Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

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.

Partly I agree - the player can always read the card and request the Oracle text, but I also disagree.
I don't know the exact Oracle text or functionality of each card. The following can happen: A player plays a Planeswalker, his opponent thinks something like “oh yeah, he creates a token with his middle ability”. I don't think the opponent should be punished by trusting what's printed on the physical token on the battlefield.

On topic: Consider the following scenarios:
- A points at Gideon, puts an empty sleeve on the table and says “I make a 1/1”
- A points at Gideon and puts an empty sleeve on the battlefield. N asks “how big is the token”, A responds “1/1”
- A points at Gideon, puts an empty sleeve on the table and puts a die on it with “1” face up on the sleeve
- A points at Gideon and puts a 1/1 Soldier token on the battlefield
In my opinion, all four cases are CPV, because derived information is misrepresented. Communication doesn't have to be verbal. If N calls for a judge and says “I thought this was a 1/1 because XYZ, but it's really a 2/2”, I can't think of anything A could say for me not to rule CPV. And no, RTFC is not an excuse to try and trick the opponent into making bad blocks/attacks.

Based on this discussion, I would never want to bring matching tokens to a competitive event. It is in my best interests to bring random tokens and clearly declare them when I use them. I've met my requirements and still have significant chance for advantage.

Can we consider adding this to CPV? Something like:
A player choose an item to represent a token that does not match the characteristics of the token exactly and does not get his opponent's explicit concurrence.

Originally posted by Matt Farney:

A player choose an item to represent a token that does not match the characteristics of the token exactly and does not get his opponent's explicit concurrence.

Except this would make the official Elemental tokens without ‘Haste’ written on them worthy of a CPV warning.

The omission of information is not generally speaking a problem. The communication of different, or incorrect, information can potentially be a problem. Leaving haste of a token (usually only relevant once) is far different than showing its P/T to be one thing when it is actually another.

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

The omission of information is not generally speaking a problem. The communication of different, or incorrect, information can potentially be a problem. Leaving haste of a token (usually only relevant once) is far different than showing its P/T to be one thing when it is actually another.

Yes, you are right. :D

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

The omission of information is not generally speaking a problem. The communication of different, or incorrect, information can potentially be a problem. Leaving haste of a token (usually only relevant once) is far different than showing its P/T to be one thing when it is actually another.

I'm not disagreeing, I'm just pointing out that we can't use the word ‘exactly’ when coming up with policy.

Originally posted by Matt Farney:

Based on this discussion, I would never want to bring matching tokens to a competitive event. It is in my best interests to bring random tokens and clearly declare them when I use them. I've met my requirements and still have significant chance for advantage.

That's a way to be “That guy” noone should be. But as long as you are making true statements about the correct characteristics of the object you are fine imho.

Originally posted by Matt Farney:

A player choose an item to represent a token that does not match the characteristics of the token exactly and does not get his opponent's explicit concurrence

I don't think that this should be about concurrence and/or contradiction. It should be about communication itself. A statement about the correct value should be fine. (Imagine someone wants to be an annoying rule-enforcing douchebag who would just insist that any token not being exactly accurate would be not okay because it is misrepresenting information. That needs to be prevented.) Although a clause to ask palyers to indicate any characteristics departure from the characteristics the physical objects may represent at best could be fine. (A plastic ninja figure does not represent characteristics therefore does not need to be “corrected”. Using a Knight Token (2/2 W) with vigilance would demand clarification saying something like “It's a Knight Ally and does not have vigilance”) That would also be what a cooperative and kind player would say upon using the wrong token.

If this is however should be included in the policy as you say think about this scenario:
a player is coming up looking out for mistakes their opponent could make so that he can call a judge hoping his opponent had received a TE-CPV Warning before and insists to apply the upgraded Penalty (Game Loss on second and subsequent occurrences for that seems harsh for that) getting a free win. More likely the longer the tournement is going.

After all this is an angular territory of policy.

Edited Felix Hasenfratz (March 17, 2016 03:59:17 AM)

So, are tokens like this ok?
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3561032/4fe1db26-502f-4658-a700-1e9ed126aac0.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3561032/5bba9022-0002-4f1d-a1f5-40af7d150147.jpg

Or the backside of those with this picture to be “whatever token I need”?
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3561032/b7753890-5446-4d94-9b78-8deb1f244bab.jpg

Would it have been ok if he just puts a token that almost fits the token(for example a Knight Token) needed but removed the P/T and abilities, if he would need a knight ally token?

I'd say everything is fine, and I'm going with “hey, if you can't remember that the 1/1 token that's on the board for a few rounds is a 2/2 it's not your opponent's fault. Even the token generating card is still on the battlefield to check.”

Originally posted by Johannes Wagner:

So, are tokens like this ok?

Those tokens are better than OK - they're lovely!

They don't risk misrepresenting information, so why should there be any problem? Likewise with the Knight picture without P/T.

I feel like deep debates about “suitable tokens” neglect the facts that:

• Players use all kinds of things as tokens - empty sleeves, dice, gems, sugar packets, bits of paper, whatever. This is fine, legal, and good.
  
• While there is such a things as a “Token made by WOTC”, there is no such thing as an “official” or “sanctioned” token.
  
• Players who are going to intentionally try and gain an edge by misusing tokens are extremely rare; we can always ask them not to do it; even if it's explicitly banned they'll just look for another angle; and they probably won't be at too many events because, seriously, who wants to give that guy a lift to the next PPTQ?
  

Well, the Marit Lage-Token is “just” 20/20, thopter has no flying printed on it…
That's what I meant(and I wanted to show off :P)

Originally posted by Johannes Wagner:

So, are tokens like this ok?

I'm not crazy about the one that promises to burn my … *ahem* … posterior. They are gorgeous, however - and I'd allow any that weren't likely to offend others.

d:^D