Originally posted by Bryan Henning:

Alan hasn't proposed a legal outcome

Isn't he? If we apply Kalitas effect first he would get those zombies, and that's legal outcome of this situation. Yes, it not his call to decide what rep. effect we will apply first but he can propose one way and if NAP don't have any objections (ie. due to not understanding how rules work there) he can agree on Alans' way.

Hi guys.
My name is Kento Ishikawa and I am a Lv1 Judge from Japan.

I read this thread yesterday and was wondering if I could translate this into Japanese and post it on our forum for debating purposes?

Yes, please do translate ANY thread you find interesting!

d:^D

I don't see how this is any different from Alan saying, “No, exile them”
and handing Kalitas to Norma so she can read it. If she knows about
Anafenza and how competing replacement effect work, she can point it out
(with or without a judge), otherwise, no foul if Alan grabs Zombie tokens
and puts them on the battlefield.

No intervention or penalty.

Alan has proposed how he would like the replacement effects to be ordered by stating the resulting outcome, which is entirely legal.

Example:
AP states “Attack for 8” turning two 4/4s sideways. On an empty board this is proposing a result based on rules knowledge and gamestate as well as desired outcome, if NAP has a flash creature in hand you wouldn't step in to let them know they could cast and block with it. You wouldn't issue GRV/CPV or any other penalty to the AP here either I hope!

If Norma understands the rules correctly a simple comment here will result in the ‘best outcome’ for them, otherwise Alan gets the (already often stated in this thread) advantage from superior rules knowledge. Its worth noting that the ‘best outcome’ here is a subjective understanding of the result we believe Norma may want and I think this is why people are keen to intervene. This is dangerous and constitutes OA (yes scooby is getting penalized).

Example:
Imagine in this situation that Norma has a copy of Mob Rule (we might question why, but still…) and can now take control of the zombies and Kalitas to attack for the win. We step in, highlight the ‘erroneous’ statement by Alan and clarify that Norma can prevent the zombies being created. When Norma states that they're okay with it Alan now knows somethings up and changes lines of play

I've read multiple judges mentioning the importance of exact wording or
intonation.

Please don't put too much weight on these things in a game that is played
internationally amongst players speaking different languages, and regularly
in a langage at least one player isn't a native speaker.

Even for investigation purposes, tones and exact wordings are amongst the
easiest things to mis remember.

- Emilien
Le 8 févr. 2016 08:29, “Marc Shotter” <forum-24500-1dc3@apps.magicjudges.org>
a écrit :

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

1) Which replacement effects are currently affecting the Visionaries as they die is a detail “of current
game actions,” so it's free information, not derived.

Nitpick: which replacement effects are currently affecting a permanent is derived. They're not “game actions”.

(Free info is the basic information you need. Derived info is putting that all together to create the correct picture of the board state)

Originally posted by Toby Elliott:

Nitpick: which replacement effects are currently affecting a permanent is derived. They're not “game actions”.

What does “game actions” mean, then? Is that meant to be “player choices” or “player actions” or similar?

Hi - Freshly minted L1 here and this is my first post on these forums, but enough with the introductions.

Clearly, the game is crafted so that better knowledge of game rules leads to better results as the ability to “see” all available options allow a crafty player to come out ahead of their opponent in a game of mental skill. But when that same game rules knowledge frays into borderline manipulation, misdirection, and/or outright theft of an opponents' decision making ability it is going to create a communication-based problem that will cause resentment in the match, in the venue, and in the gaming community as a whole.

Wording and phrasing aside, the decision over weather or not Alan gets one, two, or zero zombies is not up to Alan, and if there is mutual agreement (spoken or unspoken, as up to 80% of all face-to-face communication is nonverbal) that the decision *IS* up to Alan, then it is someone's responsibility to correct this incorrect mutual belief. If Alan goes on to win every match of the tournament in the same exact manner and no one corrects him, you now have an entire tournament full of misled players who will take that same interaction and apply it incorrectly whenever they play somewhere else.

We can play semantics over weather or not Alan's “proposal” had a question mark at the end of it or not, but I think we all know that reality does not work like the written word and it can't be spell-checked or proof-read.

For those who believe that judicial intervertion in this case revolves around invisible punctuation, consider this:

If I turn cards sideways and attack someone, then reach over the table and place my opponents creatures in-front of mine and say, “You block like this, and if you have any instants you're not going to cast them.” would you intervene? Because I am effectively doing exactly what Alan has done in this situation; I am making decisions FOR my opponent that are not mine to make. Does the age, size, or sex of either player matter to you in this situation?

This interaction treads an extremely fine line between rules knowledge, rules bullying, and possible “real” bullying.

If Alan's proposal has a period on the end: then he either gets a lesson on how his own cards work from a judge, a GRV, or both.

If Alan's proposal has a question mark on the end: then either he or Norma SHOULD call a judge for clarification on card interaction. Competing replacement effects are not a commonly known rules interaction for players, and clarification on this issue will only help the players and the community as a whole.

Looking forward to posting more on these boards,
Russ


“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” (Edmund Burke)



…and no, that quote is not my sig.

Russell, that's a well-thought-out opinion, but it is, in fact, incorrect.

As others have stated, Alan has not broken any rules, there is no infraction, and Judges do not intervene “unless he or she believes a rules violation has occurred, a player with a concern or question requests assistance, or the judge wishes to prevent a situation from escalating”.

If Norma turns to us and asks “is that correct? don't I get a choice?” then she has a concern or question, and has requested assistance - so we intervene.

d:^D

One thing that could be done in this scenario is to talk privately to Alan after the match and ask him whether he knows exactly how this interaction works (those are his cards after all). It could help prevent any possible future misunderstandings.

@Milan: How do you imagine that conversation? If Alan says to you “Yes, I know that he chose order of rep. effects, I merely suggested one of the possible outcome”

Bart, yes that is one of the possible outcomes. In that case, I would be completely satisfied.

On the other hand, if the talk with Alan discovers that he does not know it is his opponent's choice, I would be inclined to tell him. Even though it may look like coaching. As I was present to the original situation and confirmed its outcome by my silence, I would be afraid that Alan could interpret my silence as a confirmation of his interpretation (that he - the controller of Anafenza and Kalitas - decides which to apply). And then this misconception could spread itself.

Do you think that it is “too much” and I should not tell anything? Or only after the torunament ends?

Originally posted by Russell Deutsch:

If I turn cards sideways and attack someone, then reach over the table and place my opponents creatures in-front of mine and say, “You block like this, and if you have any instants you're not going to cast them.” would you intervene? Because I am effectively doing exactly what Alan has done in this situation; I am making decisions FOR my opponent that are not mine to make.

In this situation it is expected at a competitive event that the opponent should indicate that they do not wish to block this way and/or wish to cast spells. In a regular rel event I would probably step in to clarify the situation or approach the players afterwards to ensure they understood the rules around this, but not at competitive.

Originally posted by Russell Deutsch:

Does the age, size, or sex of either player matter to you in this situation?

Bullying and threatening behaviour are a separate issue with seperate infractions and there is no indication in this example that Alan acted that way.

If Alan goes on to win every match of the tournament in the same exact manner and no one corrects him, you now have an entire tournament full of misled players who have less understanding of the rules than Alan and will take that same interaction and apply it incorrectly whenever they play somewhere else and be corrected by players who understand the rules.

Edited Marc Shotter (Feb. 10, 2016 05:20:48 AM)

Originally posted by Marc Shotter:

If Alan goes on to win every match of the tournament in the same exact manner and no one corrects him, you now have an entire tournament full of misled players who have less understanding of the rules than Alan and will take that same interaction and apply it incorrectly whenever they play somewhere else and be corrected by players who understand the rules.

I don't really see the benefit of this approach. Players who discover later that they have been taken advantage of could become upset not only at their opponent but also at you as a judge. Do you really want a situation where players at your store are less knowledgeable about the rules than players elsewhere? If the situation comes up at another tournament they will likely refer to your “ruling” and when they lose the decision they will think you didn't knew how it worked.

While you should not step in during the game, I don't see the problem with talking to the players between matches and explaining rules interactions. It's quite possible that Alan did not actually know how it worked and would rather be sporting than risk being labeled a power gamer. If he decides to keep using the tactic at least he does so with full knowledge.

Edited Mats Törnros (Feb. 10, 2016 10:08:37 AM)