The Riki Rules – Profane Bluffs
Posted by Riki Hayashi
May 4, 2009 | 
9 comments
The Riki Rules – Profane Bluffs
by Riki Hayashi
About a month ago, Patrick Chapin's "Profane Command bluff" got a lot of press over on SCG in no less than four different articles.
The crux of his play is that he said, "Profane Command, you lose 6 life and all my legal targets gain fear." He then attacked with all of his creatures, including a Chameleon Colossus that did not have fear due to being an illegal target for Profane Command because of protection from black. His opponent tried to find a block that kept him alive, but because he thought that Colossus had fear, he could not find the game-saving block.
The forums erupted, and it sparked a nearly month long debate on the legality/ morality of the play and the relative value of such Jedi mind tricks.
The first question is simple and straightforward: is what Patrick Chapin did legal? Yes, the rules allow this. Already there are some dissatisfied readers out there, so we'll get into why. The main complaint is that what Chapin said does not conform with the rules for playing spells and activated abilities (Comprehensive Rules 409), specifically:
"409.1c If the spell or ability requires any targets, the player first announces how many targets he or she will choose (if the spell or ability has a variable number of targets), then announces his or her choice of an appropriate player, object, or zone for each of those targets. A spell or ability can't be played unless the required number of legal targets are chosen for it. The same target can't be chosen multiple times for any one instance of the word "target" on the spell or ability. If the spell or ability uses the word "target" in multiple places, the same object, player, or zone can be chosen once for each instance of the word "target" (as long as it fits the targeting criteria)."
It would seem that Chapin did not "announce how many targets he or she will choose" when he said "all my legal targets." From the "6 life" we can assume that the X being chosen for the spell is 6, probably all of the mana available to him along with the BB. I believe he had less than six creatures on the board at the time; the version I read puts it at Chameleon Colossus, Cloudthresher, and two Wilt-Leaf Lieges. If he had more than six legal targets at the time, there would be a problem with his statement because it would not be clear which creatures were being targeted.
To be absolutely clear insofar as the rules are concerned, Chapin would have to say, "I will play Profane Command with the modes being life loss and fear. The X equals 6. I will target you with the life loss, and target Cloudthresher and the two Wilt-Leaf Lieges with the fear." That's a mouthful though. If you're a fan of the rules of the game, you know how wordy they can be, and I don't think there is anyone out there who wants to go through an entire tournament playing the game exactly as it is written out in the rules. The classic case of this is how we do not say "pass" every time we pass priority in a turn. Instead we have shortcuts to get us through the night. "Go" means "I am passing priority through the rest of my turn unless you do something.” Without shortcuts, every match would go to extra turns.
So Patrick Chapin used a shortcut: "All my legal targets." What does that mean? This is open to some interpretation. One way to read this is that he is targeting all of his own creatures that he can legally target, putting the emphasis on "my." Saying "legal targets" also excludes Chameleon Colossus since its protection from black makes it an illegal target as we now clearly know. Thus, we can construct the phrase "all my legal targets" as meaning "all of my creatures that I can legally target," or in this case Cloudthresher and two Wilt-Leaf Lieges.
Of course, there are other interpretations of "all your target are belong to us" –I mean "all my legal targets." Chapin could be saying that all legal targets available to him gain fear (de-emphasizing the “my”), which could include his three creatures and any of his opponent's creatures. And if the opponent had four or more creatures, bringing the total number of legal targets to seven or greater, that would leave some ambiguity about which six of those creatures were granted fear by the Profane Command. And what if Chapin's opponent had six legal targets of his own on his side? What then? Could it be interpreted that Chapin is targeting six of his opponent's creatures to gain fear, leaving his army fearless (without fear)?
The player's answer is clear enough. Given the option of giving your creatures or your opponent's creatures fear, it is obvious which it is going to be, especially at sorcery speed on your turn since fear is only relevant on an attacking creature. I tried to look up some relevant interactions like "destroy target creature with fear" but didn't come up with anything. Still, one of the hallmarks of these judge talks is that I try to hammer home the point that Judges are not required to make correct plays for players, or assume that they made the optimal play. In this case, "all my legal targets" is open to some interpretations and it is conceivable that a player might, for whatever reason whether strategically valid or not, target his opponent's creatures to gain fear.
Maybe the above is a bit of a stretch. Let's take a look at another card that might open the door to ambiguity. Lavalanche, one of the most devastating Limited spells in the format, has but one target. It targets a player, which means that if you so choose, you can target yourself and nuke all of your creatures. This doesn't happen very often. It is pretty much implied that when you "Lavalanche for 5," you are targeting your opponent. If there is some reason for you to target yourself, you should definitely specify such an unusual play ("I'll Lavalanche myself for 2").
Now let's say that we have a player that hasn't read his Lavalanche too carefully and thinks that it targets the player for damage and deals damage to all creatures in play. He plays Lavalanche without declaring a target and starts to put his creatures into the graveyard. The opponent says nothing and leaves his creatures on the board. He hears Al Michaels shouting in his head ("Do you believe in miracles? Yes!") until the Lavalanche player points out that his creatures are dead too. Oh, and you take 6.
Obviously there is a problem here, and it usually results in a Judge getting involved. Here, the player's actions show one thing (that he is targeting himself), but he claims another after the fact. As a Judge, do you let the player make the painfully obvious correct play, or do you hold him to what his actions appeared to show? Consider another similar case where the Lavalanche player thinks the spell is a Starstorm plus Lava Axe instead of a Flame Wave. This time he correctly states the opponent as the target (thinking it is just for the Lava Axe), then incorrectly starts to put his creatures into his graveyard (because of the assumption of Starstorm). Now what? He's said one thing ("Lavalanche you"), but his actions seem to indicate that he in Lavalanching himself. I'm not going to get too deep into this tangent, although if you'd like to talk about it in the forums, I'm game. My point was to get in a quick Al Michaels "Miracle" reference.
Going back to the Profane Command, was Chapin ambiguous? There were certainly some ways that he could have phrased this that would have been flat out illegal. On the illegal side would have been anything implying that Chameleon Colossus was a target of Profane Command, or that it had acquired fear. "All my creatures gain fear," or "fear my team," would be examples of illegal statements. On the flip side, he could have been more explicit and named the targets. He did not because he was laying a trap, trying to get his opponent to think that the Colossus had fear. It worked and he won the game.
What would have happened if a Judge had been called? Several Judges have chimed in on this subject already, including the Justice League's Nicholas Sabin. I'll agree with the general sentiment that what Chapin said was legal. It is less than 100% clear, but I would say that it is clear enough as most reasonably experienced players would take the statement as "all of my creatures that are legal targets gain fear." No part of the statement implies that the illegal target has fear. But that leaves the ambiguity still in play.
As a player, you can protect yourself against such devious mind tricks from Jedis like Patrick Chapin by asking for clarification. It's actually pretty simple. If the opponent had asked a simple question like "Are you targeting Chameleon Colossus?" Chapin would have been forced to show his hand and admit that he was unable to target his Colossus. Similarly, when trying to choose his blockers, his opponent could have asked a clarifying question like "Does this creature have fear?" Again, Chapin would have been forced to tell the truth about the Chameleon Colossus not having fear. If at any point during this sequence, if the opponent had any questions regarding the ambiguous nature of the statement, he could have saved himself the game. Unfortunately, the statement was perfectly clear to him, and his incorrect assumption that the Colossus had fear cost him the game instead.
Despite the clear legality, there are plenty of players, myself included, who would probably never make a play like this. It's not so much that I think it is dirty or underhanded (although some people do think this). My main issue is the potential for ambiguity; the entire play depends upon it. As a Judge, I prefer–almost require–perfect clarity in my games. This doesn't mean that I can't do tricky things or force my opponent into misplays.
At a recent FNM, I had a Rockslide Elemental that got into a fight with a Scarland Thrinax. They were both the same size (I had to use a removal spell in response to the Thrinax in order to grow my Rockslide up to the same size) when they got into combat and it was unfortunately clear to me that if my opponent knew what to do, I was done for. He could put first strike damage on the stack, then eat something to survive the damage and be able to hit back in regular damage to kill my Rockslide.
I had one chance when my opponent went to go eat a creature. I asked "Before damage on the stack?" because every creature that he ate before damage went on the stack was irrelevant; it kept our creatures growing at the same pace. Looking a bit confused, he did eat a creature before damage on the stack. Thrinax got a counter. Rockslide got a counter. Then he ate a second creature. Thrinax got a counter. Rockslide got a counter. My opponent looked thoroughly confused. Finally, he stopped eating creatures, we went to damage, and then he immediately played a creature after combat.
"We're done with combat then?" I asked. Even though him playing a creature pretty well established that, I wanted him to confirm the game state–make sure things were clear. He agreed and I said, "Then your Thrinax is dead." I went over the fact that they were the same size, yet my creature lived due to first strike. He acknowledged this and started to move his creature to the graveyard. He stopped for just a moment, possibly thinking that he could get in one last pump to save his guy, but the fact that he played a creature shut the door on that possibility in his mind. I won the battle, and went on to win the game and match thanks to a large and unopposed Rockslide Elemental.
That's about the best "tricky play" that I can make as a Judge. Everything was above the board and by the rules. I got him to jump the gun on his pumping, which managed to confuse him enough off of the correct play. I suppose it's possible that my reputation as a Judge got him to not even try to pump his creature after combat. Quite frankly, if he had tried, I probably would have let him. It was only FNM after all, and I'm not a heartless bastard (shut up, Eric).
Before I sign off today, I want to throw out one other scenario for discussion that I may use in a future article. Player A plays Esper Charm "targeting myself" he says. Player B lets it resolve and when Player A goes to draw two cards, Player B points out that the only mode on Esper Charm that targets is the discard, hence A was targeting himself with that mode. Discuss!
Until next time this is Riki Hayashi telling you to call a Judge.
Rikipedia at Gmail dot profane
Risky on efnet and most major Magic forums
Japjedi47 on AIM
Click here to discuss this article!
9 Comments Leave a comment
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment
Retail Store Hours
- Mon to Thu: 5:00pm - 10:00pm
Fri: 3:00pm - 11:00pm
Sat to Sun: 11:00am - 7:00pm
Copyright
Wobbles says: May 4, 2009 @ 10:53 pm
Asking rules questions with ambiguous answers is terrible because I don’t have the foggiest as to what should happen there. The temptation to ask my opponent who he is targeting when ever he casts an esper charm is going to force me to keep coming back until you provide a ruling.
I really hope having my opponent 3 for 0 themselves is going to be my tech for regionals.
McCarthy says: May 5, 2009 @ 12:43 am
Being able to pull a play off like what chapin did is what defines a pro. They are pros for that reason (and others of course). I would have tried to pull off that play to if i would have been in chapins seat.
Endorfin says: May 5, 2009 @ 2:45 am
Well, player A actually targets himself, so that only leaves one option open, the discard. The problem though, is that he didn’t choose modes before targeting. I’m pretty sure you have to do that before targeting…
Somebody From Davis says: May 5, 2009 @ 3:08 am
After combat an opponent moved his unearth guy to the graveyard. I argued he passed priority to end of turn. You said his intentions were clear so you let him continue in his second mainphase. Then i asked about the same question at a PTQ, and you ruled in my favor.
So its hard for me to value ur opinion as a judge.
Jimb0v says: May 5, 2009 @ 7:08 am
This continues to be a major source of concern for me. Its bad for the game. Your line of play with the rockslide is very confusing to me. You ask him “We’re done with combat then?” What if he figures it out at that moment and says, no. Now you have a werid situation, he played a creature clearly indicating he was done, but by the way you phrased your question it seems like you are saying “Hey I didn’t get priority after damage was on the stack.” Could you address what you would have done if he said “No, we’re not done with combat and then sacrificed a creature to save his dude.”
Also, the esper charm thing is a nightmare. If I go to regionals and I ask my opponent who he is targeting and he says himself, is the ruling really going to be that he has to discard two cards?
Dreamswept says: May 5, 2009 @ 10:10 am
Love these articles, Riki, you have the most entertaining writing style, I wish other judges’ articles were such fun reads
John says: May 5, 2009 @ 10:47 pm
In response to your jedi mind skills, I will have Jenkins cast his pox on you. Your next FNM will be doomed!
Harry says: May 6, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
In round 5 of a PTQ in Rockville, MD my game 3 went to extra turns Fae vs. affinity. I am on affinity. My opponent has a sower of temptation equipped with jitte with enough counters on it to swing for lethal on his next attack, turn 4, and I have men to counter on my turn 5. He play’s hurkyll’s recall, then picks up his jitte and returns it to his hand. I ask the clarifying question “Is your jitte being returned to your hand?” he answers “yes” obv thinking it is an upheavel for artifacts. Immediately a judge is called without further remark, he happens to be directly behind me. Having watched the play he quickly states that there was no target declared at the time the spell was played and my opponent will get to back up to that point. I argue that my clarifying question covered that as my opponents jitte being returned to his hand can only imply that he is the target. I appeal, the ruling is not overturned. I do not make top 8. Thoughts?
Jose Cohen says: June 3, 2009 @ 6:44 pm
A lot of people are going to read this article as “If you act in a dishonest, misleading, or douchelike way to win tournaments, go right ahead – the judges think it’s okay.” As if Spike didn’t have bad enough of a reputation as it is.