I was judging in two events this weekend (both Comp REL) and received numerous rules questions, both in Sealed and in Standard events. My understanding is that judges are meant to answer the questions the players are asking (and provide an explanation of the rule), so long as they are not asking for advice on a possible play (or things like that) and I have followed this principle. However, most of the questions asked were not actually what the player wanted to know. Sometimes this led to misplays (though not rule violations) and other times it led to more questions and the player becoming increasingly frustrated.

In all fairness, I believe I may have deviated from this principle in two regards:
1) Saturday's event: one team had repeatedly asked me rules questions, but didn't ask the right questions in order to get to the desired outcome with the cards at their disposal. I told them that they could be more specific with their questions as a judge knows when to stop to avoid giving advice.

2) The case of a player getting frustrated/panicking. The questions were again very broad questions and only getting him towards his intention of play very slowly. I decided to shortcut a little bit and ask the player, away from the table, what play he wanted to go through with and what the outcome would be. He explained and I walked him through the process.

So I guess my question is this: if a player is clearly looking for a certain outcome with actions that are at his disposal, is it acceptable to explain how to get there without the player asking every necessary question to get there?

Originally posted by Jackson Moore:

So I guess my question is this: if a player is clearly looking for a certain outcome with actions that are at his disposal, is it acceptable to explain how to get there without the player asking every necessary question to get there?

This is a topic that we explore regularly on Personal Tutor - check out some of the archived posts to see how we recommended answering these sorts of questions, and look for a new one on the first Thursday of each month.

Now that I'm done with the shameless plug, could you post the questions they asked so that we can share how we'd answer them? I suspect that you'll see a diversity of opinions on what you can and can't answer!

I've had players ask me a question where I know the precise answer is not answering what I know they are asking.

For example: "Can I activate my Stormrider Rig on my Frost Walker?“
Technical answer: ”Yes.“ You know as soon as they do it they're going to get a feel-bad.

You can always respond to a question with ”Can you ask your question another way?" to get them to actually ask what their asking (if that makes sense).

Originally posted by Chris Vlastelica:

For example: "Can I activate my Stormrider Rig on my Frost Walker?“
Technical answer: ”Yes." You know as soon as they do it they're going to get a feel-bad.
.

Would it be better to explain that Frost Walker is a legal target for the equip ability? I often find that using the relevant terms is enough for people to understand what will happen.

Originally posted by Jonas Drieghe:

Chris Vlastelica
For example: “Can I activate my Stormrider Rig on my Frost Walker?“
Technical answer: ”Yes.” You know as soon as they do it they're going to get a feel-bad.

Would it be better to explain that Frost Walker is a legal target for the equip ability? I often find that using the relevant terms is enough for people to understand what will happen.

How close does rephrasing like that come to giving the player advice, though? How will the opponent feel if by phrasing our answer in a different way to the question asked we prevent the player from making a strategic mistake that they would have gone on to make if we just answered the question they were asking?

Edited James Winward-Stuart (April 27, 2015 05:33:42 PM)

I like an approach of “well, I'm not sure what part of the rules you're asking about?”

Getting them to articulate why they're even asking such a question will often - not always! - lead to better questions, thus better outcomes … all without coaching.

In the example with Equip targeting a Frost Walker, it's clear they're trying to ask “if I do that, will it kill my dude?” That's not what they asked, and answering that would not only be coaching but assumptive action (always scary). Instead, ask them why they're asking. Maybe even something like “I'm not sure why or what you're asking; that's a creature, and this is an Equip ability…”

d:^D

Originally posted by Jonas Drieghe:

Chris Vlastelica
For example: "Can I activate my Stormrider Rig on my Frost Walker?“
Technical answer: ”Yes." You know as soon as they do it they're going to get a feel-bad.
.

Would it be better to explain that Frost Walker is a legal target for the equip ability? I often find that using the relevant terms is enough for people to understand what will happen.

If you answer something other than “yes” then I feel you run the risk of tipping off the player as to what will happen if they follow through on the play, essentially giving them strategic advice. Don't forget that there are two players in every game - if you give away that the Frost Walker will die, then the opponent will get a feel-bad. If the question is straight forward then answer it straight forwardly is how I approach things :) You can deal with any fallout later.

For consideration, some example conversations:

1.
"Can I Spellskite Pendelhaven?“
”Yes"
OK, technically, but not really the best handling

2a.
"Can I Spellskite Pendelhaven?“
”Please ask that more precisely.“
”Can I target the Pendelhaven ability with Spellskite?“
”Yes" (wait for the inevitable)
OK

2b.
"Can I Spellskite Pendelhaven?“
”Please ask that more precisely.“
”Can Spellskite redirect the Pendelhaven ability to itself?“
”No"
OK

3.
"Can I Spellskite Pendelhaven?“
”No, you can target the Pendelhaven ability with Spellskite, but you can't then redirect it."
NOT OK - Strategic Advice

4.
"Can I Spellskite Pendelhaven?“
”You can target the ability with your Spellskite, yes."
?? - Seems close to strategic advice to me

Edited James Winward-Stuart (April 27, 2015 05:36:52 PM)

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

You can deal with any fallout later.

So you just taught the player that judges are unkind people… and that's hard to undo. Don't force players to talk judge-speak if it's reasonably clear what they were trying to ask. Like said before: ask the player what he wants to know and answer that question, without resorting to word tricks. Also, consider that not every player is a native English speaker… so be kind to them.

Originally posted by Dustin De Leeuw:

Mark Mc Govern
You can deal with any fallout later.

So you just taught the player that judges are unkind people… and that's hard to undo.

I'm not saying to be unkind, I'm saying that you shouldn't warp your ruling because you're worried you might upset someone - especially because you then risk upsetting the other player. I'm saying you answer the question asked, and if someone ends up misplaying terribly you can handle it separately.

I've found that specifically answering the question they ask by stating the question back to them in the answer is both effective and efficient. I had a player ask if “Keranos was a creature on the stack because he wanted to counter it with THIS” (and he held up a Disdainful Stroke probably thinking it was a Stubborn Denial). I told him that “Keranos is a creature on the stack”.

What the player wanted to know if he could counter that spell with his spell. The answer was yes. The player asked the wrong question. In answering his question, I made sure to note which question I was answering.

Edited Scott Marshall (April 27, 2015 07:21:38 PM)

I read this article some time ago about the boundaries of answering rules questions and giving play advices, maybe it can help you.
http://blogs.magicjudges.org/james/2014/12/29/answering-whats-asked/

I made sure with each player asking what exactly their question was and, in some cases, why they were asking it.

To answer John McCarthy:
One example: Ana controls and Abzan Beastmaster, a 4/4 creature and a Salt Road Quartermasters with 2 +1/+1 counters on it and has an Instant in hand that can increase a creature's P/T. Niki controls a 5/5 creature.
The Beastmaster's trigger is on the stack. Ana asks me something to the effect of “what can I do to be able to draw a card from this ability?”
Simple answer is, of course, “meet the requirements to draw the card”. But how much more than that can/should you say (if anything)?

Edited Jackson Moore (April 27, 2015 07:30:29 PM)

“This ability is a bit unusual, it checks on resolution for that condition.” <– simple rules answer, not coaching.

Originally posted by Jackson Moore:

I made sure with each player asking what exactly their question was and, in some cases, why they were asking it.

To answer John McCarthy:
One example: Ana controls and Abzan Beastmaster, a 4/4 creature and a Salt Road Quartermasters with 2 +1/+1 counters on it and has an Instant in hand that can increase a creature's P/T. Niki controls a 5/5 creature.
The Beastmaster's trigger is on the stack. Ana asks me something to the effect of “what can I do to be able to draw a card from this ability?”
Simple answer is, of course, “meet the requirements to draw the card”. But how much more than that can/should you say (if anything)?

Shouldn't the beastmaster trigger not be on the stack because of the intervening if clause? If an opponent's 5/5 has the highest toughness with no tie, the ability failed to trigger in the first place. I feel that this scenario would merit explaining the “intervening if clause” as a player does not have a trigger on the stack that they believe they do.

From the CR:

603.4. A triggered ability may read “When/Whenever/At , if , .” When the trigger event occurs, the ability checks whether the stated condition is true. The ability triggers only if it is; otherwise it does nothing. If the ability triggers, it checks the stated condition again as it resolves. If the condition isn’t true at that time, the ability is removed from the stack and does nothing. Note that this mirrors the check for legal targets. This rule is referred to as the “intervening ‘if’ clause” rule. (The word “if” has only its normal English meaning anywhere else in the text of a card; this rule only applies to an “if” that immediately follows a trigger condition.)


Edit: nevermind, I just noticed the “if” doesn't immediately follow the comma, so this isn't an intervening if.

Edited Joseph Steet (April 28, 2015 12:06:11 PM)