"bluffing" and "illegal moves"

[nitrodavid]

page 15 of rule book notes that on familiars you can place a spell face down that you don't want (or can not) cast as a bluff.

this is the only mention of bluffing in the game. but the way it is worded it is a note, notes are generally facets of the game that people should be reminded of.

so I have some questions based on bluffing. assuming the premises of placing an invalid "bluff" card on familiar.

I define "bluff" as follows; "placing an invalid spell facedown where a facedown spell can be placed, as such it can't be revealed"

1. familiar has decoy as a bluff. familiar dies. should mage get 2 mana.
2. can spawn points bluff by having invalid spells on them without deploying
3. can spellbound objects bluff by having spells face down and usable.

 for case 1 and 3 it could be a tactical advantage because it could make the other Mage consider wasting initiative and resources to destroy a more tempting target.

 and in the case where decoy is buffed it can give you a net 2 mana because you didn't pay to place the enchantment but it is still destroyed to its effect applies.


the second part of my post is the consequences of doing illegal moves. is any illegal use of spells ground for instant defeat in a comp match. case below

4. mage places bear strength face down on his iron golem (non living). when he reveals it (or the bird views it, or seeking dispelled) is that mage instantly defeated or is enchantment destroyed

 if the enchantment is destroyed then that is practically the same as a bluff

I know what is and isn't legal but what is the consequence. I know in the games I had where one guy tried to "dispel my wand" I told him he can't do that and we ignored that he did that because it didn't effect the board. but enchantments do effect the board as they effect considerations to seeking despel etc.


so with buffs and illegal plays I see 2 sides of a slope.
A. all face down enchantments are buffs so any illegal moves are considered "called bluffs" and just discarded.
B. a simple mistake like placing an invalid enchantment can make you instantly loose a game.

just so its known in am biased to case A being the better choice because everybody is human and makes mistakes

[Paleblue]

I feel like your over interpreting the word "bluff". No where in the rules does it say that you can break the rules, what it does mean is that if you have a spawn point sitting there with nothing on it your opponent wont be expecting a creature during spell selection. Same is if you don't allocate a spell to your familiar. The "bluff" comes from putting something which you do not intend to cast (but legally could) to give the impression that you might to your opponent, thus causing potentially some reaction.

I think allowing people to bind what ever to wands etc is a very slippery slope and is akin to letting people break the rules and putting multiple enchantments of the same type on themselves.

[nitrodavid]

if that's so then what about the second part of the post. so that means any illegal move is grounds for what?
a, instant card discarding
b, instant card destroying
c, instant loss.

unless the penalty is instant loss (or warning then loss) a player can still bluff with cards he is willing to loose.

[jacksmack]

Stick to the rules... dont bind stuff your not allowed to.


anyway.
Fellella PREPARES decoy.
Fellella dies before she casts her binded spell - decoy.

If your Familiar does not cast its prepared spell,
the spell returns to your spellbook at the beginning
of the next Planning Phase. But, if your Familiar is
destroyed before it casts the spell you assigned to
it, the spell is also destroyed.


When Decoy is revealed, destroy it. When this spell is destroyed its controller gains 2 mana.

[baronzaltor]

Decoy has to "exist" for that function to apply.
Destroying an uncast spell does not trigger its "in game" effects.

Decoy from the FAQ-
Decoy
If Decoy is destroyed while still unrevealed (e.g. by a Seeking Dispel), its controller still gains the 2 mana, because enchantments are always automatically revealed whenever they are destroyed.
If Decoy is countered (e.g. by Nullify), its controller does not gain the 2 mana, because the enchantment never got onto the battlefield to have its effect.

Going by the second line.... "Its controller does not gain 2 mana, because the enchantment never got onto the battlefield to have its effect.

So Fellelias uncast Decoy would not grant 2 mana because it doesnt actually exist in game yet.

[jacksmack]

WP baron

[ringkichard]

There is an erratum coming on Decoy, but I believe it won't change this.

[Shad0w]

By cant play they are taking about if if you do not have the mana to cast the card, or it currently no legal target. Not that it is ok to make an illegal spellbinds.

[nitrodavid]

OK what about the second part of the post. what is the consequence of doing an illegal move, I have not been able to find any reference to this in the rulebook or FAQ

[baronzaltor]

OK what about the second part of the post. what is the consequence of doing an illegal move, I have not been able to find any reference to this in the rulebook or FAQ

I dont think there is a specific ruling for the consequences of intentionally making an illegal play.   It just boils down to the mercy of the ref/judge if done in a tournament setting, or OP.

[piousflea]

If you spend mana or actions playing an illegal move (for example, putting a Poisoned Blood face-down on a zone to serve as a decoy) you lose the mana and actions when someone figures out that that's not a legal Decoy.

In a tournament it would be up to the refs/judges whether it's just a warning or a disqualification. There's not a formal rule. But it's equally illegal to use a non-zone enchantment as a "decoy", spellbind a decoy to a wand, or cast a feral bobcat face-down on your Mage and pretend it's a decoy. All of those moves violate the spirit of the game - you are supposed to pay spellbook points to include Decoys in your deck, even though it's only 1 point.

[Shad0w]

I would allow the other player to re-plan (due to the fact the planing was based off "illegal play" information) and take the used card back plus gain back the mana spent. The other player gets nothing back and does not get to re-plan. Then I would issue a warning to the player that made the illegal play if I had to warn them a 2-3 times over the course of the event I would DQ them. Now if that player has several warnings over the course of play (ie a con or other such event ) I would issue a DQ instead of a warning.

[nitrodavid]

sounds fair. we are having our first tournament in Australia next month so I would like to read the new comp rules you are suggesting. I may end up volunteering to referee for games I am not involved in.

[Wiz-Pig]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that there could be a distinction for facedown spells that have not been cast. Since there is no mechanism in the game that forces you to reveal what spells you have prepared, whether they are on your person, a familiar, or a spawnpoint; I fail to see how it is relevant if they could actually be cast as long as they aren't illegally cast. In all the text I've seen about spawnpoints and familiars it only ever mentions restrictions on what type of spells it can cast, never a restriction on what kind of spells it can prepare.

It seemed pretty clear to me that this was the intention of the word Bluff. I don't see why they would have to mention it if it was only a matter of mana or legal targets, there is nothing in the rules as far as I know that would lead one to one to believe that they would be in violation of the rules if they weren't able to afford a spell they had selected or if there didn't happen to be a target for it.

If this wasn't the intent of that mention, I would like an explanation as to why it should matter or be specifically ruled against and also request that the rules be clarified to clearly state that a familiar or spawnpoint cannot prepare a spell that it is restricted from casting.

[Shad0w]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that there could be a distinction for facedown spells that have not been cast. Since there is no mechanism in the game that forces you to reveal what spells you have prepared, whether they are on your person, a familiar, or a spawnpoint; I fail to see how it is relevant if they could actually be cast as long as they aren't illegally cast. In all the text I've seen about spawnpoints and familiars it only ever mentions restrictions on what type of spells it can cast, never a restriction on what kind of spells it can prepare.

It seemed pretty clear to me that this was the intention of the word Bluff. I don't see why they would have to mention it if it was only a matter of mana or legal targets, there is nothing in the rules as far as I know that would lead one to one to believe that they would be in violation of the rules if they weren't able to afford a spell they had selected or if there didn't happen to be a target for it.

If this wasn't the intent of that mention, I would like an explanation as to why it should matter or be specifically ruled against and also request that the rules be clarified to clearly state that a familiar or spawnpoint cannot prepare a spell that it is restricted from casting.

You are correct in stating that I cant see what you had plan except if I destroy something with an attached card it is revealed due to the fact all cards in discard are public knowledge. Another example would be if I use SD on a face down card. This is one way I would know if a card was "legally" attached. A great example would be if you use the ability of the wand to rebind a new spell and you pick an epic incantation. The wand can not legally have epic incants bound to it. This is clearly an illegal action.

The intent is too bluff not to allow people to cheat. A good example of a bluff would the fairy and planning a card she can not cast because it is already on all legal targets.