Hi judges, and welcome to another Knowledge Pool scenario! You can find the blog post here: http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/?p=724

Alfred is yet again playing Mr. Nigma and as usual, they have a question for you concerning life totals.

After resolving that issue, you notice that Alfred has a Nevermore in play with no indication that you can see to determine what was named. After asking a few questions, you determine that when Alfred played the Nevermore a number of turns ago, he had named Beck // Call.

What is the most appropriate infraction/penalty/additional fix?

I would first explain to both players (because the nonactive player didn't say anything about it as well) that hence the new rules considering fuse-cards, you can only name one half of a card.

If it's Competitive play, I'll issue a warning GPE-GRV. Also he has to chose one of the names of Beck // Call, based on the additional remedies within GPE-GRV: “If a player made an illegal choice or failed to make a required choice for a permanent on the battlefield, that player makes a legal choice.If a player made an illegal choice or failed to make a required choice for a permanent on the battlefield, that player makes a legal choice.”
Since he already stated Beck// Call, I assume he meant one of those halfs. Letting him choose an entirely different card I would consider unfair, because we're much further in the game, so he either choses Beck or Call.

Oh yes, “nevermore” I thought I would see a question about “nevermore” (:P)

Section 2.5 of the MIPG specifies the fix for the exact situation here (game rule violation) under exceptions to the “no partial fix” policy. Nevermore (like all Meddling Mage style effects) requires (according to CR 708.7) the naming of one of the two halves of the card, not both. A player may not cast that side of the split card, or fuse a split card containing that name. In the partial fix exception, we have a permanent on the battlefield (nevermore) that has an illegal choice made for it. I would have the player make a correct choice for the spell. I would not restrict the player to a half of the spell, since it is up to both players to make sure a correct choice was made, and information may have changed for the player (making naming one half worse than before).

The player who did not control nevermore would also receive a penalty for failure to maintain game state (MIPG 2.6), for allowing an illegal name to be made on the split card.

The TL/DR version
AP - Warning, GPE-GRV, make a legal choice for nevermore
NAP - Warning, FTMGS
Give approprate time extension :)

It's a GPE-GRV-Warning for Alfred and a GPE-F2MGS-Warning for Mr. Nigma. Too much has happened for a rewind but the infraction is appropiate for a partial fix, in this case Alfred gets to “legally” name a card for Nevermore. It doesn't have to be restricted to one of the two halves of Beck//Call; he can name something different. I know this sounds unfair and it can give Alfred a huge advantage over Mr. Nigma but it's a player's responsibility to make sure an opponent is making legal choices in the game.

*CR 201.3. If an effect instructs a player to name a card, the player must
choose the name of a card that exists in the Oracle card reference (see
rule 108.1) and is legal in the format of the game the player is playing.
(See rule 100.6.) If the player wants to name a split card, the player must
choose the name of one of its halves, but not both. (See rule 708.) If the
player wants to name a flip card’s alternative name, the player may do so.
(See rule 709.) If the player wants to name the back face of a double-faced
card, the player may do so. (See rule 711.) A player may not choose the
name of a token unless it’s also the name of a card.*


Alfred has committed a GPE-GRV because he made an illegal choice when
Nevermore entered the battlefield some turns ago. Also, Nigma has committed
GPE-FTMGS because he did not point out Alfred's error.
I think we should investigate to discard cheating but I will continue with
the situation supposing that there is no cheating (It is possible that
Alfred knew that he could not name Beck // Call but he did it to gain
advantage from his opponent.).

Both players will receive a Warning as a penalty for their infraction, but
we should check if Alfred has any other previous GPE-GRV to upgrade it or
not. We should not upgrade Nigma's warning as it is written in IPG.

So, since it's been some turns since Alfred played Nevermore we can't back
up without disrupting the game. So the game reamins as is but Alfred must
make a legal choice for Nevermore as it is stated in IPG. There is no
reason to force him to say either Beck or Call as the card for Nevermore
since the IPG says nothing about that.


2013/5/29 Eric Paré <forum-4376-99c8@apps.magicjudges.org>

Yes indeed IPG says nothing about that, but it can't cover everything as they stated in their beginning. Personnally I feel it's quite unfair because it gives Alfred a huge advantage. So investigating for cheating could probably fix this.

However I feel that even if this person is cheating he just can get away with it. Let's suppose he is cheating (for example) and he tries this every time in a tournament just once (I don't know how far these warnings go, can you see over a period of time if somebody keeps doing the same thing over tournaments?). Plays Nevermore, says a fuse card, no response from the opponent, judge sees the mistake several turns later, he can chose a new card (which he can base on what he know now from what he saw in the deck of his opponent). So you're actually giving him the chance to play a new nevermore without it leaving the battlefield and already opposing a trait (because of the named fused card) and now being even a bigger trait, because he can now name keycards and stuff like that. So he probabily can win, and goes to T8 (being totally hypothetical here!). I don't know how long it takes to investigate for potential cheating, but I guess he can make T8 during this investigation (or I believe even after the tournament the investigation starts, I don't know, help me here ;) ). So the damage has already been done. We have a cheater in T8 and we couldn't do a thing about it ‘because IPG says he can name whatever card’.

(In the next section I could be going off-topic)
I think it's our responsibility to make it as fair as possible but to be correct as well. Players are expected to know the rules, but some of them know the rules quite well, and try to gain advantage out of them by giving us these scenarios.
So I understand that people here say ‘he can name whatever card’ because that's how it's stated in IPG. We are all human and we don't want to make mistakes, but can't we discuss here why IPG doesn't cover this kind of question. Wouldn't it make a more fair play if it stated in IPG that in case of fused cards they have to chose between one of two. Would it make it more fair? Why (not)?

(Back on topic ;) )
I actually believe that Alfred in this case will chose one of the half cards because that's what he intented to play. But he could also be cheating and turning this whole thing in his advantage.

Please, feel free to correct me, and point out where you think I'm wrong. I love to learn where my thoughts could have gone wrong.

As for fairness, from the IPG:

Some infractions include remedies to handle the offense beyond the base penalty. These procedures exist to protect officials from accusations of unfairness, bias, or favoritism. If a judge makes a ruling that is consistent with quoted text, then the complaints of a player shift from accusation of unfairness against the judge to accusations of unfairness against the DCI. Deviations from these procedures may raise accusations against the judge from the player(s) involved, or from those who hear about it.

These procedures do not, and should not, take into account the game being played, the current situation that the game is in, or who will benefit strategically from the procedure associated with a penalty. While it is tempting to try to “fix” game situations, the danger of missing a subtle detail or showing favoritism to a player (even unintentionally) makes it a bad idea.

Also, Nigma is at fault here as well. Mistakes that can't be easily verified by the opponent (drawing extra cards, not revealing what you tutored with Expedition Map) are punished harshly, but mistakes that the opponent could correct are not punished as harshly. Yes the fix might seem unfair for Nigma, but as he is expected to know the rules at competitive REl, he had responsibility to prevent this from happening himself.
But I do agree that the choice-making fixes feel very unfair in practice. I've heard of particularly nasty cases where it turns entire games upside down. It doesn't feel right, but again there is consolation in that the opponent is responsible too.

Maybe such an exception could indeed be added. In that case grey area faulty names would be handled the same way grey area faulty names on decklists are handled. This is not limited to just split cards. A Nevermore on Revelation could mean (in Standard) Diabolic Revelation, Ray of Revelation and even Sphinx's Revelation.

Edited Toby Hazes (May 30, 2013 08:44:18 PM)

Regarding whether or not Alfred should be allowed to name any card, or only “Beck” or “Call”:

It seems like an appropriate response that would satisfy “fairness” without compromising procedural consistency would simply be to explain to Alfred that a) he cannot name both halves of a split card when resolving Nevermore–only one half, and b) since his current choice of name is illegal, he must now choose a legal name. I don't think more than that is needed. If the judge's words are carefully selected and Alfred is not cheating, Alfred should understand the implication that he needs to choose either “Beck” or “Call”. Perhaps something like this:

"Alfred, the rules recently changed regarding naming split cards. Under the new rules, you have to name one half of the card or the other–you can't name both. Since naming both Beck and Call is not legal, I'm going to have to ask you to choose just one name now."

There is no reason to explicitly tell Alfred that he can name any card, and if it was an honest mistake, he'll probably just choose “Beck” or “Call”. If he selects a different card entirely without prompting, that may be a good indication that an investigation is needed.

Originally posted by David Poon:

If he selects a different card entirely without prompting, that may be a good indication that an investigation is needed.

Or that he knows the IPG well enough to know the fix for such a situation.

I don't like trying to trick a player into believing the ruling is “you must name Beck or Call” when in fact the ruling is “you must name a legal card”.

To me this is just another situation whereby a game of magic is broken, and it cannot be 100% fixed as if nothing had gone wrong. By all means, if something does strike you as suspicious as you give your ruling and observe the reactions, act upon it. But at the end of the day, both players messed up, and both share the responsibility and must live with the solution prescribed by the IPG whether they deem it fair or not.

Anyway, even if they name a different card, who's to say they might benefit from it? They might have just released the 2 Beck//Calls in Mr. Nigma's hand, and named a card which isn't there at all and so lose the game because of it.

Assume Alfred made a mistake. Even without any change in information about
his opponent's hand, Alfred may wish to change from Beck & Call to another
spell once he knows that he can only turn off half of the card and the Fuse.

Making a different choice does not necessarily indicate that anything shady
is going on, nor can we know that he would have named Beck or Call
initially if he had understood the rules.

***If the judge's words are carefully selected and Alfred is not cheating, Alfred should understand the implication that he needs to choose either “Beck” or “Call”.***

First, there should be NO implication that he needs to choose “Beck” or “Call”, as that implication is not supported by any policy.

Second, if the judge is selecting his words carefully so as to make such an implication, the judge is interjecting himself into the game in a SPECTACULAR deviation.

Keep in mind that most policy was written after long discussions that specifically weighed fairness vs consistency vs player responsibilty (to notice opponent's error), and in MOST cases consistency was judged the most important. Emphasizing consistency will mean that sometimes we arrive at conclusions that seem less than fair to one side, but this is already considered in policy, I assure you. And, I can definitely say that I've seen policy conclusions benefit different players in different situations.

Now, if you believe that policy is written incorrectly or inefficiantly, we have means to explore that (forums, this type of forum, for example). But, executing your non-policy will upon a game so as to achieve a fix that you believe is fair but which is not suppoorted by policy…that is philosophically dangerous.

So, if you want to explore deviations, please start another thread, and begin with this: in this scenario, other than a sense of unfairness, is there anything significant and exceptional going on? Do you believe that the policy didn't anticipate a noncalled card or illegal card named and recognize that a player might get a later advantage? If you feel that the policy is written with the knowledge that this COULD happen, then it is not exceptional, and no deviation should be explored.

Eric Shukan

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

Anyway, even if they name a different card, who's to say they might benefit from it?

Good point.

Eric Shukan
Second, if the judge is selecting his words carefully so as to make such an implication, the judge is interjecting himself into the game in a SPECTACULAR deviation.

Also a good point.

I stand corrected: judges must remain professional and act impartially, whether perceptible or not; and choosing words to encourage a particular outcome that potentially benefits one player seems to be yet another example of taking the game state into account.

To follow up, though: How should a judge phrase his or her response in this situation? Is it safest always to say, “You need to choose a legal card name, and that card name can be any card name in the format,” so as always to give the same, full information? Will the opponent see this as coaching on your part? (Is this akin to pointing out, for example, that the opponent's only untapped creature can't block?) Should we say instead, “You need to choose a legal card name,” and leave it at that, leaving the player to jump to his or her own conclusions at will? Is this a full enough response, or should this be considered withholding information? Is this acceptable if your intent is not to lead the player toward a particular decision, but unacceptable if you are?


TL;DR: How do we balance consistency, impartiality, consideration of intent, and customer service in delivering this ruling?

When I was training to be a judge, I was taught to be as succinct as possible. “You need to choose a legal card name.” is more than sufficient. If they don't understand your answer, they will ask. Don't fall into the trap of trying to predict their next question.

Thanks to everyone for the discussion and kudos to Michael for the initial completely correct answer!

Alfred has committed a Game Play Error - Game Rule Violation and Mr Nigma has committed the associated GPE - Failure To Maintain Game State. As per the recent rules change, you can no longer name both halves of a split card for things like Nevermore.

Alfred needs to make a legal choice as part of the partial fix exceptions in the GPE-GRV additional remedy section.

Note that Alfred does not need to name either Beck or Call.

How this choice is indicated on the card is up to the players, as long as the choice is legal and both players are completely aware of the game state. A judge may request that they make the game state clear to observers (such as the judges) by using a slip of paper to indicate which card was chosen for Nevermore.

One very important item I would like to be sure everyone is aware of is the excellent post by Eric Shukan. As he noted, we should never be trying to influence player's actions during a match.

Thanks again, and we'll see you at the next Knowledge Pool!