This is something we'll have to handle on the spot. How hard this will be will depend (obviously) on how long it's been since the blessing was claimed to be gained. We'll talk to the players, ask them questions, figure out if/when the blessing was gained.

At the end of the day, we will make a Judgement call based on the information provided. We can do no more. I wouldn't worry too much about it though. The odds that a mistake is made is very very small. You'd need all the following to occur:
Somehow not having 10 permanents for the second ascend card
Not mentioning the blessing the first time, or have it be meaningfully relevant
The players not being able to agree on what happened previously
The judge not being able to work it out.

That's a lot of what ifs!

It really isn’t any different to any situation where the players don’t agree on something, life totals is the usual example.

Hi Mark, I disagree that the City’s Blessing issue is similar with life totals. Those are kept track of visually and is easier to investigate. City’s Blessing is slightly harder.

Yes as judges we will investigate and give our best ruling for any judge call based on current policy. But I believe what the OP is trying to point out is that this problem can be avoided if City’s Blessing is made to be a visual thing, such as an emblem or if it has to be acknowledged. We can do this to help judges and players have a better time. There is no similar life totals dispute solution.

It can also be avoided by better communication between players. There are tokens available to show city’s blessing and I suggest players should be encouraged to carry them in environments where this is relevant. Players will know if relevant cards are in their constructed deck and at limited events.

Judges do what they can to fix any game state players can mitigate such problems by communication.

Graham

Sent from my iPhone

On 21 Jan 2018, at 07:12, Sashi Kumar Balakrishnan <forum-40882-68b7@apps.magicjudges.org<mailto:forum-40882-68b7@apps.magicjudges.org>> wrote:


Hi Mark, I disagree that the City’s Blessing issue is similar with life totals. Those are kept track of visually and is easier to investigate. City’s Blessing is slightly harder.

Yes as judges we will investigate and give our best ruling for any judge call based on current policy. But I believe what the OP is trying to point out is that this problem can be avoided if City’s Blessing is made to be a visual thing, such as an emblem or if it has to be acknowledged. We can do this to help judges and players have a better time. There is no similar life totals dispute solution.

——————————————————————————–
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/248553/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/40882/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/40882/?onsite=yes

You can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/

Sashi is right on my point: the question is not “how helping players communicate about the Blessing”, it is “should we force them communicate about it”.
Wizards provided a good tool with the token to show the Blessing and have players remember it once it was announced.
The question I was raising was about competitive players that do not want opponent realize that they actually reached the Blessing. The purpose being that the opponent makes a mistake not realizing that the Blessing was already reached.

For example, Atari has just played its 10th permanent and attack with Dusk Charger. Nintendo blocks with a 3/3 Dinosaur token, not realizing that Atari just got the Blessing.

What should we think of such a situation? Has Atari tricked Nintendo, or do we want Nintendo to be aware of the Blessing immediately when Atari got it?
Right now, the policy follows the first case. If we want to give the possibility of a back up, I believe that the best thing to do is to say that status changes (like the Blessing, the Monarch) need to be announced, like the life or energy changes.

As another example, let's say that we are judging a GP feature match. A player controls Dusk Charger and 9 other permanents. If we give the City's Blessing token to a player, this is – as I understand documents – Outside Assistance.

Good points and yes I believe you are correct at present on your knowledge of the rules with city’s blessing.

I think your example falls under a play mistake by the defending player unless the attacking player is trying to obscure the number of permanents he has and mislead the fact he has city’s blessing.

I guess the question is does policy want to make City blessing an additional skill test for players?

Sent from my iPhone

On 21 Jan 2018, at 11:46, Mikaël Rabie <forum-40882-68b7@apps.magicjudges.org<mailto:forum-40882-68b7@apps.magicjudges.org>> wrote:


Sashi is right on my point: the question is not “how helping players communicate about the Blessing”, it is “should we force them communicate about it”.
Wizards provided a good tool with the token to show the Blessing and have players remember it once it was announced.
The question I was raising was about competitive players that do not want opponent realize that they actually reached the Blessing. The purpose being that the opponent makes a mistake not realizing that the Blessing was already reached.

For example, Atari has just played its 10th permanent and attack with Dusk Charger</api/autocard/?card=Dusk+Charger>. Nintendo blocks with a 3/3 Dinosaur token, not realizing that Atari just got the Blessing.

What should we think of such a situation? Has Atari tricked Nintendo, or do we want Nintendo to be aware of the Blessing immediately when Atari got it?
Right now, the policy follows the first case. If we want to give the possibility of a back up, I believe that the best thing to do is to say that status changes (like the Blessing, the Monarch) need to be announced, like the life or energy changes.

As another example, let's say that we are judging a GP feature match. A player controls Dusk Charger and 9 other permanents. If we give the City's Blessing token to a player, this is – as I understand documents – Outside Assistance.

——————————————————————————–
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/248560/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/40882/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/40882/?onsite=yes

You can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/

Originally posted by Mikaël Rabie:

Has Atari tricked Nintendo, or do we want Nintendo to be aware of the Blessing immediately when Atari got it?
Right now, the policy follows the first case.

This is correct, and we will follow policy, until & unless it changes.

I understand the concerns raised in this thread, but:
(1) players have a responsibility to keep track of the game, and this is just one more detail to watch;
(2) I don't see this actually causing lots of problems, in competitive play.

Instead of worrying about what might go wrong, let's redirect this thread towards actual incidents (should any occur), and the lessons learned while solving any problems.

For my part: I played in a PPTQ yesterday, and saw or overheard a number of interactions involving the City's Blessing. Players were announcing it, and nothing went off the rails. I give some credit to Justin, our Head Judge, who made a good announcement, explaining that not being clear about it can cause issues on subsequent turns, and if he has to try to sort out whether or not you had the blessing, you may not like the result.

Justin's message was effective; a few minutes into the first round, my opponent announced, in a very loud voice, “I have the City's Blessing!”, and the room chuckled. I will follow Justin's example, and suggest yo do as well!

d:^D

I would advise caution regarding any announcement that implies if you don't announce it you as a judge could rule against you.

Not announcing it is legal and currently a viable tactic especially given there are cards that get power and toughness modifiers.

While not announcing it is legal, I believe it's also important to educate players on the fact that clear communication is always a good idea to prevent any misconception about the state of the game, and the less misconception there is, the less probability there is that something goes south.
And as we know, judges are human being, so yes, I could see unclear communication leading to a player getting an incorrect ruling and not benefiting of City's Blessing. Which could have been easily prevented if that player was more clear in his or her communication.

I understand that some players want to keep their opponent in the dark about what is going on for as long as possible, but I also believe that this is not really the skill we want them to try to develop, nor the skill that will actually lead them to improve as Magic players.
So if a player ask if it's legal, I believe we can both answer yes and explain why it's still a bad idea for him or her.

- Emilien

Originally posted by Emilien Wild:

I understand that some players want to keep their opponent in the dark about what is going on for as long as possible, but I also believe that this is not really the skill we want them to try to develop, nor the skill that will actually lead them to improve as Magic players.
So if a player ask if it's legal, I believe we can both answer yes and explain why it's still a bad idea for him or her.

- Emilien

If this is a skill we don't want them to develop, and being unclear is a bad idea (and it seems like almost everyone in this thread has agreed on that), then why are we giving them the option. It would have been trivial to instead say that player status needs to be visually represented in some way, instead of just making it free info.

Originally posted by Mark Brown:

I would advise caution regarding any announcement that implies if you don't announce it you as a judge could rule against you.

Mark, imagine that announcement being given with a smile, and not as a threat; it was simply reminding players of the benefits of clear communication. (FWIW, I've given similar directions at GPs and Worlds.)

Or: +1 to Emilien.

Jeff: because there are times where it's strategically correct to let your opponent misunderstand something, and - if it's allowed by the Player Communication policy - we can't deny them that line of play. (That really doesn't contradict or invalidate what we're saying about clear communication.)

d:^D

Originally posted by Jeff Kruchkow:

If this is a skill we don't want them to develop, and being unclear is a bad idea (and it seems like almost everyone in this thread has agreed on that), then why are we giving them the option. It would have been trivial to instead say that player status needs to be visually represented in some way, instead of just making it free info.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Jeff: because there are times where it's strategically correct to let your opponent misunderstand something, and - if it's allowed by the Player Communication policy - we can't deny them that line of play. (That really doesn't contradict or invalidate what we're saying about clear communication.)

Scott: I think Jeff may be suggesting a change to the documents, not a change to Emilien's recommendation of how to speak to players. If he is in fact suggesting a change to Player Communication Policy, your reasoning becomes circular. (“Why don't we change this from A to B?” “Because it's currently A.”)

Jeff: I've found it helpful to compare having the City's Blessing to having +1/+1 from an exalted trigger. We have always recommended that players announce their exalted triggers, even though they are not required to. It's true what Emilien says—players don't actually improve by playing “Gotcha”. Although I agree with you that given our preference for communication, it would be nice to make announcing the City's Blessing required, that would make it inconsistent with other changes of game state that we currently allow to be not announced immediately (like exalted triggers).

And my $0.02 for those who think it could be complicated figuring out if a player gained the City's Blessing several turns ago—it shouldn't be any harder than determining if someone drew an extra card, unless some permanents have been shuffled into a library. Consider it incentive to practise your counting skills!

Originally posted by David Poon:

Scott: I think Jeff may be suggesting a change to the documents, not a change to Emilien's recommendation of how to speak to players. If he is in fact suggesting a change to Player Communication Policy, your reasoning becomes circular. (“Why don't we change this from A to B?” “Because it's currently A.”)

Jeff: I've found it helpful to compare having the City's Blessing to having +1/+1 from an exalted trigger. We have always recommended that players announce their exalted triggers, even though they are not required to. It's true what Emilien says—players don't actually improve by playing “Gotcha”. Although I agree with you that given our preference for communication, it would be nice to make announcing the City's Blessing required, that would make it inconsistent with other changes of game state that we currently allow to be not announced immediately (like exalted triggers).

You are 100% correct David, I was very much suggesting a modification to our policy documents there. Also, the difference between Exalted and City's Blessing is the fact that Exalted is a trigger and Blessing isn't. You can't miss blessing like you can a trigger. The current missed trigger rules keep things like that under control because after a certain window you'll have missed it and just not get the effect. So players are incentivized to announce early to not risk being late. This isn't true with Blessing, which makes the “bad behavior” much more pronounced.

Originally posted by Jeff Kruchkow:

You are 100% correct David, I was very much suggesting a modification to our policy documents there. Also, the difference between Exalted and City's Blessing is the fact that Exalted is a trigger and Blessing isn't. You can't miss blessing like you can a trigger. The current missed trigger rules keep things like that under control because after a certain window you'll have missed it and just not get the effect. So players are incentivized to announce early to not risk being late. This isn't true with Blessing, which makes the “bad behavior” much more pronounced.

For a better comparison, compare it with other threshold mechanics like Threshold (Nimble Mongoose), Metalcraft (Etched Champion) or Delirium (Grim Flayer). Players aren't required to announce that those abilities are ‘on’.

The difference is that the City's Blessing is for the rest of the game, while all previous threshold mechanics continually check. If you prefer a policy change it should be based on this difference, not on wanting players to announce a relevant difference in the game state.
EDIT: Or that the City's Blessing has to be visually represented.

Edited Toby Hazes (Jan. 24, 2018 03:19:11 PM)

Originally posted by David Poon:

Scott: I think Jeff may be suggesting a change to the documents, not a change to Emilien's recommendation of how to speak to players. If he is in fact suggesting a change to Player Communication Policy, your reasoning becomes circular. (“Why don't we change this from A to B?” “Because it's currently A.”)

Perhaps my answer wasn't clear enough, then, as it's not at all circular. I was trying to explain why it's A, to address Jeff's suggestion.

One reason policy allows obfuscation at all is because that is sometimes a correct strategy, or the only “out” you have. While it's not often effective, esp. against better players, it can allow a win from a losing position.

Another is because we don't want players to have to play the game for their opponents - i.e., having to point out everything they missed. This principle was a factor in the creation and evolution of Missed Trigger policy; we got a lot of negative feedback from players about having to remind their opponents of triggers (ancient history now, but that was a thing).

d:^D