Hey there everyone! First off, I'm going to note that this among the edgier of edge cases, but this is something that has actually occurred at a few solid games of casual Magic recently. However, I bring it here as something that I've had asked of me by players if this were to happen at Comp REL versus a casual match.

Alfred activates the ultimate of Ral Zarek at a Modern PPTQ/GP. He calls out “tails” for all 5 flips (this is the contested point of error - Ral Zarek only cares about ‘Heads’) and Nathan agrees. Using a coin that has a clear heads side, he flips the tails side five times and gets five extra turns. Halfway through the first extra turn, Nathan realizes that Ral Zarek demands heads only, and calls a judge. Nathan cites rule 705.2 and requests that the extra turn is reverted. The judge believes that neither player was trying to cheat nor game the system, and both players agree the coin came up physically tails five times. How do you rule? Does your answer change if they catch it immediately after the flips, or later on, say in turn five?

To put my own decision at the forefront for discussion, once the “call” of the flips were agreed upon by the players, I personally marked that as “final.” In essence, with both players agreeing for ‘tails’ as the result, they've made a de facto ‘heads’ for the purpose of this interaction, as per 705.3 (substitution, though it could be argued that you can't substitute flipping a coin by flipping a coin, but I digress). So, as far as the game is concerned, five ‘heads’ were flipped. This is a clean way that keeps the game exactly as it was intended, but I'm curious to hear any other perspectives (especially if you would back up and undo the turns, or even issue GRVs/FTMGS!)

705.2. To flip a coin for an object that cares whether the coin comes up heads or tails, each affected
player flips a coin without making a call. No player wins or loses this kind of flip.

705.3. A coin used in a flip must be a two-sided object with easily distinguished sides and equal
likelihood that either side lands face up. If the coin that’s being flipped doesn’t have an obvious
“heads” or “tails,” designate one side to be “heads,” and the other side to be “tails.” Other methods
of randomization may be substituted for flipping a coin as long as there are two possible outcomes
of equal likelihood and all players agree to the substitution. For example, the player may roll an
even-sided die and call “odds” or “evens,” or roll an even-sided die and designate that “odds”
means “heads” and “evens” means “tails.”

I'd say that in this situation since the coin came up tails 5 times, and Ral Zarek should have given zero extra turns, we're looking at a GRV/FtMGS.

In any other situation, assuming the error has been caught in a number of turns less than or equal to the number of heads actually flipped, I would give both players a stern finger wagging and make sure they play the appropriate number of extra turns.

Ed: I'd disagree that 705.3 is applicable here. That rule seems to clearly demonstrate that “heads” and “tails” are two wholly different concepts, and it simply isn't possible to designate “tails” as the face-up side for a card that requests heads like Ral Zarek does.

Edited Andrew Villarrubia (April 4, 2017 02:26:45 PM)

I think that the words in Ral means “for every sucess, gets an extra turn” simply into the common believe of “heads”, the first one, is wins…

If 2 playes choose and both agree with “some face” of a coin was sucess and the other face is “fails” im ok.
There are lot of strange coins with faces in both faces and without anyone. Choose 1 as “heads” or “success” its OK to me.
(allways talking in a coin with 50% to every face :p )

In my opinion I would rule the same as Peter here.

705.2 and 705.3 are applicable here in my opinion.

705.2 states that the player flips a coin without making a call. This happened in the described szenario. The only thing that happened beforehand was defining that tails will count as heads and otherwise.

Alfred proposes a change from heads to tails as the new “heads” to count for the Ral Zareks following toin cosses. This would work the same as a 6 sided die and defining even to be heads. Therefore rule 705.3 can be applied.

A different case would be if Nathan does not agree to the change. Then we would have 0 extra turns. In the given case I would rule 5 extra turns and remind both players that communication is key. They agreed upon tails to count as successes and should act accordingly.

Originally posted by Sandor Dalecke:

In the given case I would rule 5 extra turns and remind both players that communication is key. They agreed upon tails to count as successes and should act accordingly.

I agree with you.

I agree with everyone who stated that heads has been redefined as tails.

There is a cheating angle here that should be considered- AP could have intentionally called tails intending to “notice” the error if the number of heads was 3 or greater. Similarly, NAP could have been aware that Ral Zarak looks at heads but waited until after seeing the result before deciding to point it out.

Edited Isaac King (April 5, 2017 07:49:11 AM)

705.3 only applies if you're flipping an unfamiliar coin or rolling a die (see last sentence of the rule).

Consider Mana Clash. Does calling a face of the coin make sense in this situation? If not, then calling a face in a situation that also explicitly wants a heads or tails result is not applicable.

Taking the comp rules completely literally in real-life situations can lead to odd results- I wouldn't worry about the exact wording too much. AP's intent was pretty clear, NAP agreed to it, I don't see a problem.

Mana Clash is a completely different situation. Due to the effect of the card, the players are far less likely to make a similar error when resolving it. If it did happen, you'd have to evaluate that situation on its own. When it comes to subjective rulings like this, I don't think you can draw overarching conclusions from one specific (and very different) scenario.

Originally posted by Isaac King:

There is a cheating angle here that should be considered- AP could have intentionally called tails intending to “notice” the error if the number of heads was 3 or greater. Similarly, NAP could have been aware that Ral Zarak looks at heads but waited until after seeing the result before deciding to point it out.

Indeed, while cheating wasn't a factor in this interaction, it was something I marked as a valid concern in my own head. We obviously want to avoid any precedent that strongly enables a high-reward low-risk scenario for cheating, but alas, the situation is what it is. :)

If the risk of cheating plays into anyone's decision as a major factor in their decision (minus a DQ for actually doing so), then also feel free to note that!

In the Mana Clash case… I continue thinking than all was fine…
If both players uses the same method… and they 2 agree as “Tails” results do the damage (because the form of the coin, or anything…) or even if one of them toss a coin and the other toss a dice… If they 2 are defined and agree as 1-2-3 and tails = damage and 4-5-6 and heads is safe… I'm Ok.

About the risk of cheating… If they agree (and that happens in the scenario) about the expected results as “Success” and give the extra turn… I'm OK…
If NAP calls when the 5 coins lands and the fear of 5 “Tails” (Previously agree as Success) and Call about the card words “HEADS”… surely I start an investigation… over NAP!

Originally posted by Peter Richmond:

705.2. To flip a coin for an object that cares whether the coin comes up heads or tails, each affected player flips a coin without making a call. No player wins or loses this kind of flip.

I feel like this means Ral Zarek and other similar card effects only look for the stated side, meaning that no matter what AP calls, Ral will still only care about seeing heads on the coin. The need for stating a new criteria is to be used when a player needs to use a die and distinguish between what outcome means “heads” and which means “tails”.

Originally posted by Jackson Moore:

I feel like this means Ral Zarek and other similar card effects only look for the stated side, meaning that no matter what AP Calls, Ral will still only care about seeing heads on the coin. The need for stating a new criteria is to be used when a player needs to use a die and distinguish between what outcome means “heads” and which means “tails”.

Yes, that's what the comp rules say. But when it comes to policy, things are much more fuzzy. That's why judges exist. :)

Educate players about why doing things in a needlessly confusing way isn't the best idea ever. Assess that they agreed on something and the card indeed worked as intended. Move on.

- Emilien

I search for cards with coin toss… and found 61 (3 are not related, soo there are 58 cards); the output of the coin only matters in these cards:
Goblin Assassin
Mana Clash
Odds (Odds/Ends)
Ral Zarek

All others cards talk about win the flip or lose the flip…
I'm not sure why this happens… why 4 of 58 cards are write in other style… Maibe to write it shorter… Maibe because the are 2 posible outputs… like Odds… but there are others cards than instruc “If win the flip do A; if lose the flip do B”
Odds original: Flip a coin. If it comes up heads, counter target instant or sorcery spell. If it comes up tails, copy that spell and you may choose new targets for the copy. (163 characteres)
Odds “Ivy'sstyle”: Flip a coin. If you win the flip, counter target instant or sorcery spell. If you lose the flip, copy that spell and you may choose new targets for the copy. (and this is 158 characteres)

Maibe this can be solved with an reword of those 4 cards… Mana Clash can be a bit harder, but not imposible to reword… talk about both players win the flip is posible.

I'm with Emilien, technically they haven't followed the instructions on the card, but fundamentally the outcome has been resolved as both players agreed.

Hoping that someone at WotC decides changing the wording of these cards isn't that helpful to the discussion.

I think we can safely close this thread.