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?

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect players to clearly communicate what tokens they are using for which effects. As for whether its realistic, Judges use judgement all the time to determine other communications issues like whether a game advanced past a missed trigger. Why is it unrealistic for us to use our judgement to determine whether the communication between a token and an effect was clear or not?

Also, “understanding” doesn't really play into this. We're discussing CPV, so what matters is whether the communication was proper, not whether it was understood. For instance, if the active player said “I'm using this as a 2/2 token” and put the printed 1/1 into play with Gideon, it wouldn't be a CPV if the NAP got confused later. My philosophy is that verbal communication clearly trumps the printed text of a token, but there could be a CPV if the only communication is the token's printed text.

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

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.

So, let me take this to the logical extreme:

I have Gideon on the field and am using 2/2 knight ally tokens for the tokens it generates. Can I wait for my opponent to go to the bathroom, then decide to represent all my knights with 1/1 soldier tokens and swap them out while he's away from the table?

If I did this at a competitive event, I'd expect to be Warned if not disqualified. Admittedly, this corner case is unlikely to come up. However, it serves its purpose as a clear demonstration that under some circumstances, the printed text of a token can represent (or misrepresent) communication of derived information.

As it happens, I was in a draft last night, and a similar scenario came up.

A player had many scions in play. When he ran out of Scion tokens, he used an Eldrazi token (he also had Desolation Twin in his deck). The apponent quietly reached across the table and flipped the Eldrazi token (10/10) face down. Tah-dah. Everyone was clear on what things were.

The problem is the scenario presented was not actually presented well. How do we deal with printed tokens that are not accurate? Token from booster packs have a simple solution–use the other side (the not-token side). Then players have to communicate and be understood. However, if I put out a card that looks like a proper token (“make an Ally”… getting out a 1/1) , there is a reasonable expectation that the token will be accurate where relevant. In all worlds, power and toughness are relevant. In some worlds creature type will matter, and in some color will matter (no reason to get worried about 1/1 Goblin versus 1/1 Elemental in 99+% of cases). But presenting a 1/1 token to represent a 2/2 creature? Um, no–use a sleeve and clear communication.

Magic Tournament Rules notes near the ends of 4.1:

The following rules govern player communication:
…
• Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly.

A creature's power and toughness may be derived information, but presenting an token that represents that information incorrectly is a violation unless the player has communicated in a way to make clear what is incorrect about the information. When a player presents a card sleeve or a plastic ninja or whatever, that person isn't representing incorrect information–they're not representing any information other than existence and tapped state, so the other elements require communication. (And yes, I specified plastic ninja so as not to run into problems should Wizards make ninja tokens.)

Consider the Plants:
Battle for Zendikar makes plants (Grovetender Druids).
Oath of the Gatewatch makes plants (Nissa, Voice of Zendikar)
In Battle, plants are 1/1. In Oath, plants are 0/1.

If I see a player with Nissa in play and a line of 1/1 plant tokens from Battle, I'm going to start asking questions. Chances are, they'll end with a, “No, these aren't like what you were thinking from Battle; they're 0/1s,” a CPV warning, and a sad opponent who thought his team was going to die and wasn't attacking. Or my questions might get a “Yeah, but my opponent doesn't know that, so why would I tell him,” some paperwork, and an opponent who appreciates judges who pay attention.

Originally posted by Justin Miyashiro:

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

Would you let a player play such a card?

Some offical tokens haven't all the informations they should.
Like the new Chandra's ones:
http://mtg-realm.blogspot.it/2016/01/oath-of-gatewatch-tokens.html?m=1

Same situation than the original one, but with Chandra.
I activate Chandra's first ability and, saying nothing, I put two of those tokens next to her. Now I have two 3/1 creature and another random one I played in my last turn.
I say “combat”. My opponent takes a look to those tokens and answers: “ok, go”.
When I attack with all 3 creatures he stops me, complaining that there's no “haste” written on my 3/1 tokens, but now it's too late to cast something before deckare attackers step.

Judge!

Is this a CPV again? :)

Edited Jacopo Strati (Feb. 26, 2016 07:13:38 AM)

Francesco: Of course yes, it is an official Magic: The Gathering card, is
it not? Many cards have errata, even functional errata.

Jacopo: Wizards made a conscious decision to not print Haste on those
tokens. And even had they not, Communication Policy makes a distinction
between misrepresenting and withholding information.

Spanish Meloku, Anthologies Mirri, Wald misprint, Swamp drudge skeletons…. these are all extreme corner cases. It's best to leave them alone, as amusing as they are. If you want to discuss them, do so with local judges over a round of drinks.

On the question of creature types: yes, I would rewind if it mattered (to the point where a decision was made based on the creature type, if such a backup isn't disruptive). It just usually doesn't matter.

Originally posted by Jacopo Strati:

Same situation than the original one, but with Chandra.
I activate Chandra's first ability and, saying nothing, I put to of those tokens next to her. Now I have these two creature and another one I played in my last turn.
I say “combat”. My opponent takes a look to those tokens and answers: “ok, go”.
When I attack with all 3 creatures he stops me, complaining that there's no “haste” written on my 3/1 tokens, but now it's too late to cast something before declare attackers step.

What we're talking about in this thread is players being honestly confused by a token. I think in your example the chance of that is low. Why would Chandra make non-hasty tokens that are then exiled at the end of turn? Also missing the word “haste” is different from having incorrect power/toughness. This is, again, the reason why using a ninja-figurine is fine. Omitting something isn't the same as representing something that is incorrect.

Here's my problem with calling this a CPV: Players have the right to read their opponent's cards. In fact, as much as we in the community like to joke “Hah, we've got a reader!” or whatever, honestly, reading really is tech and players should do it more often. Therefore, I feel it's very difficult to call something a CPV for Failure to Read Card. If NAP had read the card, they would have known that the token was a 2/2 and would not have made this mistake. I would caution NAP that reading is tech and perhaps they should do it more often (obviously in more balanced language, but that would be mainly the point).

That, or NAP knew what Gideon did and claims to have forgotten about it. However, this token has been in play for less than a turn cycle, and (presumably, although it was not stated) there are no other creature tokens in play to confuse the game state. In this case, again, I would not rule a CPV, reason being simply that goldfishes have a short term memory measured in minutes, humans do not. If AP points at Gideon, puts a token into play, and passes, I would expect NAP to know that that token is the one put into play with Gideon, and is hence a 2/2, or, at the very least, ask the opponent to confirm this information before making additional plays based on possibly incorrect information.

I feel like, in this situation and many others, we as judges ought to weigh both “how sorry do I feel for the player who made the error” against “how much do I feel like the player is trying to invoke Deus Ex Machina By Judge”. In this case, it feels to me a bit too much like “I knew my opponent had a Gideon token in play that was a 2/2, but I realized that I may have the opportunity to get information out of my opponent by not mentioning anything and then subsequently asking a judge for a CPV rewind if something went awry”, and I am not comfortable with rewarding that sort of practice.

Suppose that you are HJ of some Competitive event and through an investigation you determine that a player was purposefully using incorrect tokens to misrepresent the his creatures in the hopes of getting their opponent to make a mistake which benefits them. Philosophically, does this falls under the purview of Cheating? I think it does. The problem, though, is that for it to be Cheating, the player has to be breaking a rule. The only rule that the player could possibly be breaking would fall under MTR 4.1 - Player Communication (for misrepresenting derived information). Therefore, in order for this to be Cheating if done purposefully, it must also be a CPV if done without knowledge or an intent to gain an advantage.

While I certainly understand some of the difficulty associated with considering this a CPV if done innocently, I think the alternative of not being able to call this Cheating if done purposefully is much worse .

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Here's my problem with calling this a CPV: Players have the right to read their opponent's cards. In fact, as much as we in the community like to joke “Hah, we've got a reader!” or whatever, honestly, reading really is tech and players should do it more often. Therefore, I feel it's very difficult to call something a CPV for Failure to Read Card. If NAP had read the card, they would have known that the token was a 2/2 and would not have made this mistake. I would caution NAP that reading is tech and perhaps they should do it more often (obviously in more balanced language, but that would be mainly the point).

I disagree 100% if a player activates a token making ability the opponent will always assume the player is putting out the correct token cards for this ability unless it is obvious to the opponent that those tokens are the wrong ones. Of course obvious depends on the opponent but I believe 9 out of 10 people will not ask me if I am using the correct tokens as long as they are close enough to the expected ones. Therefore I will always rule CPV unless there has been a verbal comunication between the players about the correct characteristics of the token.
For me, the burden is always on the controlling player to make sure the opponent knows what is going on.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

I feel like, in this situation and many others, we as judges ought to weigh both “how sorry do I feel for the player who made the error” against “how much do I feel like the player is trying to invoke Deus Ex Machina By Judge”. In this case, it feels to me a bit too much like “I knew my opponent had a Gideon token in play that was a 2/2, but I realized that I may have the opportunity to get information out of my opponent by not mentioning anything and then subsequently asking a judge for a CPV rewind if something went awry”, and I am not comfortable with rewarding that sort of practice.

But you are comfortable with a player bringing the wrong tokens and possibly using them to gain an advantage? I find it way more likely that a player tries to confuse his opponents by obscuring his tokens than his opponent thinking “I know player has a xyz token which in reality is an abc token but I will play this way to gain information and if player remembers it is realy an abc token I will just call a judge.”

Originally posted by Dan Collins:

Francesco: Of course yes, it is an official Magic: The Gathering card, is
it not? Many cards have errata, even functional errata.

I am pretty sure you can't play this:

http://www.trollandtoad.com/p96404.html

Originally posted by Simon Ahrens:

Lyle Waldman
Here's my problem with calling this a CPV: Players have the right to read their opponent's cards. In fact, as much as we in the community like to joke “Hah, we've got a reader!” or whatever, honestly, reading really is tech and players should do it more often. Therefore, I feel it's very difficult to call something a CPV for Failure to Read Card. If NAP had read the card, they would have known that the token was a 2/2 and would not have made this mistake. I would caution NAP that reading is tech and perhaps they should do it more often (obviously in more balanced language, but that would be mainly the point).

I disagree 100% if a player activates a token making ability the opponent will always assume the player is putting out the correct token cards for this ability unless it is obvious to the opponent that those tokens are the wrong ones. Of course obvious depends on the opponent but I believe 9 out of 10 people will not ask me if I am using the correct tokens as long as they are close enough to the expected ones. Therefore I will always rule CPV unless there has been a verbal comunication between the players about the correct characteristics of the token.
For me, the burden is always on the controlling player to make sure the opponent knows what is going on.

I think you're missing the point. For one, if my opponent is playing a card I am not familiar with, I will read it, or, if it's in another language, I will call a judge for Oracle text. If the opponent is not sure what Gideon's 0 ability does, he has the right to read the card, and indeed I would encourage such practice. While the opponent is required to follow the rules and activate their abilities properly, he is not required to read each and every card allowed to ensure there is no confusion.

In this case, if I was the Gideon-controller, if I activate my Gideon (by verbally announcing it, pointing at it and grabbing a token, or whatever) and my opponent does not react, I would expect that my opponent knows what Gideon does and I don't need to explain it to them. If they have a question, they can ask and I will answer honestly, or they can call a judge and the judge will answer honestly. If they fail to make any motion, I think it is a reasonable assumption to say “ok, my opponent knows what's going on, let's just continue”, and anything failing that sounds to me a lot like angle-shooting.

Lyle Waldman
I feel like, in this situation and many others, we as judges ought to weigh both “how sorry do I feel for the player who made the error” against “how much do I feel like the player is trying to invoke Deus Ex Machina By Judge”. In this case, it feels to me a bit too much like “I knew my opponent had a Gideon token in play that was a 2/2, but I realized that I may have the opportunity to get information out of my opponent by not mentioning anything and then subsequently asking a judge for a CPV rewind if something went awry”, and I am not comfortable with rewarding that sort of practice.

But you are comfortable with a player bringing the wrong tokens and possibly using them to gain an advantage? I find it way more likely that a player tries to confuse his opponents by obscuring his tokens than his opponent thinking “I know player has a xyz token which in reality is an abc token but I will play this way to gain information and if player remembers it is realy an abc token I will just call a judge.”

Yes, I am comfortable with saying that perhaps the player left the house with the wrong stack of tokens, and rather than running around the room trying to look for the correct ones, that they just used whatever they brought with them. I am comfortable with that.

As for gaining an “advantage”, I don't think the advantage is that significant. I would expect that if the only Token-making card in your deck is Gideon and you have a bunch of tokens in play, that the opponent would be able to understand from there that those tokens are Gideon tokens, which are 2/2s; failing that, I would expect questions to be asked and game states to be clarified. Both players have a responsibility to keep the game state clear, and I feel in this case like AP has done what can reasonably be expected of him given the supplies available to him, and NAP has not, by not asking for clarification of the game state and instead hoping for Deus Ex Machina by Judge to save him.

Originally posted by Jacopo Strati:

Some offical tokens haven't all the informations they should.
Like the new Chandra's ones:
http://mtg-realm.blogspot.it/2016/01/oath-of-gatewatch-tokens.html?m=1

Same situation than the original one, but with Chandra.
I activate Chandra's first ability and, saying nothing, I put two of those tokens next to her. Now I have two 3/1 creature and another random one I played in my last turn.
I say “combat”. My opponent takes a look to those tokens and answers: “ok, go”.
When I attack with all 3 creatures he stops me, complaining that there's no “haste” written on my 3/1 tokens, but now it's too late to cast something before deckare attackers step.

Judge!

Is this a CPV again? :)

Not quite the same IMHO.

In your example, haste keyword is *omitted*, so the token provides *incomplete* information.
In the original example, P/T is *misrepresented*, so the token provides *wrong* information.

In your example:
“You can't attack with those tokens”
“Of course I can, they have haste”
“They have haste? I didn't know that”
“Sorry”

seems fair.

In the original example:
“Four trample damage to Gideon”
“No, only three, this blocking token is a 2/2”
“That is a 2/2? But it has 1/1 printed on it.”
“And you relied on what is printed on the token? You fool”

Is *this* fair?

Lyle, the onus in our system as it exists today is for a player to either communicate clearly or not communicate (depending on free or derived information). When presenting a token with information on it, a player's actions represent what is occurring. Absent some additional communication to override the physical action, what a player physically does is the last statement on what a situation is. An opponent is never at fault for a representation made by the player. We ~want~ players and opponents to communicate and clarify, but the ~requirement~ is that the player's representations are accurate.

If this were a question of whether a player had blocked or not we'd look at whether the player actions and words. If he shoved his creatures on top of attackers and was reaching for his lands, his physical action showed he was blocking even if he didn't say out loud, “I am blocking with these as indicated.” Now if that same creature started shoving critters around and says, “These aren't final,” while doing so, then it's clear (because of communication in addition to action) that what's represented is in flux and will be made clear by that player as appropriate.

It's not the opponent's job to read a player's cards. The expectation as defined in MTR 4.1 is that free information is accurate and complete and the derived information is accurate (though isn't required to be complete). Tokens that don't have “haste” printed on them fit the derived information requirements. Tokens that have incorrect characteristics do not fit the derived information. A plastic ninja fits the derived information requirements because it isn't representing any characteristics.

Players who misrepresent things specified in MTR 4.1 should get punished–or judges are failing at their duty. Conveniently, it's a simple warning which can include judgely advice to use words in addition to objects if the objects present conflicting information. Players who intentionally misrepresent things specified in MTR 4.1 to gain advantage are cheaters.

Looking at the original scenario, I'd actually rule that no violation had occurred. While the player failed to use words, the token isn't described, so I'll consider it a plastic ninja (generic object). Since the opponent agreed to the physical action, the player had no reason to believe there was a lack of clarity.

If we add in the wrinkle that the player used a token that represented characteristics (Kor Ally instead of Knight Ally, for example), then an inaccurate token would lead me to a CPV because the player didn't provide words to override the misrepresentation presented.

Examples:
“You know that Nissa plants are 0/1, not like the 1/1 tokens you have out there?”
Oh, you're right, I thought they were the same. = CPV
Oh, I know. These are what I had, so I said something to my opponent when I started making them. = No CPV
Yeah, but if my opponent doesn't know, he should read my card instead of taking damage. = Cheating

As for comments about Wald (German black bordered Revised Forest with the art from Plains) and similar misprints, I have had to deal with players who have wanted to use them at major events. The potential for creating confusion with those has always been so high that I've never allowed one.

It turns out, HJs have mighty and terrible powers, and one of them includes telling players, “Don't be That Guy <tm>.” And you know what That Guy <tm> does? He pulls out the not-jerkish copies of the correct cards and plays those instead. Even That Guy <tm> knows that being That Guy <tm> is sometimes not ok.

so I'll consider it a plastic ninja (generic object).

But tokens aren't generic objects, they contain information. And specifically P/T. It is very easy for a player to confuse 2/2's with 1/1's especially when we have a history of planeswalkers who make 1/1's.

There's no reason to use a 1/1 Token to represent a 2/2 - you can just flip them over to have a generic object. As soon as you're writing information on the cards - you're conveying said information.

Sometimes it matters (P/T) and other times it doesn't really (Haste) and sometimes it depends (Creature type). Common sense should prevail.

I know in the past I've used Soldier and Goblin tokens to represent 1/1 Elemental tokens (because finding those were like hen's teeth), because a red card with 1/1 on the bottom conveyed the ‘correct’ information that both my opponent and I understood.

Putting a white 2/2 Knight Ally token down to represent a red 1/1 Elemental would be stretching the bounds of what I would think is allowable.