lying.
but both should be ok. Let me count summons, ask for effects, bluff which cards i might have or might not. Thats part of a card game. In Magic its even allowed to not point out stuff thats not immediately impacting the game as long as u prevent your opponent from doing illegal stuff based on wrong assumptions.
Am I stupid, it seems like a me: "I'm going to do this" Opponet: "Then I'll full swing" Board state: *changes* me: "Okay I will no longer do that then"
I feel like the key is how blatant your bluff is. If you set a dead card to make your opponent hesitant about a battle trap is one thing. Saying out loud "now I'd like too see you attack with your big monsters" as you do is a whole other story. If you wanna be sneaky be smart about it.
Setting a dead spell card is a perfectly legal bluff as setting spell/trap cards in the spell/trap zone is a legal action in every sense. If the opponent falls for the bluff and doesn't end the game then that's on them. Setting a specific token, you aren't going to use, on top of your deck to misdirect the opponent on what you're running. The player even announced the intention behind it, which heavily influences how game one matches played and can result in him winning the important game one.
@otterfire4712 tokens aren't a part of the game until a card creates them so a card that is not a legal card that is not in my main deck or side deck is not part of the game state.
@@otterfire4712 I mean, you can not like the idea of trying to gain advantage from something outside the game, that's valid. But the bluff he did literally only works if the opponent is looking at what's in his deck box to try and get an advantage of knowledge from outside the game.
The thing about counting summons is that the intent of doing so is to cause your opponent to believe you have nibiru in your hand, that intent is what makes it illegal. If nibiru didn't exist, it would be fine to do, but no one would have reason to do it.
I strictly play MTG, and some of the examples that were given that wouldn't be ok just makes it seem like Konami are trying to baby their player-base too much. Bluffing is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, especially about things your opponent shouldn't know. When you construct your deck, you're not necessarily building something card-for-card from some website, you'll make some slight changes here or there, or build something completely unknown. And being able to have that hidden information that you can play with is significant, and it takes a real professional player to be able to play around the things that they expect and filter through your bluffs.
I think one reason why MtG doesn't have an intent rule is that it is so ambiguous and would also make corruption/prejudice among judges a bigger issue. Not saying the latter would be a massive problem, but it could happen. The other reason is that with as much interaction (what Yu-Gi-Oh players know as spell speed 2) as Magic has, mind games and reading opponent's board states are a major part of reaching the top. The best example is a blue player leaving mana open to represent a counterspell to bluff the opponent into playing more carefully, but all colors have similar options. As long as you don't actually violate one of Magic's many very specific rules, you're good. I can see why people prefer the intent rules to not having any rule about verbally misrepresenting the game state, but I don't think a rule like that would work out quite so well in Magic and I prefer not having it. Especially because it would make the line between "purposely misrepresenting the game state" and "banter about having a counterspell in a deck that could play it, when an experienced player knows you can't possibly have that" very blurry and would lead to some d-bags using it to dq people.
Mmmmm, the moment the token was moved was the moment Id call angle shooting. Making eye motions to your deck box with tokens? One thing. Touching the actual tokens? Completely different. Also, that counting rule is BS as someone who plays "You're Finished!!" in a paleo/Lab build, I fuckin need to count to know if it's live sometimes. Counting ten individual effects & summons is *hard*, especially when monsters have multiple effects and pendulums summon more than one monster, but is just 1 summon? My brain gets full, I need to count.
I'm not going to argue that these AREN'T the rules. What I will say is the logic behind this way of ruling is so backwards. The "original sin" here is the opponent trying to derive information about the gamestate by looking at things OUTSIDE the game. "... he intended to mislead his opponents as to what deck he was playing..." Even if he doesn't consciously realize it, what he's ACTUALLY doing is "intending to mislead opponents WHO ARE THEMSELVES LOOKING TO ANGLE SHOOT as to what deck he was playing". If his opponents were playing honest and only using information garnered from the match itself, or (although this sucks for its own reasons) scouted in a previous round, then these tokens are a non-issue. If he had set his deckbox under something or had it in some other way out of sight, again, no problem. This infraction REQUIRES an opponent looking for an unfair advantage in order for there to be a victim. They DESERVE to be misled at that point. WOTC doesn't try to rule against stuff like this because it lacks logical consistency, and would be a nightmare to enforce. Can I report a player for wearing a custom tee shirt that says "I never play Mirror Force in my decks", when they blow me out with Mirror Force? This is logically nearly the same thing.
@@SmoketySm0ke not specifically but in a way; yes and only in tournament play because there is little difference in the semantics of it the cards in the deck is considered private knowledge and a swordsoul token can only be generated by certain swordsoul cards so him letting the opponent get a glimpse of the swordsoul token can be interpreted as disclosing private misinformation which is directly against the rules there is a level of subjectivity to this but overall the deciding factor is that andres torres did this intentionally and is also why he wasnt caught until he actually admitted it in a video because even if his opponent realized what he was doing theres no evidence of this being intentional... until he decided to go on camera about it
If anyone's not familiar with the Magic competitive rules, there was a big crackdown on the angle-shooting that MBT talks about. Fishing for wins is now likely to get you DQ;d . I think Konami goes too far with "misrepresenting the game state." It frequently applies to things outside the game or to hidden information. before game actions have even been made. If Konami doesn't want people to misrepresent hidden information, they should just have people play with all cards face-up.
the thing with rule violation in yugioh is that there needs to be proof of in andres torres’ case; evidence of intent, which he pretty much confessed on video to banning him at that point after the tournament also has the idea of trying to discourage other players from doing the same too
@@YukiFubuki. I understand why Konami banned Torres and I agree that it is within Konami's discretion to do so. I also think Konami's focus on intent is a terrible way to do things. "Intentional misleading" is extremely vague and can be applied to basically any Yugioh paraphernalia a player happens to have on them. If the policy requires an admission to enforce, it's not useful. The policy about revealing hidden information is similarly terrible. It punishes mistakes and makes talking sub-optimal. The only reason it doesn't cause more problems is because it doesn't get enforced selectively.
@@randommaster06 well the policy regarding hidden info sorta overlaps with how yugioh does not have a fail to find rule or more specifically, you are not allowed to activate a card if you would knowingly fail to resolve it which makes a fail to find rule obsolete as such a rule first requires the precedence of being unable to resolve a card the only exception to cards being able to resolve is if when resolving a chain which is yugioh's stack, something higher on the chain/stack resolves that causes something lower on it to be unable to resolve such as if you were to use a card to attempt to destroy a monster on the opponent's side of the board but then opponent plays a card that preemptively removes that monster of theirs you were trying to destroy from the board then your own card is unable to resolves and just "fizzles" out because of this if you're able to lie about hidden info then you can attempt to "bait" out certain interruptions/counters through effects that delve into hidden info locations even if you were to have no way to resolve the effect of the card if the opponent does not bite in which case you can probably pretend to think about your available options are before surrendering and moving on to game 2 or 3 to decided the match and none will be the wiser because in a game like yugioh where every card can have high impact each move you make is incredibly important and can decide the result of the game and sure unless the opponent is suspicious no one will find out but this is precisely why "proof" is required here since you arent allowed to simply call a judge over for roused suspicion so you need evidence of their "intent" overall a lot of the yugioh things got misrepresented a bit in this video or arent really apt comparison such as the analogy of scapegoat and mirror force against 5 opponent's monsters where a single direct atk is lethal since if the player used scapegoat that alone wouldent be able to prevent lethal so the opponent believe that the game is already decided compare to what im understanding of lsv's play according to mbt either move would prevent lethal but 1 is simply more devastating to the opponent or something another would be stevie being shocked that counting nibiru is illegal which gave a bit too much of focus on it... it actually not illegal, its doing something that would indicate nibiru that is illegal as counting summons out loud as they happen as nibiru is the only card in yugioh whose trigger conditions requires the opponent to have conducted a certain amount of specific actions the turn so everyone more or less immediately knows its nibiru if you so much as hint of it so while you can count for nibiru you arent allowed to do so that would indicate its presense or lack of it such as asking if the opponent summoned 5 times yet, counting out loud, tallying it as it happens etc to go back to andres torres case the swordsoul token has more implications then it seems since while yes you can use any token to represent any token he was playing branded despia a deck that has little to no capacity of even generating any tokens let alone a swordsoul token of all things which can only be generated by certain swordsoul cards and all swordsoul cards that would generate that specific token also applies a restriction to the player while its on field, a restriction that would absolutely cripple branded despia if they were the one that summoned it so hes playing a deck that is the absolute opposite of swordsouls and using a token that also doesnt actually exist in official capacity too he basically went out of his way to get something like that made and made sure the opponent sees it, whether it worked or not isnt the point of content but that he again; confessed on video
@@YukiFubuki. So I could run a literal brick E. Tele to bait an Ash, and when it resolves, I get...a penalty or chance to surrender? How is revealing I have Droll in my hand advantageous for me? So I can count summons, but not in a way that might be interpreted as you having (or pretending to hae) Nib, the only card in the game that cares about the number of summons your opponent made? Should I include a legal disclaimer whenever I count or do something that may be construed as coining? So I can have tokens, which, according to the rules, can be any token. Except they can't be the wrong token, which is determined the popular decks from the community. Are my sleeves, deck box, playmat and attire held to these same standards? The Hidden Information rules don't work. It only stops things that don't happen anyways and punish innocuous behavior,. It's only effective when someone admits to violating it intentionally, which makes it USC-Cheating, making the Hidden Information policy redundant.
@@randommaster06 you have to submit a deck list so the organizers or just anyone who looks over the event later like a content creator can oust your attempt to resolve a card you never had the ability to resolve in the first place and no your not officially given a chance, its just a suggestion as a fail safe since you can surrender anytime which may not even work like the time infernity players would set their monsters into the s/t zones to feign having no hand only to scope if opponent tries to destroy their face downs and how is droll even relevant in this when it cant even trigger off of e.tele counting to 5 is toddler lvl math, theres no need to count out loud so you can do it in your head, you can also ask how many times the player summon too so you dont have to ask if they summoned 5 times specifically or you can just look at their board since something like a synchro or xyz is almost always 3 min with links being the same as their rating so its incredibly easy to tell if someone summoned at least 5 times without directly hinting at nibiru the tokens can be any tokens, the point isnt whether its a popular deck or the wrong token but that it further complicit his confession on video and tokens are consider to be supplementary game material which isnt the same as things like deck boxes, game mats or even the players own choice of attire the point of needing both intent and proof is so its dual layered, if someone is proven to have cheated it will likely just result in a warning or something similar if it accidental and even if someone thinks their opponent is cheating it needs to be proven so someone isnt able to call a judge over for every single little thing or try to rule shark in soem weird way
God this why rulings should not be able to be made on hidden knowledge if my opponent doesn't know something for a fact I should not be penalized for them making assumptions.
I mean we couldn't even prove if LSV intended to use the token. He might have if the opponent didn't swing with everything. Both players were aware that LSV had the bord wipe in his deck and it was a very common card at the time which people would be playing around anyhow. If you ask me all he did was signaling about what he might be planning, possibly to throw the opponent off about what the plan was. Similar to poker, highlevel play in Magic is about reading your opponent as much as it is about knowing the cards and playing optimally.
13:08 he 100% had the ability to do the thing he was implying he would do. He didn't represent anything false. If his opponent wasn't trying to gain advantage by analyzing how he chose to organize his own play area none of this does anything. His opponent tries to gain that info, so gets misled. That's just normal play. Going over and pulling out the token is a clear intentional step, but information warfare is 100% fair play when all that information is factually accurate.
As a Magic [EDH] player; It isn't the nicest thing to do, but preparing Tokens when you HAVE the ability to use them is fine. If you have literally no answers and act like you have a board wipe in hand, that's a bit sus, but I wouldn't get too angry over it. It makes more sense to think of what if your opponent DOES have the answer.
The scapegoat scenario has one other aspect both players ignored. They could have set both scapegoat and mirrorforce, and chose to only set mirrorforce, representing the card drawn for turn was a dead draw. This alone is just a normal bluff but when this bluff is combined with the questionable misleading behavior, I think confirms the intent to misrepresent the game state.
If his opponent only attacked with one of his creatures he would have only used the token effect and because his opponent attacked with all the optimal play changes giving more defense to the MTG player. There is a right and wrong play in that situation that changes based on the opponents actions. However if the token hit the board and the lands were touched to play the effect that is a point of no return.
On one hand, I genuinely enjoy the mind games that Magic is more tolerant of. On the other, check out a ~35-minute video called "Plays that Forced Magic: the Gathering Rules Changes (MTG)" and prepare to be enraged by some of the dirty shit players have gotten away with. One of them is basically the equivalent of setting a monster in one of your S/T zones and then pointing it out when your opponent goes in for a game-winning direct attack.
While I have a great love for bluffing and mind games in card games, I definitely understand why YGO would want to go out of the way to limit or ban outright scummy gameplay beyond the boardstate. People have to keep track of enough during the 20 step combos without having to also pass the wisdom check of not getting influenced by an opponent doing weird out-of-gamestate actions or displaying tokens that their deck can not ever use. I think it would be neat to have a small full on bluffer tourney event where everyone showed up expecting to play hybrid YGO/back alley poker and brought all of their "legal, but scummy" techniques, but it wouldn't be healthy to be the norm at the top level of competitive play for sure.
The best thing is when players clearly violate the policy document and the store bans the player that was wronged. It's the reason I quit playing this game. I got punched in the face for no reason, and the owner of the card shop suspended me because she saw I was moving around behind the player after my match while he was still playing.
The rules for this in Magic are very clear. You may lie about hidden information, you may not lie about public information. In the case of putting a card you aren't playing on your extra deck, you it would be really simple in Magic. If the game has published decks and the opponent asked afyer seeing the card of you were playing it, you would have to say no. If deck lists are private, they can say anything. If you make a decision based on your opponent's representation of hidden information, that's on you. If anything, I think these rules just create a ton of gray area where you train players to trust opponent signals and the best liars get an advantage as a result. I'd assert that an environment where you just assume all opponent signals about hidden information are worthless is better. You have little incentive to bother going for deception if your opponent has been trained to just ignore you anyway.
in yugioh its the opposite, the rulebook directly states *"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"* in other words yugioh does not allow the player to confirm or deny anything related to private info as doing either can affect how the game is played, what andres torres did on camera is more or less admitting that he was purposely falsified what is considered private knowledge; his deck and is in direct violation of the rules
@@YukiFubuki. Right, exactly. I think that's actually a super unfortunate rule since it creates subjectivity in judging and creates a much nastier meta game where you may, in fact, be more incentivized to try to game the system.
@@Reverie42 not really, you're also not allowed to call a judge over soemthing as simple as roused suspicion so someone can only be penalized for this if there is sufficient evidence and/or reason to believe they're violating the rules its why both of those clauses is preceded by "Intentionally", there needs to be evident of intent in their actions hence why it was tht deck profile video that ousted andres torres and not during any actual match since hes basically confessing on camera that he was violating the rule here since if he just left it as it is and didnt explain specifically why the token was there then it can mean a whole bunch of things as its not like the deck he was playing was entirely incapable of generating tokens either
@@YukiFubuki. You keep making the same point I'm making. Because intent is hard to prove, there's a lot of room to try to game the system. That's silly. Just make things consistent and teach players not to pay attention to their opponents about anything regarding hidden information. It's much simpler for everyone that way.
@@Reverie42 im not saying there isnt any subjectivity to it or that it isnt hard to prove but subjective whim of roused suspicion is not evidence of intent its not as loose as you think it is because there needs to be a cut and dry reason to believe a rule is being violated in the first place and not just because it seems like it besides, arent you assuming that players are falling for his misdirection when you dont even know whether it worked or not, andres wasnt punished for successfully tricking someone anyway but because he bascially admit to violating the rules regarding private knowledge when he attempted to misrepresent the game state theres no subjectivity to what amounts to an actual confession this sort of misdirection isnt even anything new in yugioh; play-mats, deck box, sleeves, clothing and accessories can all be taken as misinformation and especially so when there is so much mech relating to yugioh too as it isnt within the top 100 highest grossing franchise of all time for nothing someone can be wearing sky striker ace - raye t-shirt with sleeves and deck box of sky striker ace - raye but this isnt confirmation that to their opponent theyre playing sky strikers, you can cosplay as yugi muto himself and be running a blue eyes deck instead and this still isnt evidence of anything the same goes for the swordsoul token, it doesnt automatically confirmed that he was playing swordsoul despite acknowledging this was what he intended to mislead the opponent into thinking because he couldve been just playing a swordsoul variant deck, his deck mightve just been using some swordsouls cards (around this time there were 3-4 decks that were either splashing in swordsoul cards or using them as an adjacent strategy) or the simply using it as a stand-in for any other token as the adventure engine was massively popular at this time and it invokes generating a token that is required for its actions but the differences is that he outright stated the intent of the token in a video
aight. so having a token set aside that has nothing to do with the deck is whatever. if the opponent falls for it, i would say that they are trying to gain knowledge they should not have. same goes for having a deckbox with artwork for a different deck archetype. if the opponent tries to gain an unfair advantage by determining what I’m playing by the art on my deckbox, thats on them 🤷
I dont think a ban should happen either way. The only way that either of these could be considered misrepresenting game state is if the enemy is trying to use knowledge they should not have to base their play. The enemy should not know if lsv is going to make a token only that he can make one. Just like no one should know scapegoat was set only that it could be.
Maybe my MtG bias here, but I have problems grasping that a game state exists before the game begins. (Another interesting MtG thing about game state - the concept is referred to multiple times in the rules but there is no actual definition for it anywhere - I guess its supposed to be like obscenity: you know it when you see it) That counting summons thing if applied to MtG sounds analogous to obviously keeping track of storm count when you didn't have any storm cards in your hand.
biggest difference between counting the summons out loud or visible and keeping track of storm count is that there are multiple ways for you to draw during everyone turn. which in ygo there only one card that cares about how many times your opp summoned so by doing visible(could also count as taking notes which is also illegal) or audibly counting summons that would imply you have nib in hand or run it in your deck. also keep in mind mtg also allows players to bluff and lie more or less but ygo dont
