I'm interested in discussing what other people think about playing with their spot removal face-up. When I personally play in casual multiplayer spheres I'll often field some 0-1 CMC spot removal such as Snuff Out, Pongify, Rapid Hybridization, Swords to Plowshares, Dismember, Murderous Cut, etc. and I'll generally play with them revealed. While this carries some opportunity cost (players are less likely to go for combos, jam bombs such as Prophet of Kruphix/Consecrated Sphinx, more likely to attack me when I don't have anything revealed, etc.) on balance I think that it gives me a big edge since players are dramatically less likely to attack me. After all, most attacks are made "all things being equal" and typically aren't made when players are certain that they're sending their fatties to their doom. Countless times I've had players reach for a die to randomly determine who they're swinging at and virtually every time that I've flashed/revealed my removal spell I've been excluded from the roulette wheel. I'm clearly not suggesting that it's a pure-upside play, it can certainly come back to bite you in the butt, but the reality is that players have no incentive to trade resources on a 1-for-1 basis in multiplayer and since it virtually never makes sense to engage in mutually assured destruction behaviour players will almost always direct their attention elsewhere. All things being equal they want to keep their fatty as much as I want to sandbag my Snuff Out so it behooves both of us to remain "ships passing the night" that ignore one another for as long as possible. Basically I'm wondering:
1) Does anyone else do this?
2) How does it affect your games?
3) What do you think about this tactic in general?
4) Would you consider employing this tactic in the future?
Just so we're clear, to the best of my knowledge this isn't an "illegal" tactic from a rules perspective. As far as I can tell the comprehensive rule book doesn't address flashing/revealing the contents of your hand and there's an abundance of video evidence of players flashing cards and/or playing with their hand revealed in competitive REL events (even at the PT level). Moreover, in my almost two decades of playing the game I've never once heard of a player being infracted/punished by a judge for flashing/revealing the contents of their hand nor have I read an official WOTC statement claiming that it's an illegitimate play. That is, I'm working under the assumption that this is totally within the rules and I would immediate cease doing so if I thought for a second that it wasn't. If I'm in the wrong here from an official + legal perspective free free to enlighten me because I would want to know.
At my table you will be attacked if you try it. You want a Seal of Doom? Play it.
Sometimes you have to lose a few games to stop shenanigans like you describe. Unlike you, I only have one group and do not play online. So, it is for the long game that I and the core group are playing for. Tonight's game doesn't really matter that much! I am not saying you are doing anything wrong or illegal, just that I and many players at my table would look to stop you from stapling on an extra ability to your cards that isn't there. Overt manipulation as described leads to table talk, "I see what you are trying to do," and then punishment. Maybe it is perverse, but it seems appropriate. It isn't a "Win," but it feels good not to allow the person to control you. Besides, I personally I find great joy in my opponents making the best plays. Suggesting, truthfully, that forcing me to use my Pernicious Deed now is good choice brings me a warm fuzzy when my opponent makes me crack it. The card has the power it has. No one should allow it to create a Standstill effect. But many do. I would love to sit at a table where all my opponents had the passion and knowledge of Prid3. Even if I pull off something less overt than the situation described, I will "reveal my poker hand" afterwards in hopes that it will not work twice. Basically, I wouldn't personally call you on your move the first time we played. After the game, though, I would be the jerk that told everyone that you shouldn't be allowed to get away with it, and, again, if you did it to me I would be certain to attack you, assuming no other pressing reason not to [only Sith deal in absolutes, amiright?].
Anyway, calling your semi-bluff when you flash Snuff Out is worth it in the long wrong - in my estimation and many of my friends. The card has plenty of power as a surprise effect. I see no reason, to dredge up old terms, why anyone would allow you to use it as both a Spider and Rattlesnake depending on what suits you. Of course, if you reach for a randomizer at our table we will beat you down, as well. Some might not understand our distaste for random, but we are pretty serious about our fun. Many might find our table un-enjoyable, and I respect that. Your mileage obviously varies and there is nothing wrong with that.
Just so we're clear what you described manifests on a frequent basis but I find that it typically occurs between people who are extremely familiar with one another and less so among acquaintances. Whereas my best friend of ~15 years won't hesitate for a second to try and topple me (even if it means losing the game himself) I find that it's significantly less likely to occur between people who aren't quite as familiar with one another. This clearly makes sense because there's very obvious meaning in beating someone who you know very well but, in general, there's very little meaning in beating someone who you don't typically interact with. Clearly everyone likes winning and I'm not suggesting otherwise but (for example) I don't feel any special sense of pride when I defeat random players online/at our LGS and I doubt that many other players do either. I don't mean that maliciously or anything but I have to imagine that most players share a similar mindset. As such I find that players have a lot less incentive to make those suicidal plays unless it's with someone who they have a strong relationship with. In that sense I tailor this tactic to the table and to whom I'm playing against. If it's nothing but my brothers and friends then I don't bother but when it's a big game that includes their friends, girlfriends, etc. I have a lot more maneuverability. After all, there's nothing stopping me from taking a lump or two from my brother/friend, jamming a mass removal spell and saving my spot removal spell to keep the other ~5 players at bay. Even if it doesn't affect everyone I don't really care because I can build and play my decks in such as way that my brother/my best friend can't necessarily force me to play my spot removal on them. I add things like Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth + Roots of Life (read the Oracle text, not the printed text), Exsanguinate and Gray Merchant of Asphodel to my decks for a reason and it's often to ensure that no one player can pressure me into making rushed/weak plays.
I think it's legal.
I also think it's ok in a casual multiplayer game.
It adds possibly a certain bluff / calling the bluf sub game.
I've never seen it play that way.
And I'll never do it in my meta because we tend to keep pushing the rattlesnakes until they bite.
If one of us plays a Nev' Disk he tends to get pushed until he just has to trigger it.
(Yeah, three of our four players have played together since Beta was new in the stores...)
It's an interesting idea and a good discussion topic. Personally, I'd be against it and I can give a few arguments why. Most of them hinge around the assumption (which I think is pretty well supported) that WOTC wants to manage the complexity of the game and keep it accessible to new players. That doesn't mean that every playgroup needs to operate in that mode--especially if you're all veterans. But I think that a good "baseline" assumption would be to play things newbie-friendly unless everyone has discussed and agreed on doing things otherwise.
Just because it's not explicitly disallowed by the rules doesn't mean that the game designers desire or encourage it.
--- This is just my own interpretation and assumptions, but I think that if a significant portion of the competitive scene consisted of FFA multiplayer and not just duels that you would see this addressed either in the rule book or in some official statement. I'd have to think that it's come up in the WOTC office at least sometime in the past couple of decades, but with it not being a significant issue that's visible within the player base then I doubt they'd see the need to put the effort into addressing it (if it ain't broke, don't fix it.)
--- It's possible someone did want to create a rule around revealing cards like this but stopped because it would be a pain to enforce. I don't think you could put a blanket ban or punishment on revealing cards from your hand without actually playing them imposing a lot of harshness on new players. No more asking "what does this card do?" Accidentally dropping cards face up would mean an infraction too. Sure, you could say "don't intentionally reveal cards to other players without playing them" but then you'd have a rule like "slow play" where enforcing it requires some degree of guessing a players intent (which I'd say isn't something the game should have more of.)
It adds a layer of complexity that could become unwieldy and unwelcome
--- This is your classic "slippery slope" argument. But if I'm advantaged by playing my removal face-up, then logically all my opponents (who are rational decision-makers) should do the same. And if that's the case, why stop at removal. Maybe I should also play my counterspells face-up so that you know not to waste your removal on me. Maybe I should play my Faith's Reward face up so that you know not to bother with that board wipe. Where's the logical end to how many cards I'm revealing each circuit? Do we all eventually end up playing robot chess?
--- It definitely adds to the amount of information that each player has to consider (assuming that they're playing thoughtfully) before making each move. And if it's just one player flashing a Doom Blade then it's probably not noticeable. But if multiple players start doing it with multiple types of spells all of the time then it seems like it could really be a drag on the pace of the game. And again with the new player argument: adding another layer of complexity to an already very-complex game is going to be especially punishing for people who don't know this game well enough to post about it in online forums during their free time.
Totally subjective: Bluffing is more fun
--- Other folks might disagree with me on this one, but I'm all for saying that "I've got a Doom Blade without actually revealing it. Bluffing is an age-old component of card games where your hand is hidden information (poker being chief among these) and I think that it does bring an element of fun and skill to Magic--especially in FFA multiplayer where your politicking can be just as important as card advantage and board state.
Again, all of this is personal preference. I wouldn't condemn anyone I don't know doing it, but I would ask that it not be done among my friends and I.
I still bluff all the time. Employing these types of tactics doesn't prevent you from using other ones as well; you can use them all however you deem fit. That is, the question isn't "bluff or reveal" but rather "bluff and/or reveal" which is "strictly better" from a strategic perspective because it gives you more options that others might not employ themselves.
2) How does it affect your games?
I see this type of tactic as arrogant and as such my primary goal would be to bring the player down, even over an outright win. The game is no longer me VS everyone else. I would be more than happy expending my personally resources in seeing your removal misused and depleted.
I would also consider the player the primary target when deciding attackers. Am I going to run a Craw Giant into you terror? No but once I cast a Molten Primordial all the creatures are coming your way nearly 100% of the time.
I believe this thinking also extends somewhat to my larger play group. There is a certain amount of glee that is gotten when a player’s perceived advantage is thwarted.
3) What do you think about this tactic in general?
I’m a big fan of control. I feel that if a player employed this tactic they would be at a disadvantage as it gives me an insight into your library, hand and deck type.
4) Would you consider employing this tactic in the future?
No way.
There is a certain amount of glee that is gotten when a player’s perceived advantage is thwarted.
This, very much. If you reveal that you are in a strong position and can prevent any one player from winning, it will make them gang up on you in my playgroup.
I find that it's significantly less likely to occur between people who aren't quite as familiar with one another. As such I find that players have a lot less incentive to make those suicidal plays unless it's with someone who they have a strong relationship with.
That's it exactly.
As to your points about girlfriends and new players and being able to hold off most players, that is why it is a great tactic at your table!
To answer your points clearly:
1) Does anyone else do this?
Obviously it comes up from time to time or I wouldn't be able to answer it. In our early days we played fast and loose and there was always table talk. There is less table talk and less threats as manipulation now. It backfires on the wielder more often than not.
2) How does it affect your games?
It does, as you noted, make many people make objectively poor choices for that game in the hopes that it will improve future games. Taking that power away from the player is good long term goal. Again, if you want Seal of Doom...
3) What do you think about this tactic in general?
Completely legal and, if it works, go for it.
4) Would you consider employing this tactic in the future?
No. I prefer to handicap myself. My cards have the abilities they have. The existence of Seal of Doom suggests a possible intent of the creators: if you want a spell that warns people away, play this. Regardless, many players aren't like me - thinking about the game, talking about the game, trolling the boards,etc. - I don't need any more advantages. If all my players were like Prid3, looking at the angles and investing their minds in winning, the tactic would be unlikely to work long term. So, I act as though it isn't a tactic for me. However, I am a bit of a hypocrite. I am fine with, and do, basically the same thing. "Moving to combat," says my opponent. *I move a card, place my hand casually on my lands, and stare at the opponent.* Really, it is splitting hairs. Suggesting I have something or showing it is pretty similar.
I still bluff all the time. Employing these types of tactics doesn't prevent you from using other ones as well; you can use them all however you deem fit. That is, the question isn't "bluff or reveal" but rather "bluff and/or reveal" which is "strictly better" from a strategic perspective because it gives you more options that others might not employ themselves.
I think you could further extend the "strictly better" description to a card analogy that describes my thinking on the matter. There's nothing in the rule book that says I can't play 4 Sol Rings in my casual deck. Having the freedom to play Sol Ring in my decks would definitely open up new lines of play and improve my overall win percentage--especially over people who don't have or give themselves that freedom. But in almost every circumstance I'll elect to go with Worn Powerstone and the like instead, because I think that in my particular group of friends it fosters an overall more enjoyable environment. If other folks out there want to play in an environment full of Sol Rings or other busted cards, that's fine; more power to them. But I wouldn't sit down at a table with a group of strangers with a deck like that without first asking if it was cool in order to avoid being "that guy."
At our table we generally tell people not to flash the card or at least keep it hidden until it's time to play it. Usually what happens instead is some sort of outburst of bravado occurs like "I got this bro" to the table and then said card is revealed. This keeps the strategic significance orderly and allows players to decide for themselves if they want to burn their removal, which clearly could have repercussions later in the game.
I don't mind what you are doing, and if your table allows it, by all means, staple on that extra value. However, like you said, it tends to only happen with people who don't know each other well or between new players Either way, it's those players that we want to encourage to keep playing, and as such, we punish players who do it (just because we can). It's part of politicking and politicking is part of Magic.
I'm also not saying variations of this behavior don't occur, because they do, but like all politicking, at some point you just punish a player for giving the rest of the table hope hahaha.
That's a super important but not entirely related point. There are a million things I would prioritize higher than "don't play mind games" when easing beginners into the game. Like being nice to them and explaining the whats, hows and whys. In fact, this type of mind game is something that warrants explanation. Like "he's showing you removal in the hopes that you'll leave him alone, but if we all leave him alone he's going to win, so someone has to bite the bullet, and to show you that I mean what I say I'll set the example and take the hit myself... this time."
The reason that I brought it up is because the rules aren't totally clear in this situation. So to aid in my interpretation I tried to think of the mindset behind the people who wrote and maintain them. I did find this passage that's somewhat relevant:
Quote from Comprehensive Rules (Aether Revolt (January 20, 2017)) »
402.3. A player may arrange his or her hand in any convenient fashion and look at it as much as he or she wishes. A player can’t look at the cards in another player’s hand but may count those cards at any time.
Emphasis mine. I think there's room for interpretation either way here. One person could read that and say "well it doesn't say that I can't show my cards to anyone else." Another might say "well if no one is legally allowed to look at the cards in another players hand then intentionally revealing them would just be trying to provoke something that's technically a rules violation on the other player's part."
I myself would lean towards the latter interpretation and say that intentionally revealing cards, if not illegal, is at least unsporting--sort of like string-betting in poker. I don't think it's how the creators intend for the game to be played. But again, if that's how other people want to enjoy the game, so be it. It's not the type of rules question I could see coming to blows over.
Yep - I've tried to help out juniors/noobs plenty by flashing a card their way to *aid* their strategy. Sometimes it works and they look elsewhere. I have seen experienced players that I don't know personally at Legacy nights doing this kind of thing on occasion to try and mind-rape their opponent (hell I've done it), but I wouldn't call this sort of behaviour common.
2) How does it affect your games?
Generally not as intended. Some people get pretty dark on this sort of behaviour. I'm assuming most would do this to try and get a strategic advantage, otherwise to help someone.
In my group, which is a mix of a few teens and mostly old-heads like me, highly aggressive play is fairly normal, and it's also fairly normal for a player to intentionally kill their posiiton just to settle a score with someone. I'm frequently "that someone", as some players hate it when I joke around and play with an open hand etc.
The dethrone mechanic helps a game we actually play a lot, we call it *tall poppy*, where you are only allowed to attack with creatures towards the player with the highest life total. When we play tall-poppy, flashing cards to each other is actually common as we try to take each other down, it's usually accepted we do this during tall poppy games. It's fun to backstab anyone not sitting next to you.
3) What do you think about this tactic in general?
In my group I have mixed feelings about it, mainly as some of the noobs don't have the depth of knowledge to know what the card I'm flashing at them actually is. They'll learn.
As long as I'm playing with people with a fairly good knowledge of the popular cards, I'm fine with it.
4) Would you consider employing this tactic in the future?
Yep, but I won't be doing it often.
....Another might say "well if no one is legally allowed to look at the cards in another players hand then intentionally revealing them would just be trying to provoke something that's technically a rules violation on the other player's part."
It's not an issue I've ever raised with a judge, so I can't really comment here either way. I guess a judge would have a hard time giving either player an infraction/warning for intentionally showing cards or the opponent seeing them in plain sight.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1) Does anyone else do this?
2) How does it affect your games?
3) What do you think about this tactic in general?
4) Would you consider employing this tactic in the future?
Just so we're clear, to the best of my knowledge this isn't an "illegal" tactic from a rules perspective. As far as I can tell the comprehensive rule book doesn't address flashing/revealing the contents of your hand and there's an abundance of video evidence of players flashing cards and/or playing with their hand revealed in competitive REL events (even at the PT level). Moreover, in my almost two decades of playing the game I've never once heard of a player being infracted/punished by a judge for flashing/revealing the contents of their hand nor have I read an official WOTC statement claiming that it's an illegitimate play. That is, I'm working under the assumption that this is totally within the rules and I would immediate cease doing so if I thought for a second that it wasn't. If I'm in the wrong here from an official + legal perspective free free to enlighten me because I would want to know.
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
Sometimes you have to lose a few games to stop shenanigans like you describe. Unlike you, I only have one group and do not play online. So, it is for the long game that I and the core group are playing for. Tonight's game doesn't really matter that much! I am not saying you are doing anything wrong or illegal, just that I and many players at my table would look to stop you from stapling on an extra ability to your cards that isn't there. Overt manipulation as described leads to table talk, "I see what you are trying to do," and then punishment. Maybe it is perverse, but it seems appropriate. It isn't a "Win," but it feels good not to allow the person to control you. Besides, I personally I find great joy in my opponents making the best plays. Suggesting, truthfully, that forcing me to use my Pernicious Deed now is good choice brings me a warm fuzzy when my opponent makes me crack it. The card has the power it has. No one should allow it to create a Standstill effect. But many do. I would love to sit at a table where all my opponents had the passion and knowledge of Prid3. Even if I pull off something less overt than the situation described, I will "reveal my poker hand" afterwards in hopes that it will not work twice. Basically, I wouldn't personally call you on your move the first time we played. After the game, though, I would be the jerk that told everyone that you shouldn't be allowed to get away with it, and, again, if you did it to me I would be certain to attack you, assuming no other pressing reason not to [only Sith deal in absolutes, amiright?].
Anyway, calling your semi-bluff when you flash Snuff Out is worth it in the long wrong - in my estimation and many of my friends. The card has plenty of power as a surprise effect. I see no reason, to dredge up old terms, why anyone would allow you to use it as both a Spider and Rattlesnake depending on what suits you. Of course, if you reach for a randomizer at our table we will beat you down, as well. Some might not understand our distaste for random, but we are pretty serious about our fun. Many might find our table un-enjoyable, and I respect that. Your mileage obviously varies and there is nothing wrong with that.
Just so we're clear what you described manifests on a frequent basis but I find that it typically occurs between people who are extremely familiar with one another and less so among acquaintances. Whereas my best friend of ~15 years won't hesitate for a second to try and topple me (even if it means losing the game himself) I find that it's significantly less likely to occur between people who aren't quite as familiar with one another. This clearly makes sense because there's very obvious meaning in beating someone who you know very well but, in general, there's very little meaning in beating someone who you don't typically interact with. Clearly everyone likes winning and I'm not suggesting otherwise but (for example) I don't feel any special sense of pride when I defeat random players online/at our LGS and I doubt that many other players do either. I don't mean that maliciously or anything but I have to imagine that most players share a similar mindset. As such I find that players have a lot less incentive to make those suicidal plays unless it's with someone who they have a strong relationship with. In that sense I tailor this tactic to the table and to whom I'm playing against. If it's nothing but my brothers and friends then I don't bother but when it's a big game that includes their friends, girlfriends, etc. I have a lot more maneuverability. After all, there's nothing stopping me from taking a lump or two from my brother/friend, jamming a mass removal spell and saving my spot removal spell to keep the other ~5 players at bay. Even if it doesn't affect everyone I don't really care because I can build and play my decks in such as way that my brother/my best friend can't necessarily force me to play my spot removal on them. I add things like Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth + Roots of Life (read the Oracle text, not the printed text), Exsanguinate and Gray Merchant of Asphodel to my decks for a reason and it's often to ensure that no one player can pressure me into making rushed/weak plays.
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
I also think it's ok in a casual multiplayer game.
It adds possibly a certain bluff / calling the bluf sub game.
I've never seen it play that way.
And I'll never do it in my meta because we tend to keep pushing the rattlesnakes until they bite.
If one of us plays a Nev' Disk he tends to get pushed until he just has to trigger it.
(Yeah, three of our four players have played together since Beta was new in the stores...)
My meta: 3 or 4 player free for all, anything goes but boring games or broken decks cause a vote to end that game.
--- It's possible someone did want to create a rule around revealing cards like this but stopped because it would be a pain to enforce. I don't think you could put a blanket ban or punishment on revealing cards from your hand without actually playing them imposing a lot of harshness on new players. No more asking "what does this card do?" Accidentally dropping cards face up would mean an infraction too. Sure, you could say "don't intentionally reveal cards to other players without playing them" but then you'd have a rule like "slow play" where enforcing it requires some degree of guessing a players intent (which I'd say isn't something the game should have more of.)
--- It definitely adds to the amount of information that each player has to consider (assuming that they're playing thoughtfully) before making each move. And if it's just one player flashing a Doom Blade then it's probably not noticeable. But if multiple players start doing it with multiple types of spells all of the time then it seems like it could really be a drag on the pace of the game. And again with the new player argument: adding another layer of complexity to an already very-complex game is going to be especially punishing for people who don't know this game well enough to post about it in online forums during their free time.
Again, all of this is personal preference. I wouldn't condemn anyone I don't know doing it, but I would ask that it not be done among my friends and I.
I still bluff all the time. Employing these types of tactics doesn't prevent you from using other ones as well; you can use them all however you deem fit. That is, the question isn't "bluff or reveal" but rather "bluff and/or reveal" which is "strictly better" from a strategic perspective because it gives you more options that others might not employ themselves.
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
1) Does anyone else do this?
No.
2) How does it affect your games?
I see this type of tactic as arrogant and as such my primary goal would be to bring the player down, even over an outright win. The game is no longer me VS everyone else. I would be more than happy expending my personally resources in seeing your removal misused and depleted.
I would also consider the player the primary target when deciding attackers. Am I going to run a Craw Giant into you terror? No but once I cast a Molten Primordial all the creatures are coming your way nearly 100% of the time.
I believe this thinking also extends somewhat to my larger play group. There is a certain amount of glee that is gotten when a player’s perceived advantage is thwarted.
3) What do you think about this tactic in general?
I’m a big fan of control. I feel that if a player employed this tactic they would be at a disadvantage as it gives me an insight into your library, hand and deck type.
4) Would you consider employing this tactic in the future?
No way.
This, very much. If you reveal that you are in a strong position and can prevent any one player from winning, it will make them gang up on you in my playgroup.
That's it exactly.
As to your points about girlfriends and new players and being able to hold off most players, that is why it is a great tactic at your table!
To answer your points clearly:
1) Does anyone else do this?
Obviously it comes up from time to time or I wouldn't be able to answer it. In our early days we played fast and loose and there was always table talk. There is less table talk and less threats as manipulation now. It backfires on the wielder more often than not.
2) How does it affect your games?
It does, as you noted, make many people make objectively poor choices for that game in the hopes that it will improve future games. Taking that power away from the player is good long term goal. Again, if you want Seal of Doom...
3) What do you think about this tactic in general?
Completely legal and, if it works, go for it.
4) Would you consider employing this tactic in the future?
No. I prefer to handicap myself. My cards have the abilities they have. The existence of Seal of Doom suggests a possible intent of the creators: if you want a spell that warns people away, play this. Regardless, many players aren't like me - thinking about the game, talking about the game, trolling the boards,etc. - I don't need any more advantages. If all my players were like Prid3, looking at the angles and investing their minds in winning, the tactic would be unlikely to work long term. So, I act as though it isn't a tactic for me. However, I am a bit of a hypocrite. I am fine with, and do, basically the same thing. "Moving to combat," says my opponent. *I move a card, place my hand casually on my lands, and stare at the opponent.* Really, it is splitting hairs. Suggesting I have something or showing it is pretty similar.
I think you could further extend the "strictly better" description to a card analogy that describes my thinking on the matter. There's nothing in the rule book that says I can't play 4 Sol Rings in my casual deck. Having the freedom to play Sol Ring in my decks would definitely open up new lines of play and improve my overall win percentage--especially over people who don't have or give themselves that freedom. But in almost every circumstance I'll elect to go with Worn Powerstone and the like instead, because I think that in my particular group of friends it fosters an overall more enjoyable environment. If other folks out there want to play in an environment full of Sol Rings or other busted cards, that's fine; more power to them. But I wouldn't sit down at a table with a group of strangers with a deck like that without first asking if it was cool in order to avoid being "that guy."
At our table we generally tell people not to flash the card or at least keep it hidden until it's time to play it. Usually what happens instead is some sort of outburst of bravado occurs like "I got this bro" to the table and then said card is revealed. This keeps the strategic significance orderly and allows players to decide for themselves if they want to burn their removal, which clearly could have repercussions later in the game.
I don't mind what you are doing, and if your table allows it, by all means, staple on that extra value. However, like you said, it tends to only happen with people who don't know each other well or between new players Either way, it's those players that we want to encourage to keep playing, and as such, we punish players who do it (just because we can). It's part of politicking and politicking is part of Magic.
I'm also not saying variations of this behavior don't occur, because they do, but like all politicking, at some point you just punish a player for giving the rest of the table hope hahaha.
The reason that I brought it up is because the rules aren't totally clear in this situation. So to aid in my interpretation I tried to think of the mindset behind the people who wrote and maintain them. I did find this passage that's somewhat relevant:
Emphasis mine. I think there's room for interpretation either way here. One person could read that and say "well it doesn't say that I can't show my cards to anyone else." Another might say "well if no one is legally allowed to look at the cards in another players hand then intentionally revealing them would just be trying to provoke something that's technically a rules violation on the other player's part."
I myself would lean towards the latter interpretation and say that intentionally revealing cards, if not illegal, is at least unsporting--sort of like string-betting in poker. I don't think it's how the creators intend for the game to be played. But again, if that's how other people want to enjoy the game, so be it. It's not the type of rules question I could see coming to blows over.
Yep - I've tried to help out juniors/noobs plenty by flashing a card their way to *aid* their strategy. Sometimes it works and they look elsewhere. I have seen experienced players that I don't know personally at Legacy nights doing this kind of thing on occasion to try and mind-rape their opponent (hell I've done it), but I wouldn't call this sort of behaviour common.
2) How does it affect your games?
Generally not as intended. Some people get pretty dark on this sort of behaviour. I'm assuming most would do this to try and get a strategic advantage, otherwise to help someone.
In my group, which is a mix of a few teens and mostly old-heads like me, highly aggressive play is fairly normal, and it's also fairly normal for a player to intentionally kill their posiiton just to settle a score with someone. I'm frequently "that someone", as some players hate it when I joke around and play with an open hand etc.
The dethrone mechanic helps a game we actually play a lot, we call it *tall poppy*, where you are only allowed to attack with creatures towards the player with the highest life total. When we play tall-poppy, flashing cards to each other is actually common as we try to take each other down, it's usually accepted we do this during tall poppy games. It's fun to backstab anyone not sitting next to you.
3) What do you think about this tactic in general?
In my group I have mixed feelings about it, mainly as some of the noobs don't have the depth of knowledge to know what the card I'm flashing at them actually is. They'll learn.
As long as I'm playing with people with a fairly good knowledge of the popular cards, I'm fine with it.
4) Would you consider employing this tactic in the future?
Yep, but I won't be doing it often.
It's not an issue I've ever raised with a judge, so I can't really comment here either way. I guess a judge would have a hard time giving either player an infraction/warning for intentionally showing cards or the opponent seeing them in plain sight.