I really just wanted to know whether a change in game state occurring between the time a spell or ability is announced but before it is paid for would allow the ability to continue resolving or if the fact that it was legal when announced would override. I remembered the salvation situation because I read it when it was first posted, and it seemed like a reasonable way to have an ability on a card announces and then have needle name it.

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure what the difference is between then and now either. A card was named, it's the exact name of an existing card. Are we supposed to take game state into account for this, but not for triggers such as Dark Confidant's? It seems inconsistent at best, and while at regular I'd rule ‘you knew what they meant’, at competitive players are to be held to a higher standard of play. There are plenty of technical errors that can be made where the correct ruling is to say “you misunderstood something and now you've misplayed, sorry but carry on” What makes this any different?

Originally posted by David Jimenez III:

There are plenty of technical errors that can be made where the correct ruling is to say “you misunderstood something and now you've misplayed, sorry but carry on” What makes this any different?

Most of those errors involve not understanding a rule, an interaction, or the game state. This has nothing to do with that, it's just one player trying to gain advantage of another just by using language and an ambiguous situation that it's in the end very clear. That player knows very well what card his opponent is referring to (and trying to convince a judge otherwise is a risky path, I'd say).

In such a situation, I think the question about what to do with the ability is easily answered: it should have never been activated, just back up to the point when it was activated and carry on.

Even in Modern, where Shackles is illegal and there are two cards with the word Shackles in their names, I'd rule that the player meant Vedalken Shackles and educate both players (say the full name and avoid problems; don't try to gain an advantage this way).

Originally posted by David Jimenez III:

I really just wanted to know whether a change in game state occurring between the time a spell or ability is announced but before it is paid for would allow the ability to continue resolving or if the fact that it was legal when announced would override

That's a fair question, although the situation that leads to it is a bit contrived and unusual.

I've been quoted before as saying that the fastest thing in Magic is a judge's ruling - not because we're exceedingly quick at rulings, but because rulings can even interrupt Interrupts!

Having said that, I can't really give you a general answer to your question. In this specific case, I agree with Carlos; it's clear that the Pithing Needle will prevent activation of the Vedalken Shackles, so we rewind the illegal activation.

And yes, that also means that I agree that, if a player is resolving Pithing Needle in Modern, and says “Shackles”, with a Vedalken Shackles on the board, it's ridiculous to think any other card was named. (The MTGS thread was different in a couple meaningful ways.)

We had a person at a vintage tournament play Cabal Therapy and name ‘Recall’ (instead of Ancestral Recall).


The opponent revealed their hand and discarded their Hurkll's Recall.


Very shortly after a judge was called; and the ruling was upheld that the card named was actually the card ‘Recall’.

why did the opponent discard his hurkyll's recall? who called the judge?

I think this situation, just like the previous example shows that responsibility is shared between both players. Player A should be more clear about what he's naming. Similarly, if player N is unclear about what card is being named, they should ask for clarification.

To take it to the extreme, if A said, “Cabal therapy that blue card,” and N looks looks in his hand and says, “Yup, here's a blue card!” and discards it. I'd be smacking them both upside the head. (Not literally of course).

However, in the original scenario, I'd be doing a bit of an investigation on player A. If he knew he meant Ancestral Recall, and allowed the Hurkyl's Recall to be discarded, that sounds like cheating to me. He'd have to have a very good reason why he didn't call a judge immediately i.e. maybe he didn't realize until later that N discarded a different card.