I would not rule CPV. Nothing in Communication Policy has been violated
here. The Oracle of an ACTUAL card is derived information. Playing a
Spanish Meloku is not CPV. Holding a token to a higher standard than that
seems extremely difficult to justify.

The token doesn't have oracle text that's been updated. The token is a game
object that has certain characteristics, and AP is representing those
characteristics incorrectly by using a physical token with not missing
information, not outdated information, but misleading information. While
NAP is also responsible for ensuring an accurate game state, it is AP's
effect, AP owns the object and provided the token. It is an infraction to
incorrectly represent the number of counters on an object by using a die
with the incorrect number.

And Josh, just as the oracle text of an actual card is derived information,
so is the power and toughness and type of an object in play. If I'm not
permitted to speak “that's a 1/1”, I should also not be permitted to write
or show “that's a 1/1”.

Dan, by that logic, is it CPV to use a 1/1 red goblin token to represent a
1/1 red elemental? Is it CPV to use a white soldier token to represent a
red/white soldier token? Is it CPV to use a red/white soldier without
“haste” printed on it to represent a red/white soldier token with haste?
You cannot start making up extra rules about how people are required to
implicitly communicate derived information. It leads you to really bad
places and is exactly why we have an explicit communication policy.

Josh, I don't believe I'm making up extra rules, I'm merely interpreting
the ones that are there.

I'm going to choose not to delve too deeply into the slippery slope
argument you're constructing here. When I “bought into” this thread it was
about one thing, and now it's about a half dozen different things. I'm
gonna go get lunch before someone brings up Tarmogoyf ;)

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

Dan, by that logic, is it CPV to use a 1/1 red goblin token to represent a
1/1 red elemental? Is it CPV to use a white soldier token to represent a
red/white soldier token? Is it CPV to use a red/white soldier without
“haste” printed on it to represent a red/white soldier token with haste?
You cannot start making up extra rules about how people are required to
implicitly communicate derived information. It leads you to really bad
places and is exactly why we have an explicit communication policy.

While I generally agree, I would point out the difference is when the opponent needs to rely on represented information to make decisions. Which is was the situation I encountered. (I believe it was a 3/3 used to represent a 4/4.) And I would put forth that there is a bit of a difference in needing to rely on information on P/T versus types. The same may be true with regard to abilities.

Your point on a misprinted card certainly illustrates where this may be problematic, but again, this may be situational rather than blanket application.

per the MTR 1.10 (plus my emphasis):

A player must bring the following items to a tournament in order to participate:
• A physical, visible, and reliable method to maintain and record game information (tokens, score
counters, pen and paper, and so on).

If we add that to section 4.1 dealing with types of information:

Derived information is information to which all players are entitled access, but opponents are not obliged to assist
in determining and may require some skill or calculation to determine. Derived information consists of:
• The number of any type of objects present in any game zone.
• All characteristics of objects in public zones that are not defined as free information

So by my interpretation of the “letter of the law” there is a CPV if it wasn't stated or indicated that the information on the token used was incorrect. On top of that we should tell the player that he needs to find suitable tokens or be removed from the event as he's not following section 1.10 (tokens not necessarily meaning official wizards tokens, but more accurate representations). The interesting part is I could also see a GRV/FtmG. If there was no indication that the token represented something different than what it said, did the player not put a 1/1 soldier in to play rather than a 2/2 knight ally? I think I'd be more inclined to lean this way as it's on both players to know what the cards (Gideon) do and to maintain the state of the board. Both players are equally responsible for that token coming in to play incorrectly. Just because a player assumed his opponent played his cards correctly doesn't mean he actually did.

So I see one of two situations being true. Either Nolan understood that Gideon makes 2/2 creatures, or he allowed his opponent to put a token in to play incorrectly and understood it as a 1/1 creature.

Edited Preston May (Feb. 25, 2016 10:38:33 AM)

Preston, we don't engineer infractions based on what penalty we want to
issue, or to whom. It's fine to argue that GRV is the better infraction
(though I don't necessarily agree), but your opinion of which player(s) are
responsible can't drive your choice of infraction.

Originally posted by Théo CHENG:

Guys, I have question in this case, for those who strongly favor PCV here. Would it be a PCV if you play with a Lord of Atlantis that has not the correct oracle textbox?
The same question goes with any errated card, but this one is rather common in tournament settings so here we go.

Can you provide an example of a card whose printed P/T is different from the Oracle P/T?

(I think there may be a few, twenty years old, misprints … that would be a wonderful example of “exception confirming the rule”)

I largely agree with Josh’s opinion here, and I would not call this CPV. My thoughts on the matter can be expressed both intuitively and more technically by quoting CRs. Why not both?

Intuitively explanation:

A token is just that- a token. It’s not intended to confer any information all by itself. It’s a nice bonus when power, toughness, type, color, etc. shown on a token happens to match some of the actual object’s characteristics, but this is not a requirement. The fundamental nature of a token is that it only represents the original object- it isn’t actually that object. Players shouldn’t take the information on a token at face value, because the token has no face value.

Rules-based explanation:

200.1. The parts of a card are name, mana cost, illustration, color indicator, type line, expansion symbol, text box, power and toughness, loyalty, hand modifier, life modifier, illustration credit, legal text, and collector number. Some cards may have more than one of any or all of these parts.

Notably, there is no rule that explains “parts of a token.”

208.1. A creature card has two numbers separated by a slash printed in its lower right corner. The first number is its power (the amount of damage it deals in combat); the second is its toughness (the amount of damage needed to destroy it). For example, 2/3 means the object has power 2 and toughness 3. Power and toughness can be modified or set to particular values by effects.

Also, observe that this rule specifically says “a creature card” and not a “a creature token.” There is no corresponding rule for creature tokens.

302.4c To determine a creature’s power and toughness, start with the numbers printed in its lower right corner, then apply any applicable continuous effects. (See rule 613, “Interaction of Continuous Effects.”)

Note that there is no similar rule that ever instructs players to derive the current power and toughness of a creature token by using it’s so-called “printed” power and toughness values on that token.

In summary, it looks to me like Nolan has made a bad assumption about the meaning of the information on Alan's token. A never communicated an incorrect power and toughness of his token. So, no CPV and no rewind.

Thanks.


Abe

If “tokens have no intrinsic face values” is true, why then do we object to players using Magic cards themselves as tokens, or making facsimiles of cards to represent tokens (notably, Pack Rat)?

The first one is easy - to prevent confusion with cards in the player's
deck. Don't have an answer to the second half, though I was always told
that photocopies of Pack Rat are no less acceptable than the real card.

Photocopies are just poor counterfeits from a legal department perspective (I assume)

Magic Anthologies from the late 1990s had many such misprints. I believe the most famous was Mirri, Cat Warrior, a 2/3 Rare printed as a 2/2 common.

Sent from my iPad

While we're quoting IPG passages, here's an important one from the general philosophy section of the IPG:

If the players are playing in a way that is clear to both players, but might cause confusion to an external observer, judges are encouraged to request that the players make the situation clear, but not assess an infraction or issue any penalty

In the overwhelming majority of the cases that Joshua brought up:

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

is it CPV to use a 1/1 red goblin token to represent a 1/1 red elemental? Is it CPV to use a white soldier token to represent a
red/white soldier token?

Both players end up agreeing on something. “I'll keep the red/white soldiers on this side of the board” or “I'm using Thopters to represent Scions, okay?” And if both players have agreed to that, it clearly falls under this section of general philosophy–I'd argue it does so even if NAP later forgets what he agreed to.

However, I think it's very different if the AP goes “Gideon, plus it, pass,” then drops a 1/1 soldier token into play while NAP is drawing for turn. In that scenario, the game state is misrepresented in a way that was at no point clear to both players. Under that scenario, I'd certainly consider CPV appropriate.

Edited Eli Meyer (Feb. 25, 2016 01:39:52 PM)

This is an unfair and unrealistic standard. How does a player know what an opponent does or does not understand if no question is asked?

This is the reason Derived Information is required to be correct, but not complete. If a player doesn't understand the game state, he or she should ask questions to clarify it. If a token is determined to be confusing, it should be replaced with a less confusing alternative. That doesn't mean there is any infraction.