On Mon Sep 02 14:08, Joshua Feingold wrote:
>

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

If we treat it as a continuous statement you can back up when the die is incorrect and it affected blocking decisions.

This feels like choosing an infraction to justify a desired fix. I don't think we have document support for the notion of a continuous statement.

The MTR/IPG talk about “Incorrectly representing derived information”. I can certainly see that could be read including representing the P/T with a die. I just don't think it's as clear cut as you say (I know what I'd prefer - which is not having to tell my opponent how to add up).

Matt

How does the notion of a “continuous statement” interact with a situation like this:
I control Tarmogoyf with a die on 2 and Dark Confidant. Graveyards have sorcery and land. Opponent casts Lightning Bolt on Confidant, then passes the turn. I untap, draw, roll my die to 4 and attack.

Have I really committed a CPV here? I think it would represent significant overreach for a judge to rule that way.

How about this situation:
I have Tarmogoyf and Bob again. Opponent places a die on 2 on my Tarmogoyf, then thinks for a few seconds, Bolts Bob, and passes. I untap, draw, don't touch the die, and attack. He says “I take 2,” I correct him to “You take 4.”

Who, if anyone, has committed the CPV here? And if my opponent has committed one, was it at the point where he said “I take 2” or was it on the previous turn?

I believe these problems are inherent to the concept of a “continuous statement” and should be taken to indicate that such a concept isn't supported by policy. It is my understanding that Communication Policy should be applied to active communication only, and I think it develops cracks pretty quickly if you try to push it beyond that.

And this has been your monthly reminder of why it's a really bad idea to use dice on a Tarmagoyf. I'd ask them what gave the Tarmagoyf four +1/+1 counters and encourage them to find a different way of tracking things.

Originally posted by Toby Elliott:

And this has been your monthly reminder of why it's a really bad idea to use dice on a Tarmagoyf. I'd ask them what gave the Tarmagoyf four +1/+1 counters and encourage them to find a different way of tracking things.

What I sometimes do is put a die behind Tarmogoyf (flush against the sleeve) to represent its defined characteristic, and a die (of a different colour) on Tarmogoyf to represent counters. Is this permissible?

As a corollary to this what about say a Planeswalker where using a die to track the number of loyalty counters is fairly universal?
What if you run into a situation where player N activated a Planeswalker ability (say the +1 for Tamiyo, she was at 4) but does not move the die. The players catch this error on player As next turn after attackers are declared, both players agree on the number of counters on Tamiyo but the die reads 4 instead of the correct number 5, how does this situation differ?
Understanding that you can argue to make a case that player N has not actually paid the cost of the Tamiyo ability, but is that really the case if both players can agree on the state of the game even if the dies simply reads incorrectly? Everything else about the activation of the ability is/was correct. Can we just fix the die and move on here, or would we want to backup this up (given that nothing extravagant has happened in the game from when the ‘error’ occurred)?

Just some additional thoughts I had while reading this thread, thanks!

-Nicola DiPasquale

Personally if the game state is agreed by both players but it just is being represented wrong at the time I'd bring the physical game state to match what it's meant to be and move on

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

I believe these problems are inherent to the concept of a “continuous statement” and should be taken to indicate that such a concept isn't supported by policy. It is my understanding that Communication Policy should be applied to active communication only, and I think it develops cracks pretty quickly if you try to push it beyond that.

The MTR makes no clarification on “active” or “passive” communication. It does make it quite clear, though, that players are not allowed to incorrectly represent derived information. The die is being used to represent Tarmogoyf's power, and as such can never be incorrect. As a result, if an effect or action causes Goyf's power to change and the player who is manipulating the dice does not immediately change the die to be accurate, I will rule that that player has committed a PCV.

This pholosophy makes the resolution of your situations clear. In each situation, the player who didn't change the die immediately were responsible to do so, and so have committed PCV. I would assign a Warning as appropriate, remind the player why using dice for Tarmogoyf is a bad idea and that clarifying power/toughness as relevant is a better way to do things, and remind the player of the upgrade path for similar Tournament Errors. This has the added benefit of educating the player to hopefully never use a die on their Goyf again. And to address your statement, I don't think it's ever an overreach for a judge to intervene in a situation where they see a rules violation, especially one which has the potential for confusion or abuse.

I would not assign a PCV for any player trying to clarify how much damage is being assigned in combat, because asking for clarification is clearly different than representing the creature's power, even when an incorrect number is used.

Nicola DiPasquale
As a corollary to this what about say a Planeswalker where using a die to track the number of loyalty counters is fairly universal?
What if you run into a situation where player N activated a Planeswalker ability (say the +1 for Tamiyo, she was at 4) but does not move the die. The players catch this error on player As next turn after attackers are declared, both players agree on the number of counters on Tamiyo but the die reads 4 instead of the correct number 5, how does this situation differ?
Understanding that you can argue to make a case that player N has not actually paid the cost of the Tamiyo ability, but is that really the case if both players can agree on the state of the game even if the dies simply reads incorrectly? Everything else about the activation of the ability is/was correct. Can we just fix the die and move on here, or would we want to backup this up (given that nothing extravagant has happened in the game from when the ‘error’ occurred)?

Just some additional thoughts I had while reading this thread, thanks!

-Nicola DiPasquale

This is a different situation altogether, I think, because in this case the die doesn't just represent calculatable information: it represents actual physical objects in the game state. In the goyf example, as far as the game is aware that die doesn't exist, but that's not true for loyalty counters. As a result, the problem isn't that someone communicated incorrectly, it's that there's an actual error in the way the game has been handled. The GRV infraction best informs how to handle these kinds of situations, and details the appropriate remedies. Just adding the counter onto Tamiyo really is a partial fix, and there's lots of reasons to avoid those. I don't see the justification for deviating here.

Edited Darcy Alemany (Sept. 3, 2013 05:51:19 PM)

Originally posted by Darcy Alemany:

Joshua Feingold
I believe these problems are inherent to the concept of a “continuous statement” and should be taken to indicate that such a concept isn't supported by policy. It is my understanding that Communication Policy should be applied to active communication only, and I think it develops cracks pretty quickly if you try to push it beyond that.

The MTR makes no clarification on “active” or “passive” communication. It does make it quite clear, though, that players are not allowed to incorrectly represent derived information. The die is being used to represent Tarmogoyf's power, and as such can never be incorrect. As a result, if an effect or action causes Goyf's power to change and the player who is manipulating the dice does not immediately change the die to be accurate, I will rule that that player has committed a PCV.

This pholosophy makes the resolution of your situations clear. In each situation, the player who didn't change the die immediately were responsible to do so, and so have committed PCV. I would assign a Warning as appropriate, remind the player why using dice for Tarmogoyf is a bad idea and that clarifying power/toughness as relevant is a better way to do things, and remind the player of the upgrade path for similar Tournament Errors. This has the added benefit of educating the player to hopefully never use a die on their Goyf again. And to address your statement, I don't think it's ever an overreach for a judge to intervene in a situation where they see a rules violation, especially one which has the potential for confusion or abuse.

I would not assign a PCV for any player trying to clarify how much damage is being assigned in combat, because asking for clarification is clearly different than representing the creature's power, even when an incorrect number is used.

Nicola DiPasquale
As a corollary to this what about say a Planeswalker where using a die to track the number of loyalty counters is fairly universal?
What if you run into a situation where player N activated a Planeswalker ability (say the +1 for Tamiyo, she was at 4) but does not move the die. The players catch this error on player As next turn after attackers are declared, both players agree on the number of counters on Tamiyo but the die reads 4 instead of the correct number 5, how does this situation differ?
Understanding that you can argue to make a case that player N has not actually paid the cost of the Tamiyo ability, but is that really the case if both players can agree on the state of the game even if the dies simply reads incorrectly? Everything else about the activation of the ability is/was correct. Can we just fix the die and move on here, or would we want to backup this up (given that nothing extravagant has happened in the game from when the ‘error’ occurred)?

Just some additional thoughts I had while reading this thread, thanks!

-Nicola DiPasquale

This is a different situation altogether, I think, because in this case the die doesn't just represent calculatable information: it represents actual physical objects in the game state. In the goyf example, as far as the game is aware that die doesn't exist, but that's not true for loyalty counters. As a result, the problem isn't that someone communicated incorrectly, it's that there's an actual error in the way the game has been handled. The GRV infraction best informs how to handle these kinds of situations, and details the appropriate remedies. Just adding the counter onto Tamiyo really is a partial fix, and there's lots of reasons to avoid those. I don't see the justification for deviating here.

So the next question; how do you handle the player who notices that the opponents die is wrong and doesn't correct it?

Originally posted by Gareth Tanner:

So the next question; how do you handle the player who notices that the opponents die is wrong and doesn't correct it?

Depends on which situation.

In the Goyf situation, absolutely nothing. A player does not need to ensure their opponent is communicating correctly.

In the Tamiyo situation, I'm going to do an investigation. If I determine that the player knew they needed to ensure the die was correct, but didn't because they thought there was an advantage, then they committed USC - Cheating. Otherwise, they committed GPE - FTMGS.

I think this speaks to exactly why the two are different. For Goyf, the die isn't actually anything in terms of the game state, rather it's a tool being used by a player to keep track of a piece of information, like a life pad. The other player has no responsibility for ensuring that players are using their tools correctly. The issue with this die though is that the die is a representation for derived information, and therefore falls under the Player Communication policy. For Tamiyo, the dice are used to represent actual objects, and there is a shared responsibility for ensuring they are represented correctly.

Edited Darcy Alemany (Sept. 3, 2013 06:10:46 PM)

(To be clear I am talking about Tarmogoyf here)

But noticing an infraction and not bringing it up is cheating, if you go with the line that the moment I don't correct the die its a CPV then you not pointing it out should likely fall under USC - cheating.

Most of the debate here seems to center around whether the die of the Tarmogoyf is communication or a note. I would want to take into account any statements made by the owner of the die. When I'm playing, if my opponent places a die of his Goyf I always ask what it represents. (I then ask him to remove it but that's beside the point.) If he replies that it denotes the Tarmogoyf's power I think he is then obliged to keep it updated. Until the player who placed the die makes a claim about what it denotes I don't think we (or the other player) can safely assume that it is continuous communication about derived information.

“This is a different situation altogether, I think, because in this case
the die doesn't just represent calculatable information: it represents
actual physical objects in the game state.”

Tokens and counters are not physical objects within the game of Magic;
however, they are most often represented by physical objects (such as token
cards and dice). I believe that in both cases here, with Tarmogoyf and
Tamiyo the players are attempting to visually represent some portion of the
game state, in the case of Goyf the derived information for * and in the
case of Tamiyo the number of counters on her. In either case it takes some
skill in reading/looking up the information in order to determine the
value. It may be that we as judges hold things like Planeswalkers, and
other cards with or that gain counters, differently than placing a die on a
card like Tarmogoyf to represent said derived information. Doing so would
include cards like Give//Take where by I put some amount of counters on a
creature (would this be different yet again?). Obviously we want the
players to track these things and we want them to track them in a clear
manner whereby both players can agree easily and quickly with the state of
the game. Typically that is done with a die, stones, or even other cards
(though I recommend the first two over the last). We do not require
players to even use a die for things like Planeswalkers (otherwise the last
two options would not be allowed), though if they do not use anything then
that might lead to other questions. To be devils advocate here, I am not
sure how representing derived information in these two scenarios are any
different.

Relevant text from the MtR (Section 4.1 p.20):

Free Information:
Details of current game actions and past game actions that still affect
the game state
The name of any visible object
They type of any counter in a public zone**
The physical status (tapped/flipped/unattached/phased) and current zone
of any object
Player life totals, poison counter totals, and the game score of the
current match
The current step and/or phase and which player(s) are active

Derived Information:
The number of any type of object present in any game zone***

**I would like to point out that this line does not include the number of
said counters but only the type.
***A counter is a game object (not a physical one albeit)

Just some additional food for thought on this topic. Thanks!

-Nicola DiPasquale
{P.S. Sorry if my post appears twice again, judge apps is not taking kindly
to my posting for some reason, thanks!}



2013/9/3 Brian Denmark <forum-5710-d014@apps.magicjudges.org>

Originally posted by Darcy Alemany:

I don't think it's ever an overreach for a judge to intervene in a situation where they see a rules violation, especially one which has the potential for confusion or abuse.

Disclaimer: What follows is my best understanding of philosophy. It may be wrong.

The entire communication policy exists to acknowledge and accommodate the many ways players don't technically follow the rules. Shortcuts and Out of Order Sequencing are technically rules violations that we are smoothing over to match the way Magic is actually played. This should inform the way you think about communication in general.

You don't want to step in every time something is technically incorrect. You want to step in when things are functionally incorrect. For example, if someone says “target that creature with Clone's triggered ability,” they are incorrectly representing derived information because Clone neither targets nor has a triggered ability. But you shouldn't (and I strongly suspect, actually wouldn't) give out a CPV Warning for that.

Originally posted by Darcy Alemany:

The MTR makes no clarification on “active” or “passive” communication.

This presupposes that “passive communication” is a thing that policy acknowledges even exists, which is begging the question. (Put another way, if “active communication” is the only type of “communication,” why bother to say “active?”)

Communication is about getting it right enough that the game can continue. Having some piece of information that must be completely correct at all times is antithetical to that philosophy. As such, we should not try to make policy cover it.

Not even life totals are this rigidly enforced, even though they are the most preciously kept of all pieces of information. It's acceptable for me to say “Swing Goblin Guide…. Bolt you? Bolt you? Go to 10.” (Acceptable in real play - obviously not ideal.) Even though there were two intervening life total changes that were never announced, we know the final result by the time we care about life totals again. I think trying to hold a Tarmogoyf die (or anything else) to a more exacting standard than life total changes is pretty tough to justify.

I feel that calling the dice ‘notes’ is being rather creative as well. As a player I don't allow dice for anything other than counters. (No you cannot put a dice on my Figure of Destiny!)

As a judge I will sometimes ask if that Tarmogoyf has counters, but other than that I feel it's the players responsibility. I would love the practice to disappear, but don't think disallowing it is good customer service.