In preparation for GP Brisbane, we will be publishing a 3-part mini-series on problematic cards in Modern today, Tuesday, and Thursday. This mini-series is provided by Nathan Long after the incredible response to his primer on Blood Moon.

This thread is for discussing the article Modern Rules Problems - Spellskite by Nathan Long.

Since Spellskite can target anything, I think it would've been worth a mention concerning bluffs with Spellskite, until where they are ok, and where they stop beeing ok.

Aka, it is ok for me to target Kiki-Jiki's ability, knowing full well that it won't do anything when it resolves, hoping that my opponent does something not optimal in response - e.g. tapping out to kill Spellskite, or even conceding the game thinking he will loose now.
However, I may not lie about the outcome of the ability resolving, so if my opponent asks me ‘so I get a Spellskite now’, I have to answer with no (if he asks ‘so I loose now?’, I could still answer ‘Well, you obviously aren’t dead, so I can't say anything about that').

This finesse has already gotten people DQ'ed, so I think it is kinda important.

Philip: Thank you for your comment, and it brings up an interesting point about policy that is not covered in the article but is welcome to be discussed here in this forum. :)

Knowingly representing how a rules interaction works incorrectly to gain advantage is USC-cheating. This was not covered because the purpose of these Modern articles is rules interactions for tricky cards that some judges may not fully understand, not necessarily the policy implications that may spawn from them.

Discussing things that are not in the article would probably be best in the appropriate forum, most likely Competitive REL

Also, an article focussing on the comprehensive rules isn't really going to discuss tournament policy.

Edited Mark Brown (Sept. 29, 2013 09:27:55 PM)