Originally posted by Eric Shukan:
I would ask them what it represents, so that *I* know what it is, as well as to ensure that they know what it is. Better to be safe than sorry when you see something ambiguous to you.
Originally posted by Gareth Tanner:
So is the placing of a die onto the Tarmogoyf a continued statement of fact about it's power and toughness?
Originally posted by Gareth Tanner:>
So is the placing of a die onto the Tarmogoyf a continued statement of fact about it's power and toughness?
Originally posted by Tim Hughes:Clarifying game state is never coaching. Saying something like “That's a 4/5. You're dead on board.” would be coaching.
It is possible that doing so would be perceived as ‘coaching’?
Jim ShumanI strongly disagree. Dice are a form of player notes that are visible to both players. The communication policy relates to answering direct questions. I'm not continuously telling my opponent the names of foreign cards I have on the battlefield. Likewise, the die only needs to be correct if someone or the game rules ask “What's tarmogoyf's current P/T?” and I reference the die.
Per the IPG
• Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly.
So if the player is using the dice to track and represent the number of types of cards in the graveyards for his Tarmagoyf he has to keep it correct.
Originally posted by Tim Hughes:Actually, yes. Even with what I said above, you are interested in two things:
do you interrupt the players and have them change the dice in any way?
Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:
2) Player notes are player notes. It is not an infraction to take bad notes, and it is not an infraction to let my opponent to take bad notes. If I say “Lightning Bolt you. Go to 5,” then he writes down 6 for some reason (or misreads his own handwriting), I've done my job by stating the correct life total change as long as he doesn't try to confirm that 6 with me.
Edited Gareth Tanner (Sept. 2, 2013 03:13:45 PM)
Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:You guys are correct. My original statement was ambiguous. I didn't mean “he writes 6, and I notice.” I just mean “he writes 6.” I don't have to actively monitor his life total pad for errors. I just have to correct them if I notice it is wrong. (For example, by attempting to confirm the 6.)
If I say “Lightning Bolt you. Go to 5,” then he writes down 6 for some reason (or misreads his own handwriting)
Edited Joshua Feingold (Sept. 2, 2013 04:01:36 PM)
Originally posted by Matthew Johnson: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.
If we treat it as a continuous statement you can back up when the die is incorrect and it affected blocking decisions.
You must be registered in order to post to this forum.