Originally posted by Jeremy Tilley:

Toby Hazes
If I attack with a Hill Giant and my opponent has a Woodland Changeling and a Griffin Canyon I can ask “trade?” even though the current P/T's don't indicate a trade.

If I put my opponent on a Titan's Strength, I can attack with my Hill Giant into a Traveling Philosopher and ask “trade?” to show my opponent I'm onto him, even though there might not even be a possibility for the creatures to trade.

Thus I would also say that saying “trade” is not representing anything incorrectly. Or the above scenarios would also not be allowed which seems strange to me.

Have you ever heard someone use “trade” like that? As a new Level 1 judge and shop owner, I have heard the term many times but never used unless something was being exchanged (killed/destroyed).

Well for example in combat trick heavy environments like Theros or Gatecrash I've often blocked a 2/2 with a 2/3 saying something like “Sure I'll trade” implying I wanted to trade my creature for their trick.

I can see the basis of the “no DQ” position here, because we are discussing a future game outcome. However, I can't agree with it. It seems extremely sketchy to use communication policy in this way. I like Aaron's answer at the bottom of the previous page and ask AP what she meant by her statement (this is regardless of what cards are in play, in what zones, in players' hands, or anything else; regardless of the game state my answer is to ask what AP meant by her statement). Based on her answer, I would decide whether or not to issue a DQ, but I think DQ for Cheating should be on the table.

Reason: There exists an interpretation of the statement “Trade?” which is lying about derived information in the current game state and does not take into account future game states (i.e. my guy has “2/2” printed on it, as does yours; I want to make you think my guy is a 2/2 when it's actually a 3/3 based on the current game state). I want to know if that is what AP thought she was doing. If she can convince me that that is not what she was doing, then she gets a pass (where “a pass” = “not a DQ”; other penalties may be pending though).

My lines of thinking would be mostly similar to Aaron's, but I'll talk a bit about it anyway:

Case 1: AP says that she forgot her pump effect when asking “Trade?”, or something equally preposterous: DQ for Lying to a Tournament Official (not for Cheating).

Case 2: AP says that she knew (or had reason to believe) that NAP had some sort of a trick: Investigate further into how she had this knowledge. If she can give some sort of a reasonable answer, she gets off the hook. Otherwise, DQ for Cheating. This case is only valid if NAP had cards in hand at the time.

Case 3: AP says that she thought NAP would make a different play than she did (say NAP had a Bear and a Hill Giant and blocked with the Bear instead): Probably gets off (depending on whether or not I believe this, which is a subjective thing).

Alternative but related question: AP controls Grizzly Bears. NAP casts Lightning Bolt, targeting Grizzly Bears. AP casts Giant Growth targeting Grizzly Bears and says “I'll 2-for-1 myself and then pass the turn, is that OK?”. NAP then untaps their stuff and realizes the Bear is not in the graveyard. Is this the same answer as previous? If not, why not?

Edited Lyle Waldman (Dec. 8, 2013 09:06:39 AM)

For everyone here saying that this player deserves a trip to Dairy Queen - lets change the scenario ever so slighlty:

This match is now in game 3. Games 1 and 2 have been largely interactive matches. In matches 1 and 2 everytime two creatures ‘trade’ player A says “Potato”. Now this situation comes up in game 3, however instead A asks N “Potato?”. Situation unfolds as before. Do you still rule that A is cheating? Why or Why not?

In my opinion, if you can DQ for cheating for the word trade which has no magic rules meaning, just an implied meaning you should be willing to DQ in the above situation as well.

I don't think it is ok to get technical regarding which words were spoken exactly. If a player clearly meant something and his/her opponent understood it, the message has been delivered. What if one of the players speaks japanese? What if he's mute and uses sign language?

I think the first question that should be asked is what did he/she mean by “trade”? If the answer is “I wanted to make my opponent believe that if he blocked both creatures would die” then I think he/she is pretty clearly misrepresenting derived information.

I am a rules nut and hate deviations but getting too technical regarding exactly what word the player said would get us away from what I believe is the true question: what did he/she mean. If the player wanted to express an idea, chose some words and the idea came across to the opponent, I care about the concept not the words and to me in this case the player is knowingly cheating.

Having said all this, Uncle Scott gave the official rulling and I that is what we should stick to if this scenario arises.

I'm not 100% on where I fall on this issue, but I would like to bring up the point of how this applies to other shorthand terms in Magic that are not defined by the rules, for example mill, bounce and flicker.

For each of these terms, there is a pretty well-defined (in my mind at least) use for them in the Magic community, but technically they are not defined by the game rules. If player A says that Cloudshift bounces a creature, player N then puts the card into hand, then Player A calls a judge and explains that by bounce she meant bounces off the field and then back, would you be comfortable with issuing player N GPE-DEC? If not, why is “trade” different from the above terms?

I'm having a hard time with the “player used a word not defined in the documents so we don't hold them to what everyone knows it means” lines of thinking. Additionally, it seems to me that the people saying ‘trade’ doesn't have a definition are giving it the definition of “I attack and you block.”

If Adam has three creatures and says “swing with these 3 dudes” and Noel says who he'd block with and Adam responds with, “well in that case I won't attack,” would anyone let Adam take it back since neither “swing” nor “dude” are defined in the documents?

The part of the Communication section of the MTR that Scott has quoted is about free information; isn't this discussion is about derived information. I don't see how Anna is not misrepresenting the P/T of Natalie's creature, which is derived information.

Ultimately, the core of what I am having trouble with is that this seems like a big “gotcha moment.”

Thanks

I'll take Mike's example a step further.

A has a 2/2 Vigilance creature. A points to it and say “Swing?”

B says, Giant Growth my guy. Block.

A “Oh I didn't attack yet. I said ‘Swing?’. In that case I'll cast Enlarge on my guy since it's still my main phase. Declare attacks?”

As “Swing?” is now just a question about a future state, this now seems to be not only legal, but an extremely powerful play against anyone who doesn't play like a rules lawyer.

Apples and oranges; While the shady meaning of ‘swing’ might be explained as pertaining to the future, the non-shady meaning of ‘swing’ is an action, it signifies the speaker doing something, it is current. Therefore the two of them are easily separated.
'Trade' however, in both the shady and the non-shady meaning is about the future and does not signify an action (if asked, not stated).

To make this less abstract:
- AP taps Barbary Apes and says nothing.
- AP taps Barbary Apes and says “trade?”.

In both scenarios, exactly the same thing is happening. AP attacks with the Apes.

Now here is trade used as an action, continuing from the above scenario:
- NAP has Forest Bear and says nothing.
- NAP has Forest Bear and says “trade”.

Now here the scenarios are different. In the first, NAP hasn't done anything and might still be considering whether to block or to take the damage. In the second, he is blocking and yes he can't take that back in any way.

What I'm saying is, the discussed use of “trade” can't be compared to action-signifying words such as “swing” or “trade”.

Edited Toby Hazes (Dec. 8, 2013 01:53:38 PM)

Turn it around, slightly.

Anna attacks with her 2/2; Natalie says “oh, so you want to trade?”, Anna says “sure”, and Natalie blocks with her 2/2 … and then Anna points out her Spear.

In the OP, when Anna says “Trade?”, she's baiting Natalie into a mistake. She's projecting into a future event - i.e., Natalie blocking - and not making a false statement about the current game state. If Natalie didn't forget the Spear, and said “wait, I thought that was a 3/3 because of the Spear”, then Anna would have to correctly represent that Derived info (or say nothing, which would seem odd in that scenario).

Natalie has every opportunity to confirm or correct her understanding of the game state before taking Anna's bait, and falling into her trap.

Note that I'm not trying to convince anyone of what the official stance is; I've already stated that. I am, however, willing to continue (for a while) to try and help with understanding why that's the stance.

d:^D

Trade has no in-game meaning, and is not an official shortcut, but I think it's generally clear that it means “our creatures deal damage to one another, both die.” So Anna proposes this shortcut, and Natalie accepts it, knowing that her bear is safe because of it's higher toughness. I don't think that “trade?” has any connotation of power and toughness, but rather is a shortcut that states “your creature blocks mine, everyone pass priority until combat damage?” She has accepted this, it just led to a game-state that Anna didn't expect.

She has not made any statement that deliberately mis-represented the power or toughness of her cub, and so I think she has not cheated. I would also not issue a CPV warning because she did not fail to communicate any information, and accepted the shortcut without modification, only without correcting her opponent's mistake about the outcome. I would understand if another judge wanted to issue a CPV warning here, and if they did I feel like it would be proper to back up to the beginning of the Declare Blockers step.

Would it be wrong to back it up and issue no infraction?

In my opinion, “Trade?” is ambiguous, it could be reasonably interpreted by Natalie as saying “If you block with your 2/2, both our creatures will die.” which strongly implies that Anna is saying her creature is a 2/2.

However, from Anna's perspective she may have meant “Do you have something to buff your 2/2 to 3/3 so that our creatures will die?” which certainly is a legitimate question about the future.

Philosophically, player's shouldn't gain an advantage by being ambiguous in communication and to me this seems like an example of that, so my instinct is to back it up to declare blockers, but I don't see Anna's question as warranting a penalty, though perhaps I'd tell her to keep her communication clearer.

There are many unofficial expressions that players use that have a commonly accepted meaning.
Some examples: swing, chump, trade, alpha.

I don't fault Natalie for thinking that Anna was using it in its commonly accepted meaning based on the implied current game state.

Edited Todd Bussey (Dec. 9, 2013 11:59:09 AM)

MTR 4.2 A player is not allowed to use a previously undeclared tournament shortcut, or to modify an in-use tournament shortcut without announcing the modification, in order to create ambiguity in the game.


I understand the answer and will use it until further notice, but I am having trouble with the MTR section quoted above with this scenario/answer.

To me it seems that AP is proposing a shortcut to a future game-state that created ambiguity as to the outcome of combat. As stated many times in this thread the word “trade” is not a term defined by the current documents we use to govern the game. Since it is not a Magic term the word is ambiguous and should be cleared up. The reason NAP will most likely never ask to clear it up as it has a pretty clear definition of the intent from the AP what they meant by that word. We can play word games and say that it meant all sorts of other things that could apply to what happened. I feel that if you have to play word games to get around what was actually intended you are intentionally creating ambiguity and trying to take advantage of it.

Here's the conclusion I reached earlier on Facebook before before getting the O answer. I have no problem accepting I'm wrong and will make the correction in the future. However, the situation just feels wrong for the overall health of the game.

Magic is an imperfect game, played by imperfect people. There are often situations that result in confusion and require clarification. This is why we push so hard to encourage clear communication between players. Magic is a strategy game, not a word game. Bluffing is part of the game, lying is not.

If this were allowed to continue, I could imagine a world where at GP’s the pros angle shoot using accepted colloquialisms rather than defined terms in order to confuse newer players. This would essentially turn Magic into a game of gotcha where listening to what your opponent is saying has more downside than up. This is exactly the opposite of where the game should be growing.

In my opinion, actively trying to obfuscate the game state in order to gain an advantage is unacceptable and should be punished accordingly.

Unfortunately for me, this sentiment does not seem to be backed by policy. Though from Scott's post, it seems this issue has already been debated ad nauseum by the higher ups, so I'll leave it be.

I appreciate all the feedback from everyone on this.

Adam, my understanding is the following: there will always be a gray area, as competitive minded players will always try to be as close as possible of the line in order to grind advantage over less savvy players. The communication policy isn't here to remove the gray area, just to make sure it's well defined so consistent rulings are delivered by judges and players know what to expect. It's also designed to meet kitchen table players expectations so players have less trouble to make the transition toward the tournament scene, and it feels more like playing Magic and less playing the MTR from a spectator point of view.

The fact that we allow this gray area doesn't mean we want magic tournaments filled to the brim with competitive behavior and every player constantly being as close of the line as he can. That's why we allow but don't promote competitive behavior, but instead promote and acknowledge fair play. The reason tournaments aren't (or shouldn't be) shark-infested isn't only derived from the rules, but also from what the community support or frown upon. As community leaders, we also play a role here.

Agree wholeheartedly with Adam here. Does a list of commonly accepted words/shortcuts as defined by MTR (not CR, those are obvious, I'm referring specifically to MTR here) exist? Are there any such words? If not, there seems like A LOT of angle-shooting can be done here, and I'd like to add my voice to the chorus of people who finds this extremely uncomfortable and disconcerting.

@Toby: The problem with your rebuttal to Adam's comment is that “Swing?” has no game definition. As far as the game is concerned, he can point to that card and say “Swing?” and mean “Do you have Executioner's Swing to kill my guy if I attack?”, which has nothing to do with attacking whatsoever. The following argument from that being “If NAP chose to interpret ”swing?“ as ”I want to attack with this guy“, that's his problem not mine; I wanted to cast Enlarge on my guy”. Under the ruling from this thread, I believe that's a sufficient reason to back up the game state to AP's main phase and allow him to Enlarge his guy as per Adam's comment. I see no difference between Adam's case and the OP scenario.

@Uncle Scott: The difference between the OP and your “turned-on-its-head” scenario is that NAP is not misrepresenting derived information (in a way which is not immediately game-relevant etc etc yes I know). If the scenario was that AP attacked, NAP blocked and said “trade?” and AP said “sure” following which NAP pointed to their Spear of Heliod, then I would have the exact same problem with that scenario as I do with the OP scenario. The issue here in my mind is who the one keeping track of derived information is, not who the one speaking is.

@Anyone with a judge level of 4 or above (or is privy to the conversations of those of higher level): How is this scenario different from the trigger rules change? The trigger rules were changed so that NAP didn't have to keep track of AP's triggers and remind them to do things when they didn't remember. This seems like an analogous case; is the philosophy of the Rules Team that triggers are something special in that each player should not be required to remember each other's triggers but they should be required to remember everything else about the game state? That seems like missing the forest for the trees, so to speak. Which is to say, if that's how you want it handled, I'll go along with it, but I don't like it one little bit.

Regarding a proposed solution to this problem: Magic is a game played around the world in many different languages. Attempting in any way, shape, or form to compile a dictionary of what words are/are not acceptable to use at any given time is likely fruitless and futile. In addition, language itself is inherently imperfect, even outside of the realm of MTG. Saying “I attack you” can mean anything from turning your cards sideways on the table to punching someone in the face, and obviously when AP asks NAP “Can I attack you?” and NAP says “Sure”, we certainly still DQ AP (and possibly call law enforcement) if fists start flying, despite NAP's “acceptance”. Basically, this isn't a problem that's solvable in any sort of perfect sense. However, language is a tool used for communication, not some sort of mathematically-perfect construct. If we treat it like an imperfect construct and make rulings based on “in 99% of cases, this is what should be happening, and if that's not what's happening something wrong is probably going on”, then we're probably good enough.

Which is to say, in 99% of cases (in my experience at least), the question “trade?” (without accompaniment by any other qualifiers, such as “my guy”, “your pump spell”, etc) means “if you bloick my guy with your guy, both of our creatures will die”, which strongly implies that the smaller of the creatures has deathtouch or that each creature's power is to the other creature's toughness. Neither of those things is true in this case, hence misrepresentation of derived information and a trip to the ice cream shop.

Edited Lyle Waldman (Dec. 10, 2013 05:33:18 AM)