Ciao a tutti! :D

During his main phase, Alan says nothing but points his Gideon, Ally of Zendikar and put a token on the battlefield. His opponent, Nolan, agreed.

During the next turn, Nolan declares his attackers and Alan declares blockers. In combat damage step, Nolan realized that the token put by Alan was a 1/1 and not a 2/2. Nolan attacked 'cause he thought that his opponent had just a 1/1, not a bigger creature to defend him.

Nola, then, calls a judge.

What would you do?

Thanks for your help!

Edited Jacopo Strati (Feb. 25, 2016 03:26:09 PM)

Based on the language you used in the title, I'm guessing you think this is
a CPV, and I agree.

The “point of the error” was when Alan's ability resolved, so we can either
back up to that point, or not at all. I'd consider backing up here, but it
isn't a sure thing - in addition to the card NAP drew, both players have
revealed attacking and blocking decisions. If there were any other
complicating factors, I would not back up.

CPV to the player with a Warning. Obviously we must also check for the
obvious lines for Cheating on both sides. AP may have done this hoping NAP
would make an error, NAP may have waited this long in the hopes of seeing
how AP would attack. Let us assume no Cheating for the purposes of the
forum, though :)

Dan,

maybe you missed the last IPG updates but we do not back up anymore to the point of the error, but only to the point of the action(s) that was (were) mislead by the CPV.

Oh hey, you're right! So then, consider a backup to just before attackers
were declared.

> On Feb 25, 2016, at 8:27 AM, Dan Collins <forum-25106-24e2@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:
>
> The “point of the error” was when Alan's ability resolved, so we can either
> back up to that point, or not at all. I'd consider backing up here, but it
> isn't a sure thing - in addition to the card NAP drew, both players have
> revealed attacking and blocking decisions. If there were any other
> complicating factors, I would not back up.

Minor point here. The IPG now allows a backup to the point where the erroneous information was “clearly acted upon” as opposed to all the way back to the beginning.

I wouldn't consider this a CPV. What “communication” has happened here? (Or well, I would ask a few questions about the communication, but will assume for this scenario that there was none verbally.) Compare this to the Gideon player grabbing a tip card or an empty sleeve to use as their token. Are they now “communicating” that they have a 0/0? What about the creature type? If the player only has a 2/2 Knight token available that isn't an Ally, do they get a CPV?

Hi Riki! This is exactly the point of my topic. Is it a CPV? Or is it not? :)
I think this is not a CPV, for the same reasons you wrote before. But I'm interested in having more opinions about that. :D

As someone who's played a lot with various kinds of tokens, I think there's a strong difference between representative game data that isn't visually present at all and game data that is visually present in an incorrect fashion; “This tip card is a 2/2 Knight Ally” is much easier to parse than “This 1/1 Soldier is actually a 2/2 Knight Ally” - one is already serving Magic related information, which has to be retranslated, while the other is a blank canvas that only requires a basic cognitive association.

Originally posted by Riki Hayashi:

Compare this to the Gideon player grabbing a tip card or an empty sleeve to use as their token. Are they now “communicating” that they have a 0/0? What about the creature type? If the player only has a 2/2 Knight token available that isn't an Ally, do they get a CPV?

I feel like there's a relevant difference in clarity between using an object that has no printed characteristics (f.ex. “empty sleeve”) and using one that *has* a printed power and toughness that does not match the actual P/T of the object (another token). While this might not be CPV, it's definitely not appropriate.

Edited Filip Haglund (Feb. 25, 2016 03:40:05 PM)

The CPV infraction cites directly to MTR 4.1, which states that “players
may not represent derived or free information incorrectly”. There is
nothing that states that verbal communication is the only type of
communication. Players communicate non-verbally all the time through
gestures, pauses, moving cards about, writing on their life pad or on
makeshift tokens…

Players using tip cards (or Pokemon cards, or whatever) are not
representing the P/T of the object at all, but just as they may not say
“this is a 2/2” when it is really a 1/1, they should not use a physical
object that says “2/2” either.

And as for your question about Knight vs Knight Ally - yes, if a player
called me over because they had relied on an incorrect creature type
furnished by their opponent, and it had been relevant to the game, I would
rule similarly. Ally is a creature type that is relevant to a number of
cards, and players should not misrepresent that information.

Of course if a player notes as they put their tip card into play “make a
1/1 knight”, then that itself is communication. Hopefully they say the
right thing.

I think that I'm at least being internally consistent here, Riki, although
we may be operating from different definitions of the word “communication”.

I do not remember exactly but I think that there is something about the fact that if a token is not clear enough, a player can ask to change it.
Anyway, my inclination would be that if that token has been in play for quite some time (honnestly, that means that you glanced at the table) and said nothing about it, I assume that you were ok with the representation.
If the game state is not clear to you, you can ask your opponent or ultimately a judge, but I do not think that I would have ruled CPV in this case. If you don't like this representation of a token, well you have to pay attention to the game at some point before having to complain because you realize now that you are not confortable anymore with it.

Originally posted by Riki Hayashi:

I wouldn't consider this a CPV. What “communication” has happened here? (Or well, I would ask a few questions about the communication, but will assume for this scenario that there was none verbally.) Compare this to the Gideon player grabbing a tip card or an empty sleeve to use as their token. Are they now “communicating” that they have a 0/0? What about the creature type? If the player only has a 2/2 Knight token available that isn't an Ally, do they get a CPV?

I strongly disagree.

Communication is not only verbal communication. The communication here is putting a piece of paper with 1/1 stamped on it on the battlefield.

A tip card doesn't have P/T value, so they would just not communicate anything about P/T values.

Players can choose NOT to represent derived information, if they choose to represent them, it must be correctly.

Edited Andrea Mondani (Feb. 25, 2016 03:36:22 PM)

I have encountered this very situation before (using one token to represent another kind of token) and felt completely comfortable calling it a CPV. For all the reasons outlined above regarding non-verbal communication.

Originally posted by Jacopo Strati:

Ciao a tutti! :D

During his main phase, Alan says nothing but points his Gideon, Ally of Zendikar and put a token on the battlefield. His opponent, Nolan, agreed.

During the next turn, Nolan declares his attackers and Alan declares blockers. In combat damage step, Nolan realized that the token put by Alan was a 1/1 and not a 2/2. Nolan attacked 'cause he thought that his opponent had just a 1/1, not a bigger creature to defend him.

I fail to see what AP is misrepresenting here. Did AP state his token was a 1/1 in any way? It does not seem to be the case, reading the OP. This situation seems to be NAP being wrong about the game state - which if he was unsure about could perfectly have asked AP for clarification. I don't see how this can be an infraction AP committed.

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.