I don't see a problem with outright lying, provided you are not breaking the rules. Like if I leave UU up to bluff it's okay, but if I say "You know I have a counterspell, right?" it's crossing some line?
Yes. I've explained my position as clearly as I can, but your statement that you think lying is ethical means there is no common ground between us. In the end, it doesn't really matter though. It's not enforceable, and your best course of action is to still just play the board and ignore chat.
Leaving UU up to bluff a counterspell uses nothing more than the board state. It is an action entirely bounded by the mechanics of the game. The opponent has to consider whether I have a counterspell or not, the likelihood of my having one, to determine his highest likelihood play, regardless of my propensity for bluffing.
Meanwhile the pen trick uses out-of-game psychology to try to trick an opponent. It is a con, it is a lie. If my opponent takes it into account, they are likely to make a suboptimal play. Their highest-EV is to completely ignore it. That's not true of anything in-game. If you want a sports analogy, it's more equivalent to faking a violent sneeze when a golfer makes a swing.
Khans is treating me pretty well. I've been 3-0ing a lot more than in Theros block. I've had so much success with Abzan-Sultai, and so little success with Mardu-Jeskai-Temur, I've started soft-forcing BWG. I put black as the best color, followed by white and then green, with red and blue both distant. Red's common creatures are lackluster to unplayable, and its removal is weak - either expensive, sorcery speed, or both. And damage-based removal isn't the best in a format with so many big butts. And I'm not sure why, but I have an aversion to blue in this format to the point where I don't think it's been a main color in any deck I've drafted. The Jeskai plan seems so easy to disrupt.
If the draft goes poorly, I'm also not adverse to ditching a color and going two color, as long as one of those colors is black and the other one is white or green.
There is a clear ethical difference between the examples you give and using psychology to trick an opponent into making a bad play. It is the same reason why ponzi schemes and other kinds of con-artistry are illegal. If you sell a man a $10 violin for a million dollars because you've conned him into believing it's a Stratovarius, that's unethical. The same kind of con-artistry is at play here; being on a much smaller scale doesn't make it more ethical.
Looked at another way, the actions you describe are all in-game ways to get an edge. Saying "gg" to provoke a foolish attack is using a set of mechanics external to the game - namely human psychology - to play a different game.
Yes, we shouldn't fall for such things. But that's the thing about psychology; it works on you whether you want it to or not. Hence my comment about playing the board, not the chat.
You know you can dock the chat window, right? Or if you have two monitors, you can move it to the second monitor (where it will get covered soon enough by Chrome.)
Someone got me with the "gg" trick early in my mtgo career. I've also had someone gripe on chat about being mana flooded when they just drew the one card that could win them the game. I've even had someone engage in friendly banter just to try to clock me out. I consider all those scenarios unethical deceit, however they taught me an important lesson: ignore the chat and play the board. Now I just hide the chat window.
One of the mistakes people will make early in this format is being unwilling to trade off morphs early. If your plan is to get to the mid/late game, you will need to make that sacrifice to preserve your life total. Unless that morph was The Plan, it's almost always right to trade it off against an aggressive deck, or you will be faced with the same choice next turn, only at a lower life total. You want Jeskai blowing its tricks on your early drops.
People seem to be looking at the best case scenario with Elder. That case isn't very good, and its average case scenario is terrible - it's pretty much a mulligan if it's not in your first ten cards, and it's just stonewalled by better commons like Disowned Ancestor and Archer's Parapet. I wouldn't put a vanilla 1/2 in my deck even if it cost 0. Prowess and loot give Elder a little more play, but not much.
P1P4 I would like to see something first-pickable as a clear signal. As there is no such card in this pack, taking the land enables the splash going forward, so we don't have to pass so many good cards in future packs. I value that flexibility.
Smoke Teller is ok, bears are rarely bad, and certainly not in this format where they threaten to trade with morphs. I don't like Treasure Cruise here, not when we already have 2 high cmc cards. It would be our first black card when we've already passed Nightblade. And it's common, so if we do end up black, we can pick one up later.
People are esteeming Jeskai Elder far, far higher than I do. I consider it straight unplayable. When is it getting in? Turn 3? So you blow one of your eight non-creatures spells to kill their 2-drop and don't develop your board? Then they get an x/3 online and it's stonewalled forever? Seems really bad.
Can we start the "when do we take fixing" debate, cause I want to pick up Blossoming Sands (pick changed below) here. Everything else here is filler or sideboard tech. I like the Sands now where I didn't last pack because Nightblade was a house, but now we have a green card, so we could be Jeskai splash Green or Temur splash white.
(I finally got to watch Kenji playing some Khans last night. His Disowned Ancestor kept his opponent's Mandrills at bay, and the lifegain from multiple refuges was not irrelevant vs an aggressive Jeskai deck.)
Goblin Slide compares to Spirit Bonds. Now, Bonds was a first-pickable card for sure. Compared to Bonds, Goblin Slide:
1: Has a colorless activation cost.
2: Triggers off non-creature cards, which you likely have less of. (Or to put it another way, Bonds triggered off of playing creatures, which synergizes with what limited decks already want to do.)
3: Creates tokens that aren't evasive.
4: Doesn't have the activated ability.
5: Has a higher CMC. (Is this what you really want to be doing on turn 3?)
That's one mark in its favor, and four marks against it. If Bonds was a B+ (solid but not a bomb), Goblin Slide is at most a C+.
Hard to know yet, but based on this pack it looks like white is being drafted to our right, and maybe green or blue as well. Mer-Ek Nightblade is a small signal for black, since it's good in two of the black wedges, and the third black wedge - Mardu - both doesn't want it and is clearly open. We'll know more next pick.
I think Mandrills is defensible. If we end up in a tie again, I'll change my vote to that.
I think 3rd pick is where I want to start taking fixing, but Blossoming Sands is ally colors so ... Mer-Ek Nightblade has the highest power level in the pack, so I'm picking that and hoping to wheel Feat of Resistance, which I think will be a premium combat trick.
With regards to Phyrre's comments, I think it's wrong to worry about sending signals. If we don't get black pack 2, we have two other colors to fill in, and we can cut black the rest of pack 1 and all of pack 3. Also, I don't think 2 Scavengers are enough to put Leftie into black.
Yes. I've explained my position as clearly as I can, but your statement that you think lying is ethical means there is no common ground between us. In the end, it doesn't really matter though. It's not enforceable, and your best course of action is to still just play the board and ignore chat.
Meanwhile the pen trick uses out-of-game psychology to try to trick an opponent. It is a con, it is a lie. If my opponent takes it into account, they are likely to make a suboptimal play. Their highest-EV is to completely ignore it. That's not true of anything in-game. If you want a sports analogy, it's more equivalent to faking a violent sneeze when a golfer makes a swing.
If the draft goes poorly, I'm also not adverse to ditching a color and going two color, as long as one of those colors is black and the other one is white or green.
Looked at another way, the actions you describe are all in-game ways to get an edge. Saying "gg" to provoke a foolish attack is using a set of mechanics external to the game - namely human psychology - to play a different game.
Yes, we shouldn't fall for such things. But that's the thing about psychology; it works on you whether you want it to or not. Hence my comment about playing the board, not the chat.
People seem to be looking at the best case scenario with Elder. That case isn't very good, and its average case scenario is terrible - it's pretty much a mulligan if it's not in your first ten cards, and it's just stonewalled by better commons like Disowned Ancestor and Archer's Parapet. I wouldn't put a vanilla 1/2 in my deck even if it cost 0. Prowess and loot give Elder a little more play, but not much.
I'm changing my vote, cause I really would hate to see us pick Elder or Cruise here.
Blossoming SandsSmoke Teller
Smoke Teller is ok, bears are rarely bad, and certainly not in this format where they threaten to trade with morphs. I don't like Treasure Cruise here, not when we already have 2 high cmc cards.
It would be our first black card when we've already passed Nightblade.And it's common, so if we do end up black, we can pick one up later.People are esteeming Jeskai Elder far, far higher than I do. I consider it straight unplayable. When is it getting in? Turn 3? So you blow one of your eight non-creatures spells to kill their 2-drop and don't develop your board? Then they get an x/3 online and it's stonewalled forever? Seems really bad.
Blossoming Sands(pick changed below) here. Everything else here is filler or sideboard tech. I like the Sands now where I didn't last pack because Nightblade was a house, but now we have a green card, so we could be Jeskai splash Green or Temur splash white.(I finally got to watch Kenji playing some Khans last night. His Disowned Ancestor kept his opponent's Mandrills at bay, and the lifegain from multiple refuges was not irrelevant vs an aggressive Jeskai deck.)
Some streamers like modogrinder1 have resorted to playing copyright-free music for just this reason.
This. There are on-color commons in every color at 4 cmc or less with 5 or higher toughness. Mandrills is going to get stonewalled a lot, I think.
1: Has a colorless activation cost.
2: Triggers off non-creature cards, which you likely have less of. (Or to put it another way, Bonds triggered off of playing creatures, which synergizes with what limited decks already want to do.)
3: Creates tokens that aren't evasive.
4: Doesn't have the activated ability.
5: Has a higher CMC. (Is this what you really want to be doing on turn 3?)
That's one mark in its favor, and four marks against it. If Bonds was a B+ (solid but not a bomb), Goblin Slide is at most a C+.
I think Mandrills is defensible. If we end up in a tie again, I'll change my vote to that.
With regards to Phyrre's comments, I think it's wrong to worry about sending signals. If we don't get black pack 2, we have two other colors to fill in, and we can cut black the rest of pack 1 and all of pack 3. Also, I don't think 2 Scavengers are enough to put Leftie into black.