I don't believe you are entitled to your opponent being incapable of asking
a judge to explain the rules in a very specific situation that your
opponent can fully describe.

You are entitled to have your opponent ask irrelevant questions that will
lead him to bad conclusions, but taking valid (if complex) rules questions
and turning them into irrelevant questions is not the job of a judge.

Spectators are not supposed to answers questions. Judges are.

Paul Smith

paul@pollyandpaul.co.uk

And knowledge of the game rules and policies is a skill that should be rewarded. Players cannot ask judges to play the game for them, players cannot get advice on how to block (for this example) from a judge that will help them make a better line of plays.

From section 4 of the MTR:

“The philosophy of the DCI is that a player should have an
advantage due to better understanding of the rules of a
game, greater awareness of the interactions in the current game state, and superior tactical planning”

Should a judge give the players this better understanding of the rules or interactions in the current game state? No, of course not. Then there would be no advantage for the players who know it better.

Where do we draw the line at with virtual game state and judges assisting?
Are we OK with “judge I want to walk through how my combo works with you”
and then correct them until they get it right mid match? Why, as a player,
would I ever ask a normal rules question when instead I can ask a question
with a virtual game state and get complete and full, and in this case
really extra information to help me with my decisions? At some point we
have to let players make mistakes. Does it feel great when it happens?
No, but at the same time we can't reward one player for not knowing the
rules well enough by being their crutch.

Originally posted by Justin Turner:

And knowledge of the game rules and policies is a skill that should be rewarded. Players cannot ask judges to play the game for them, players cannot get advice on how to block (for this example) from a judge that will help them make a better line of plays.

From section 4 of the MTR:

“The philosophy of the DCI is that a player should have an
advantage due to better understanding of the rules of a
game, greater awareness of the interactions in the current game state, and superior tactical planning”

Should a judge give the players this better understanding of the rules or interactions in the current game state? No, of course not. Then there would be no advantage for the players who know it better.

Going by that argument, judges should never answer rules questions during a game. If a player seeks a better understanding of the rules during a game, we judges are there to provide it! That does not contradict the above statement from the IPG in the slightest.

But anytime we answer any question about how cards interact, aren't we doing exactly that? Forget that this is a slightly strange situation, what if it's more basic?

I once had a player ask me if he could play an instant in response to a creature. Nothing weird going on, just super basic question…because he lacked the knowledge of the game rules. My answering that yes, he is allowed to play an instant at that time increased his understanding of the game rules, depriving his opponent of a clear advantage.

Obviously a kind of extreme example, but I don't think section 4 of the MTR supports your argument the way you claim it does. Anytime we answer any rules question, we are increasing players' knowledge of the game rules or card interactions. I don't see the virtual game state approach as doing anything more than guiding the player to ask useful questions that we can ask.

Put another way: suppose the player asked you all of the virtual game state questions without your prompting him to do so. Would you decline to answer any of them? If not, why would you not offer a player a way to get at what they are trying to ask?


Sent from my iPad

I rule on actions that have been taken, not on how future actions might affect a game. That's where I draw the line. I'll tell a player if a play is illegal, not if it's a good or bad idea. Explaining a complex rules interaction based on supposed future actions of the current game is play advice, pure and simple. It's helping a player make a decision and play his/her deck better.

So, use of virtual game state isn't really policy, and I think it may be a
distraction at this point.

I think, at heart, the question is “can we answer questions about specific
card interactions that are not at this instant present in the game.” And I
think the answer to that is that we can.

I think most judge questions are actually posed in the form of “what
happens if X and Y?” type scenarios and judges have to interpret that into
a specific rules question they can answer. In this case, the player is
likely incapable of constructing “damage is dealt but not marked,” so we
give him an opportunity to present his best understanding of the rules and
we correct his directly expressed understanding of the rules, and not
whether blocking is a good idea.

I don't like ruling on future interactions in the game state. If the player was blocking that melira at the time he called me over, I'd be happy to explain what's going to happen now that we are in the combat damage step. To tell him what would happen earlier would influence his decisions. Basically he would be taking my advice and influencing his play, I call that “play advice”

I think Justin's concern illustrates my own hesitancy as well with the breadth of certain questions that we sometimes get asked as judges. And sometimes there is going to be “Those questions” that are indeed too broad to be answered without either giving advice, or even offering the appearance of giving advice. Yes, it may very well be possible to answer some of these “theoretical questions”, provided there is some expectation that the situation is going to happen. (For example, "Can I play Dark Betrayal targeting Blood Baron of Vizkopa?") But, it is possible to extend that a bit too far and cross into some rather dangerous territory.

In such case, I much rather prefer to get the player to walk me through the scenario and see if I can/can't confirm their understanding of events. At least then I know precisely what the player is asking, without providing more than confirmation of the scenario and its legality. Even that can be tricky, since while you do want to offer an explanation if they are confused, you don't want to overexplain.

I know the original challenge was to answer the question with “YES” or “NO” but somewhere along the way here I feel like we missed the mark. Would something like, “What do you mean by damage?” or “Yes it will deal damage but no damage will be marked on the creature,” not be acceptable answers?

Hi Addison. The original challenge was to transcend “yes” or “no” and
educate the player about the rules without coaching. (This likely speaks to
some improvements I need to make in the format of the presentation.)

Many of the questions regarding the Virtual Game State and where to draw lines are answered in the article linked in Joshua's wrap up:

http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=judge/article/20090629a

Perhaps another thread should be opened if people wish to continue discussing that method.

We shouldn't withhold rulings on card interactions because those are legitimate player questions and, as Mark Brown mentioned, are publicly available to players during a game anyway. Beyond that, we have to be mindful of what a player is really asking for when posing a question. That's why the wording and the context of the question matters. At a competitive event, is it reasonable to expect a player to already understand the difference between dealt damage and marked damage? Or that a player knows that if he attacks with a 2/2 white creature, his opponent can just block and kill it with his 2/2 pro-white creature? (Yes, this has come up.) Players will try to game you for tipoffs, and you have to be ready for it.

Yes, we are there to give information about the rules and point out/correct errors. It is still on the players as a matter of skill to have a certain understanding of the game rules, and that's where the balance lies. While I may not agree with Joshua in the general case, every case is a little different, and the discussion here is the important thing.