Cavern of Souls

[Jacob]

Hello. There is a discussion in the Judge community about the following question. Many of us were curious to know what Legacy players think. Please chime in with your answer.

Ahmed plays Cavern of Souls. Norbert asks “Creature type?”. Ahmed replies: “Fish”. Norbert confirms: “Fish?” which Ahmed agrees on: “Yes, fish.”

Scenario a) The two players play a few turns, not using the Cavern of Souls. Then, Ahmed attempts to cast a Cursecatcher using the Cavern of Souls mana. Norbert objects “It's not a fish.”

Scenario b) Directly after naming Fish, Ahmed attempts to cast a Cursecatcher. Norbert objects “It's not a fish.”

What creature type does Fish refer to?

If you confirmed ‘Fish?’ and your opponent replied ‘Fish’, would you change your answer?

Edit: Sorry, I made mistakes in creating a poll. I would appreciate some help in rectifying the situation.

[TsumiBand]

Hello. There is a discussion in the Judge community about the following question. Many of us were curious to know what Legacy players think. Please chime in with your answer.

Ahmed plays Cavern of Souls. Norbert asks “Creature type?”. Ahmed replies: “Fish”. Norbert confirms: “Fish?” which Ahmed agrees on: “Yes, fish.”

Scenario a) The two players play a few turns, not using the Cavern of Souls. Then, Ahmed attempts to cast a Cursecatcher using the Cavern of Souls mana. Norbert objects “It's not a fish.”

Scenario b) Directly after naming Fish, Ahmed attempts to cast a Cursecatcher. Norbert objects “It's not a fish.”

What creature type does Fish refer to?

If you confirmed ‘Fish?’ and your opponent replied ‘Fish’, would you change your answer?

If your opponent names a creature type, and it exists within this list, that's the type they chose.

It would be folly to assume that "by Merfolk I meant Fish". That way lies time travel and backing up game events, no thank you.

[Quasim0ff]

Hello. There is a discussion in the Judge community about the following question. Many of us were curious to know what Legacy players think. Please chime in with your answer.

Ahmed plays Cavern of Souls. Norbert asks “Creature type?”. Ahmed replies: “Fish”. Norbert confirms: “Fish?” which Ahmed agrees on: “Yes, fish.”

Scenario a) The two players play a few turns, not using the Cavern of Souls. Then, Ahmed attempts to cast a Cursecatcher using the Cavern of Souls mana. Norbert objects “It's not a fish.”

Scenario b) Directly after naming Fish, Ahmed attempts to cast a Cursecatcher. Norbert objects “It's not a fish.”

What creature type does Fish refer to?

If you confirmed ‘Fish?’ and your opponent replied ‘Fish’, would you change your answer?

I think, no matter how you put it, Ahmed fuck'd up. He gave clear identification of the trigger, and it's understanding.
IF Ahmed had said "Yeah, as in merfolk-fish", that'd be a different case, but as there is an actual "fish"-subtype (even though it isn't played), he should have been more clear, even though it was obvious. I think Norbert is in any way okay by acting that way, even though it is a bit scummy.

[nedleeds]

[Stan]

Nothing scummy about it. He asked explicitly for confirmation, and Ahmed named the same, existing, creature type twice. You should never feel stupid for taking advantage of an opponent who not only acts stupid, but insists on acting stupid. You're not stealing candy from a toddler, you're dealing with an adult who should know what he's doing.

[TsumiBand]

I think, no matter how you put it, Ahmed fuck'd up. He gave clear identification of the trigger, and it's understanding.
IF Ahmed had said "Yeah, as in merfolk-fish", that'd be a different case, but as there is an actual "fish"-subtype (even though it isn't played), he should have been more clear, even though it was obvious. I think Norbert is in any way okay by acting that way, even though it is a bit scummy.

So, here's a "same-but-different" situation.

I'm playing Creature Feature like 40 billion years ago, and my opponent has a Nev Disk in play and some Rats. I am trying to eek out a UW Rebels win and I control some Rebels, and so I think I can recover by playing Lin Sivvi, forcing him to blow up the world, and then trying to outdraw him.

So I cast Liv Sivvi, and he says "in response, blow the disk." taps his mana, taps his disk, scoops his Rats in the bin.

Here's the thing - I know damn well what he meant. I know this player. He's not stupid, in fact he's always always been a much better player than me. I know he legitimately fucked up, but inasmuch as the game is concerned, I'm not able to use any of that data to change the fact that he just announced he was activating Nevin's Disk in response to my casting Lin Sivvi. And for all I know, maybe he has some amazing Rat Plan in his hand, and that's why he is doing this in response. I've no reason to assume anything.

So yeah, I scoop my Rebels into the bin and I go "I'm ready for Sivvi to resolve if you are."

"…what why what?"

"…you said you were doing it in response…??"

He gets quiet and mumbles something about "Stick, the Rules Lawyer" and then goes on to win anyway, because his deck was much better than mine.

[PirateKing]

As a player, if my opponent named "fish", even if I didn't ask for confirmation, but especially if I did and the confirmed "fish", then I would accept my opponent's choice and hold them too it. They are free to summon Battering Krasis, Breaching Hippocamp, Coral Eel, Dandân, Devouring Deep, Electric Eel, Elusive Krasis, Giant Shark, Hammerhead Shark, Island Fish Jasconius, Jace's Mindseeker, Manta Ray, Quagmire Lamprey, School of Piranha, Shambleshark, Sky-Eel School, Skyreach Manta, Slipstream Eel, Windrider Eel, Wormfang Behemoth, Wormfang Behemoth. Or add to their pool, it's up to them.

But the questions applies just as well to them naming "human" then trying to cast Stoneforge Mystic with it, and saying "oops, I thought she was a human, I mean kor." That is a no-go in any game I play in.

[Quasim0ff]

So, here's a "same-but-different" situation.

I'm playing Creature Feature like 40 billion years ago, and my opponent has a Nev Disk in play and some Rats. I am trying to eek out a UW Rebels win and I control some Rebels, and so I think I can recover by playing Lin Sivvi, forcing him to blow up the world, and then trying to outdraw him.

So I cast Liv Sivvi, and he says "in response, blow the disk." taps his mana, taps his disk, scoops his Rats in the bin.

Here's the thing - I know damn well what he meant. I know this player. He's not stupid, in fact he's always always been a much better player than me. I know he legitimately fucked up, but inasmuch as the game is concerned, I'm not able to use any of that data to change the fact that he just announced he was activating Nevin's Disk in response to my casting Lin Sivvi. And for all I know, maybe he has some amazing Rat Plan in his hand, and that's why he is doing this in response. I've no reason to assume anything.

So yeah, I scoop my Rebels into the bin and I go "I'm ready for Sivvi to resolve if you are."

"…what why what?"

"…you said you were doing it in response…??"

He gets quiet and mumbles something about "Stick, the Rules Lawyer" and then goes on to win anyway, because his deck was much better than mine.

I didn't mean it was scummy, as in "what a fucker", but more in the "This is causal magic, calm down". If it was at at PTQ/GPT/GP/anything, I would support being strict, but at a FNM, I think it would be fair to cut him some slack.

[PirateKing]

So, here's a "same-but-different" situation.

I'm playing Creature Feature like 40 billion years ago, and my opponent has a Nev Disk in play and some Rats. I am trying to eek out a UW Rebels win and I control some Rebels, and so I think I can recover by playing Lin Sivvi, forcing him to blow up the world, and then trying to outdraw him.

So I cast Liv Sivvi, and he says "in response, blow the disk." taps his mana, taps his disk, scoops his Rats in the bin.

Here's the thing - I know damn well what he meant. I know this player. He's not stupid, in fact he's always always been a much better player than me. I know he legitimately fucked up, but inasmuch as the game is concerned, I'm not able to use any of that data to change the fact that he just announced he was activating Nevin's Disk in response to my casting Lin Sivvi. And for all I know, maybe he has some amazing Rat Plan in his hand, and that's why he is doing this in response. I've no reason to assume anything.

So yeah, I scoop my Rebels into the bin and I go "I'm ready for Sivvi to resolve if you are."

"…what why what?"

"…you said you were doing it in response…??"

He gets quiet and mumbles something about "Stick, the Rules Lawyer" and then goes on to win anyway, because his deck was much better than mine.

I see a lot of newer-y players use "in response" as a filler for every action they take. Can't count the number of times I've heard "In response to your Sage Owl I'll Doom Blade it."

[Jacob]

Let me just add a bit of clarity here as to how judges judge things, which competitive players do not.

If both players are 100% sure as to the meaning of something said, even if you could technically read it otherwise, then that is what is said. If there is no room for doubt whatsoever among any of the players that by Fish, he meant Merfolk and no other creature type, then he meant Merfolk.

[Tammit67]

If both players are 100% sure as to the meaning of something said, even if you could technically read it otherwise, then that is what is said. If there is no room for doubt whatsoever among any of the players that by Fish, he meant Merfolk and no other creature type, then he meant Merfolk.

So what happens in the stoneforge example when an opponent says human and I know they really meant Kor? Both of us know all they wanted was an uncounterable stoneforge, does this change because of what I've quoted above?

If my opponent says fish, I clarify by asking "fish?" and they say "yes, fish", I'm really really hard pressed to see that cavern on anything but fish the actual creature type. However if i ask what deck Tim Turner is on and my buddy tells me "Fish", I understand that to almost exclusively mean merfolk in this format, barring Vintage Noble Fish ported to legacy.

[alphastryk]

It's not even clear to me that this could get backed up without confirmation - Fish is a valid creature type that can be named. Fish was clearly named.

It's not even like the type Fish isn't used anymore - there are multiple fish in RTR block, and at least one in Theros.

[Koby]

Let me just add a bit of clarity here as to how judges judge things, which competitive players do not.

If both players are 100% sure as to the meaning of something said, even if you could technically read it otherwise, then that is what is said. If there is no room for doubt whatsoever among any of the players that by Fish, he meant Merfolk and no other creature type, then he meant Merfolk.

Having received a GRV for this type of interaction (naming Phantasm in which no such creature type exists), I am a firm believer that my warning was just and appropriate.

The only difference is that Fish is an acceptable creature type. No GRV to issue here. Just run of the mill 'missplay'.

No takesies backsies no matter what.

[Jacob]

Just to speak in generalities...

The philosophy behind the player communication policy is to encourage players to communicate clearly AND quickly. So, we avoid requiring people to make unnecessary distinctions, we try to reward behavior that clears up misunderstandings and we prefer to penalize behavior that introduces confusion where none exists.

Naming something that is not a creature type or naming the wrong creature type is a bad thing. Giving out a Warning for that is perfectly in line with policy. Saying one thing when you mean another is similarly a bad thing. Saying something that misleads your opponent is frowned upon, but can be included in competitive behavior. Deliberately misunderstanding clear communication, however, is similarly considered a bad thing.

It is perfectly reasonable to say that naming the wrong creature type is bad BECAUSE it creates confusion. But, if it is not the source of the confusion, then it is not the problem. The problem is the cause of confusion.

Is the fact he said "fish" the cause of confusion or is the opponent's behavior? That is the central point we are discussing on the judge list.

[Tormod]

To me its simple

Fish =/= Merfolk

Norbert asked 2 times what the creature type named was
Both time Ahmed says and clarifies as fish

Cavern cannot be used to cast non-fish, Curse Catcher is a merfolk, not a fish.

I saw a match on SCG broadcast where the player intentionally named a creature not included his deck, to make the Cavern look like a poor wasteland target and it worked.

There a danger of going too deep philosophically on this one. The first time FISH was declared as the creature type, there was surprise and confusion. When asked for clarification and FISH was repeated, then there was no more confusion only surprise. When Ahmed attempts to cast a NON-FISH from the Cavern of Souls that's when the problem arises. How do we know that Ahmed wasn't being tricky and intentionally misnaming to lower the quality of a wasteland target only to say "oops fish means merfolk" later on in the game.

[Stan]

Just to speak in generalities...

The philosophy behind the player communication policy is to encourage players to communicate clearly AND quickly. So, we avoid requiring people to make unnecessary distinctions, we try to reward behavior that clears up misunderstandings and we prefer to penalize behavior that introduces confusion where none exists.

Naming something that is not a creature type or naming the wrong creature type is a bad thing. Giving out a Warning for that is perfectly in line with policy. Saying one thing when you mean another is similarly a bad thing. Saying something that misleads your opponent is frowned upon, but can be included in competitive behavior. Deliberately misunderstanding clear communication, however, is similarly considered a bad thing.

It is perfectly reasonable to say that naming the wrong creature type is bad BECAUSE it creates confusion. But, if it is not the source of the confusion, then it is not the problem. The problem is the cause of confusion.

Is the fact he said "fish" the cause of confusion or is the opponent's behavior? That is the central point we are discussing on the judge list.

You're assuming that both people involved are aware of the fact that a) fish is a nickname for the merfolk race, and b) actual fish are unplayable in competitive Magic. I've seen people play rats at GP Amsterdam (legacy!), so there are people out there who'll bring such jank to a tournament. Not every player brings a knowledge of the metagame, a fine tuned deck or even a basic knowledge of the game's lingo with him to a tournament.

[Koby]

Just to speak in generalities...

Naming something that is not a creature type or naming the wrong creature type is a bad thing. Giving out a Warning for that is perfectly in line with policy.

And hence GRV exist. The warning and the fix are both described properly well.

Saying one thing when you mean another is similarly a bad thing.
Saying something that misleads your opponent is frowned upon, but can be included in competitive behavior.
Deliberately misunderstanding clear communication, however, is similarly considered a bad thing.

The example you posted in the OP demonstrates that the communication is clear. Player A: "Fish." Player B: "Fish?" Player A: "Yes, Fish." Player B: "OK!" The only misunderstanding that exists in this case is that Player A is unaware that his cards read "creature - merfolk" rather than "creature - fish". This is not something that Judging should fix and really strikes me as hand-holding poor play.

It is perfectly reasonable to say that naming the wrong creature type is bad BECAUSE it creates confusion. But, if it is not the source of the confusion, then it is not the problem. The problem is the cause of confusion.

Is the fact he said "fish" the cause of confusion or is the opponent's behavior? That is the central point we are discussing on the judge list.

Neither are the cause of confusion. Player A's misunderstanding is the cause of the confusion. Both players are in agreement that Fish was named for Cavern. Player A is unclear in his understanding of his own cards. Again, Judging should not attempt to fix the a strategic, yet legal missplay originating from a player's misunderstanding of the rules or card text. The only exception would be if it was immediately proceeded by a GRV. As "Fish" is a legal choice for Cavern of Souls, this would not be warranted as a GRV.

[davelin]

Agreed that Ahmed naming "Fish" made a mistake and should be held to it assuming a Competitive REL. Who is it say that his opponent knew he meant Merfolk when he didn't demonstrate any awareness of that is what his opponent meant? Although it's not likely it is certainly possible there are players who don't know that Fish = Merfolk, should they be punished because they don't know Legacy lingo?

[Jacob]

Really, that is the reason why some judges suggested polling players.

Is it 100% clear to the opponent that by "fish," he means merfolk? If yes, then current judging policy supports saying that he can cast the Cursecatcher. If not, then current judging policy supports saying he cannot cast the Cursecatcher.

[Tormod]

Really, that is the reason why some judges suggested polling players.

Is it 100% clear to the opponent that by "fish," he means merfolk? If yes, then current judging policy supports saying that he can cast the Cursecatcher. If not, then current judging policy supports saying he cannot cast the Cursecatcher.

Jacob,

Fish doesn't even mean Merfolk. Fish is a style of deck. Faerie decks are often referred to as Fish decks. This is why Fish =/= Merfolk.