I wanted to write a report today about how I bashed the Top 8 and won Grand Prix: Columbus. That sadly didn't happen. The Grand Prix didn't go so well for me, at least in the main tournament. I played Zoo and begin off with one bye and a 3-0 start that quickly turned into 4-4. Never the less, I had a good time over the weekend and on Sunday managed to both take and pass my level 1 judge test.

I'm not going to write about all of that. However, I want to follow up a bit with what I talked about last week (The Important of Your Reputation), and showcase an interesting interaction that I saw take place on Saturday at the Grand Prix.

The judge answered he was asked question correctly. What he didn't mention (because he wasn't asked) was that Vial will use last known information if it is no longer in play. This is different than if his opponent had used a Vampire Hexmage on it. Even though the Vial had been exiled, its ability was still on the stack for four.

One of two things happened here:

A) Player B didn't know that Vial would still put a creature with 4 casting cost into play. He was playing a deck with Vial in it as well, but it's possible that he thought that exiling the artifact was different than just destroying it.

B) Player B didn't think his opponent knew, and called a judge and asked a very specific question to trick his opponent into believing (with a judge confirmation) that he wouldn't be able to put a creature into play.

If this is A, then it's a classic example of two players not knowing how something worked, and a judge who can't give strategic advice. If it is B, then it is a very questionable example, at least ethically, of one player using a Judge to his advantage in a match. It's approaching the line between legal play, and illegal play, though still on the legal side. If he had simply used Mangara on the Vial, his opponent might have put the Ringleader into play anyway. If he'd told his opponent that he couldn't put something into play, and a judge was called, he would have risked getting a warning. Instead, he called a judge to ask a slightly misleading question, which led his opponent to believe that he couldn't put a creature into play with Vial.

I like to believe that it was the former example, but I also like to believe that most people are honest. I know that isn't always the case. There are people who would find this kind of play to not only be ethically sound, but 'next level' or incredibly smart. I am against ever using a judge to confuse or distract my opponent. They have a hard enough job as it is without being used as an extension of the game. There is a line, which is not always clearly defined between a legal play, and an illegal play. If you try and constantly skirt the line, then it is easy to cross over it. Sometimes you may know you are doing it, sometimes you may not.

Part of the problem comes from the fact that paper Magic is full of ambiguities. All of those nice little things that Magic Online does to show whose turn it is, who is supposed to make a decision, and what has been chosen with a spell or ability – those just don't exist in the real world. Instead of clicking on targets, you have to announce them. Each and every player has to decide for him or herself how they are going to handle these ambiguities, and if they want to remove them (as best possible) or use them to their advantage.

I personally believe that you should be as clear as possible at all times with what you are doing in order to maintain a proper gamestate. Part of that means not trying to trick my opponents by using the rules. Plenty of people will disagree with me on that fact, and it is something that the DCI doesn't mandate. There is a large gray line that every player has to walk between giving their opponents all of the information they could possibly have, and giving them only what the rules require. When you are playing a game, you have to keep this in mind both for your own sense of ethics, and because your opponent's feelings may not be the same as your own. Your opponent is generally not looking out for your best interests. If your opponent does something that seems strange, or uses a very out of place wording be on the lookout.

Perhaps the most famous example of this in recent times was "Give all of my legal targets fear." This has become the poster child for all 'shady' or underhanded plays in the past year. If you don't know the story, Patrick Chapin was playing at an event (I believe it was a 5k) and was facing down lethal against an opponent who was at a very high life total. He had several creatures, including a Chameleon Colossus, all of which would need to be unblocked. What's a boy to do? Cast a Profane Command with x=6, naming his opponent for life loss and "all my legal targets gain fear," and then attack with the squad for lethal. In this example, legal targets does not include Chameleon Colossus (due to its Protection from Black), which is only relevant if your opponent knows it doesn't include Chameleon Colossus. In this example, his opponent didn't, so Patrick won the game.

Notice he didn't say "all of my creatures" because he understands what the line is between a legal play and an illegal play. Saying "all of my creatures" would be a game rule violation, because he would be targeting the Colossus. If he'd used the wrong wording, and knew that he couldn't give his Colossus fear, he would have at least been given a warning, and risked a DQ.

Lets move to an example of how this lack of clear information can be used to your advantage in a game.

In the above situation, X=3 doesn't mean that Sunburst = 3. If the player taps , it will come into play with two counters on it. This is perfectly legal, and you'd be hard pressed to find a judge that would rule otherwise.

Now imagine the same situation with two Watery Graves and a Breeding Pool. Tap three lands, play Engineered Explosives for 3. This is where you approach the line. You have a number in your head for what the sunburst is going to be, but with this example it could technically be between 1 and 3. You haven't made it clear what mana you are actually using, so there is a good chance a judge would back up to the casting of the spell, if they were called in. But it isn't a certainty.

When your opponent plays Explosives on you, it is a good idea (unless it is very clear with the lands he or she has tapped) to ask what mana they are spending. Never assume anything, especially if something about their actions seems strange or out of place. A good player making a nonsensical play is probably up to something.

I used this example first, because it has practical applications. I have cast Explosives for 5 just to get around Counterbalance in the past. In fact, I once did something very similar to the above example, except I announced "blue, blue, black. Explosives for 3," in order to get around Spell Snare. I wasn't trying to trick my opponent, I wanted to make it clear so that any judge call later wouldn't be backed up. My opponent could have Spellstutter Sprited it, but he didn't, thinking it would come into play with three counters on it. My decision to make it very clear what mana I used saved me in that game.

Now, lets move to another example I've seen in a match of Magic. This was during an Extended season a few years ago, when Astral Slide was a popular deck. If you've ever needed an example of how your opponent isn't required to answer your questions well,

Player A has asked a very specific question, but there is an ambiguity there that player B knows about. Pithing Needle can name Lightning Rift. It can also name Plains, or Swamp, or Tarmogoyf. You can name Sudden Shock with Pithing Needle, but that doesn't mean it's going to stop any of those cards. But it is a legal card to name.

Ask yourself – what would you have done in this situation? You haven't committed a rules violation because your opponent named a card they were allowed to name. If you cast a Flames Fusillade, then you would not be able to tap your Lightning Rift to deal one to your opponent. On the other hand, your opponent was clearly asking if Pithing Needle would stop Lightning Rift's ability from being used. It's a trigger, so it doesn't. Answering 'yes' would be dishonest, and probably not ethically sound.

So far, we've been on the legit side of the line, lets look at what the other side of the line looks like.

In the above situation, Player B was given a game win, which resulted in winning the match. He admitted to me later that he knew what was going on. He was sure he was going to lose the game, then his opponent randomly took his turn again. He said he was going to stop him, but then realized it was his only out to win the game. "How lucky!"

This example happened several years ago, so I don't know exactly how it would be ruled today. My guess is there would be some long questioning for both players – player A on why he thought it was his turn again, and player B on why he didn't think to mention something when his opponent untapped his lands and creatures.

By the current rules, Player B would be required to stop his opponent after he untapped his creatures. At that point, a game rule violation has occurred, and if you let the opponent draw a card because he believes it is his turn again (for whatever reason) then you are risking a disqualification.

This is where the line comes in. It would be very easy to say that you didn't realize what was going on. If your opponent were to do it fast enough, you could say you had no way of stopping it. More than a few people would be willing to feign ignorance here, but that is well over the cheaty-face line, and nowhere even near the correct ethical zipcode.

Finally, I'll go over an example I have heard of, but never seen anyone so bold to actually perform in real life. I've heard from various sources on if it still works or not, but it is certainly as close to the line, if not over it, as any play that I know of.

The board involves player B having no creatures in play.

This play is probably mostly lore. I've heard of it happening so many times, but never at a single event I've ever been involved in. In the old days, I'd heard that Player A was deemed to have conceded. Then at a later time, I've heard that Player B was deemed to have conceded. I'm not sure how this would be ruled on today, but I know it would be a headache for everyone involved, and could easily result in a DQ. But what if you were player B and you had a Safe Passage? You have a legitimate way to survive that turn. What if you knew that you had no way to win the game left in your deck, would you try this maneuver to see if your opponent got themselves a game loss?

If you want to get better at Magic, you need to find an angle whenever you can - that small advantage in the game. At first, all it takes is a few fundamentals and taking a second to think your plays out. The better you get, and the better your opponents, the less all of the small advantages you work on are going to help you out. You can spend hours testing a specific matchup, and face an opponent who has spent days. On the never ending quest to get better and find every little bit of a percentage advantage you can find, it can be tempting to get close to the line of legal and illegal plays. When you are playing someone far worse than you whose gotten a great draw, it can be tempting to miss the fact that they took their attack off of their own life total instead of yours. That they forgot to gain life from their Baneslayer.

The second you cross that line, though, it's going to be hard to come back. The amount of work it takes to get a small advantages in your game is far more than learning a new way to skirt the rules. And all of those will pale in comparison to the advantages that you will find that full-on cheating will give you.

That isn't saying that everyone who has ever told their opponent that a Pithing Needle can name "Lightning Rift" is going to start opening drawing eight, but the longer you spend on the line, the harder it is going to be to tell where it is. Things get blurry, and eventually you will find yourself doing things that even you will question the ethics of. It's a choice that every player has to make, and one they have to come to their own peace with.