Azathoth names “Jace” for Pithing Needle. Nyarlathotep asks “Architect of thought?”. Azathoth replies “Yes”, even though he obviously means “the Mindsculptor”, which he saw earlier that turn in Nyarlathotep's hand.

Two turns later, Nyarlathotep plays Jace, the Mindsculptor and tries to use one of its abilities. Azathoth calls Judge!

What do?

I assume this is Legacy/Vintage. I will rule in Nyarlathotep's favour. IMHO Nyarlathotep has done nothing wrong by clarifying the exact Jace.

I will however have a chat with Azathoth to explain that it is his best interests to name the exact full name of the card and do call a Judge if he is unable to identify the card.

Hmm, if Azathoth happens to be a new player and Nyarlathotep is aware of this, I would investigate some more though.

Second what Chuanjie said.

NAP's actions may not be sporting, but they committed no infraction.

Originally posted by Olivier Wattel:

Hmm, if Azathoth happens to be a new player and Nyarlathotep is aware of this, I would investigate some more though.

This reads like a blanket statement for me. What would you investigate for? What could Nyarlathotep say that leads to a different outcome than “no infraction”? Please be more specific! Investigating is good, knowing what you investigate for is much better.

Originally posted by Dustin De Leeuw:

This reads like a blanket statement for me. What would you investigate for? What could Nyarlathotep say that leads to a different outcome than “no infraction”? Please be more specific! Investigating is good, knowing what you investigate for is much better.

Given the responses giving by you and Jeff, I have reread the IPG on unsporting conduct and so I now see the difference by not sporting and unsporting.

I think the fault is all on AP hands and his misconcepts…
AP can answer “the jace than I saw in your hand” not a “yes” falling in NAP's trap…

It's similar to lighting a 2/3 Tarmo (without instants in graveyards)… a bad move (even if NAP instigate for it).

No infractions, no fixes, no santions but… a tip for AP: “IF you not sure for a card name when pitting it, describe it (as the jace i saw in your hand last turn is ok) or call a judge”.

Looks like the opinion for my OP is pretty much unanimous. Separate
question for Ivan's example then. Let's say that a player plays a Pithing
Needle and names “the Jace I saw in your hand last turn”. Is that good
enough if we get called to the table?

The opponent is not required to reveal the Jace in his hand, and we can't
confirm what he saw in case the opponent now has multiple Jaces in hand.
The best I feel I can do is display all of the Jaces for the player to
choose, but that's probably going to take too much time. I'd probably ask
the player to identify it verbally in some other way.

2016-12-30 10:53 GMT-05:00 Iván R. Molia <

Originally posted by Dominik Chłobowski:

I'd probably ask the player to identify it verbally in some other way.

I agree with Dominik. The player must unequivocally identify the card (describing, for example, some of its characteristics). A simply answer “the jace that I saw in your hand” is not enough.

Because of the pre-con planeswalker decks, this isn't really a Legacy/Vintage issue. It's not even really a Comp REL issue. It happens in Standard with Lost Legacy.

MTR 3.6 says “Players have the right to request access to the official wording of a card only if they can uniquely identify that card, although the card does not necessarily have to be identified by name.”

This is tantamount to saying that in order to “name” a card the player must uniquely identify it within the format being played. “Jace - the one I just saw in your hand” is sufficient in the overwhelming majority of cases because the opponent will normally just accept that. If they don't, something like “the brainstorm one” is perfectly sufficient. “Chandra - the Kaladesh one from packs” is fine in Standard.

Normally, unless you explicitly say the wrong name of the card or agree to an incorrect (but legal) suggested name, “name a card” will work as expected. Encourage players not to make this into a mini-game, since typically the result they want to achieve isn't going to be legal anyway. (For example, at a recent PPTQ, a player asked me if he could try to trick his opponent into naming “Emrakul, the Aeons Torn” with Lost Legacy in Standard.)

I understood the problem about the answer of “the one in your hand that i just saw”, but… if we can be sure than AP just saw it, and there are noone jace in hand… isn´t enought??

In usually game see jace of the brainstorms and jace-creature… maibe others…

If we are called and exposes than AP must give a name of card… We encourage players to write all info that they access to avoid this issuess… and slow the flux of game…


In other hand… if NAP have now 2 jaces in hand (or not… to avoid external info) the fix of saw a pic of jaces sounds good, but maibe become too into another mini-game as Joshua says.

If NAP agrees to “the Jace I saw in your hand”, it's all good. If NAP doesn't agree, I think we have to get AP to narrow down the card another way, for fear of giving away information about NAP's hand.

If AP attempts to identify a card by referencing recent game actions
(such as the card I saw with Thoughtseize) and NAP doesn't immediately
explain that they don't know what card they are referring to, if they
later attempt to claim they were unsure what AP was naming then NAP
will have an uphill battle to avoid me believing that their actions
strayed into cheating.

Both players are responsible for ensuring the game state is clear and
understood. AP thinks they named a card, NAP wants to claim that they
both heard what AP said, and that what AP said wasn't naming a card?
That is NAP trying to create ambiguity in the game state, they need to
take positive steps to clear up that ambiguity.