Originally posted by Zachary Ryl:
If this was competitive I don't think any kind of backup is necessary since asking what the opponent is naming without asking about how the ability functions could be construed as fishing for information with a misleading line of questioning.
Edited Eser Unger (Aug. 22, 2018 06:44:59 PM)
Originally posted by Zachary Ryl:
To Eser Unger,
What I meant was if a player were to ask “What are you going to name” with the Mage on the stack with the intent of finding out what it is without it resolving versus the words “What are you naming” with the intent of finding out what it is AS it resolves. I feel like there's the potential for someone to think they could game the system this way.
Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:Originally posted by Zachary Ryl:
To Eser Unger,
What I meant was if a player were to ask “What are you going to name” with the Mage on the stack with the intent of finding out what it is without it resolving versus the words “What are you naming” with the intent of finding out what it is AS it resolves. I feel like there's the potential for someone to think they could game the system this way.
I am not sure that I get it.
Rules level: there is no way to know which card is named, before it is actually named, and forbidden.
Policy level:
I think that's exactly what we mean when we say that Magic isn't a ‘gotcha!’ game.
I would handle these phrases exactly the same.
Policy doesn't encourage at all such word tricks.
Edited Zachary Ryl (Aug. 23, 2018 12:14:27 PM)
Originally posted by Scott Marshall:
Well, before we're too quick to eliminate any form of “Gotcha!”, consider a similar scenario, but one in which both players are fully aware of how the rules work.
Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:
My opinion: It's not a judge issue until a judge is involved. Even if I am looking directly at the match when this happens, if the players work it out themselves, then it's not my business. However, when a judge is called, then it becomes a judge issue, and when it becomes a judge issue, then the judge should enforce the rules as they are written and not deviate (allowing this would be a deviation as far as I'm concerned). I would not allow the “do-over” (I hesitate to call it a “backup”, even though technically it is a backup) here; I would explain to the opponent how Meddling Mage works for their own education but then leave the game state as is.
Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:
My opinion: It's not a judge issue until a judge is involved. Even if I am looking directly at the match when this happens, if the players work it out themselves, then it's not my business. However, when a judge is called, then it becomes a judge issue, and when it becomes a judge issue, then the judge should enforce the rules as they are written and not deviate (allowing this would be a deviation as far as I'm concerned). I would not allow the “do-over” (I hesitate to call it a “backup”, even though technically it is a backup) here; I would explain to the opponent how Meddling Mage works for their own education but then leave the game state as is.
You must be registered in order to post to this forum.