Fish refers to Merfolk
Fish refers to Fish
I would change my answer
I would not change my answer
@PirateKing: Magic Game Rules and Oracle wordings on cards are very specific with very precise language that serves very precise game functions. Words on the cards (and in the comp rules) mean exactly what they are. The language is precise. Otherwise the game would be effed up. And when Magic is played online on MTGO, that same precision is captured in the game execution. But when Magic is played in person, people speak with shortcuts and colloquialisms and conversational English, much more imprecise. And although some tournament violations are specifically defined, some are vague. I have always understood the role of Judges to be to evaluate all aspects of a specific situation and determine the best resolution, which may or may not be a straightforward binary application of a rule, for the very reason that sometimes there is gray area when people are communicating about a precise game like Magic in imprecise conversational language.
This article, I think, captures it well:
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazin...icle/20050204a
@Koby: Some violations (like drawing extra cards) are very well defined. This one seems looser. It does not specify the list of "acceptable tournament shortcuts" so then, by extension, it is not clear what is a "new shortcut" that needs to be defined in advance. People tend to play as though shortcuts that are commonly used or commonly known to the Hive Mind are acceptable and "outlandish" ones need to be defined, but again, that interpretation is vague. An experienced Legacy player playing in a tournament filled with mostly experienced Legacy players may assume that "Fish"="Merfolk" is not new to the opponent, especially when your registered deck is entitled "Merfolk". Like most errors of communication, it boils down to assumptions about intent and knowledge of both parties.
The article specifies that judges should look at
1) intent
2) possible advantage gained
Do Ahmed and Norbert know each other? Have they played before? Are they both aware the other is an experienced Legacy player? Do they both know that Ahmed is playing Merfolk.dec before the match started? Do both players know there are 0 creatures in the deck of type "Fish"? If so, I think there is little ambiguity about Ahmed's intent and he should be allowed to have it mean Merfolk. Is there any advantage gained? Normally no. So a judge should rule in favor of Ahmed, based on the principles from that article. But with Wasteland in hand, there is a possible advantage. So then a judge would need to be called, evaluate that the possible Wasteland play was affected by the miscommunication and rule that the creature type has to be locked in at "Fish" to avoid any unfair advantage.
Ultimately, IMO this is a Good Example of a Bad Shortcut.
When players use the phrase "in response", it isn't a catch-all for "when the time is perfect for me to take this action". New players may very well say "in response to your Llanowar Elves, Shock it", and they should be politely corrected. Seasoned players that try to cast an Instant in response to a Creature spell going on the stack should probably be limited to the available targets when the Instant was announced; the legal precedent being "no take-backsies".
If a player is prompted to name a card, and they whiff, it's a whiff. If my (seasoned) opponent resolves Cabal Therapy naming "Serra Angel" but they meant "Serra Avenger", that's a misplay. There's no "Dammit, of course I *meant* Serra Avenger, now discard both copies". That situation is particularly damning, because they saw my fucking hand. Hell no you shouldn't be able to rewind the game after seeing my hand like that.
If a player names a legal creature type when choosing one for a card, that's the one they should be stuck using. I don't care if they're playing mono-green Horses - if you want chicken don't order the steak.
And anyway, if this is such a casual/friendly game of Magic these two players are having, what are they doing getting a ruling from a judge? The 'friendliness' of the match isn't even part of the OP. The only thing the original post says about the situation is as follows:
That's it. No assumptions of knowledge of the game, no backstory about how Norbert lent Ahmed the Cursecatchers to build the deck... it doesn't even say which turn of the game it is, or which game of the match it is. This may very well be game 1 turn 1 between two strangers who have never seen each other's decks before. There's no way to know -- but really, I don't think it matters. Just maybe don't use defined game terms to refer to other game terms. It's a bad shortcut, and if you're in a situation where a judge needs to be called because This Game Matters, why would you ever obfuscate your selection on any card that says "name a thing"? Name your flipping creature type correctly, so that this is never a question!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.”
Another related-but-not real example from a game I experienced: it was the Onslaught pre-release, and my opponent had a Centaur Glade in play along with several face-down cards. His deck was unsleeved, as were the face-down cards in play. Some of them were morph creatures; some of them were Centaurs. Onslaught defined what a face-down creature is, so you cannot just go using unmarked face-down cards to mean "whatever tokens I didn't bring". At some point this individual decided they needed to call a judge, don't remember why -- but when the judge saw the board state, before he even answered the question my opponent had, he said, "Well first of all you cannot just have face-down Magic cards in play; are these Centaurs? are these Morph creatures? this is terrible." There's no reason to overload concepts in the game. Doesn't matter if it's words, the cards themselves, whatever.
Originally Posted by Dissection
100% agreed. Bad shortcut. At the very least, if someone asks for confirmation, the safe response is "By Fish I mean Merfolk, of course".
What I don't like about the scenario is that Norbert just says "Fish?". If I was playing a casual (or even competitive) game, I would assume he means "oh you're playing Fish.dec eh?", to which I would nod and reply "Fish", not realizing he was tricking me into confirming the creature type to lock it in. If someone played turn 1 Mountain, turn 2 Port, I would probably say "Goblins?" in the same casual way. In person, it's not always clear what is casual chatter and what are specific game instructions. Does "Fish?" refer to the deck or the creature type?
"Fish?" is essentially an English Language shortcut for a grammatically complete question with subject, object, verb, etc. IMO the safe thing for Norbert to say is "you mean the creature type 'fish'?", which avoids all ambiguity and is a clear attempt at confirmation. If Ahmed still said "Fish", then I would say tough beans, Fish=Fish, sorry Merfolk. But of course Norbert doesn't want to do that because he's probably trying to trick Ahmed into locking in the creature type "fish", so he's trying to keep his prompt as simple and vague as possible. If that's the case, then Norbert clearly knows what Ahmed meant is just being a d**k.
You're right in that we can't know all that from the OP, but the deeper question was about how judges should rule in that scenario. At an event with a judge (presumably competitive), you should be able to ascertain the answers to those other questions from peripheral information. I think that other information matters, because it reflects whether that shortcut was likely known to both players and understood, or not. Was Norbert legitimately confused or was he just trying to trap Ahmed? At a competitive event, the latter is FAR more likely. A judge can't know for sure but should be able to make a reasonable guess after evaluating the situation.
Basically, I think the problem here is both parties are using vague communication. Hence, Ahmed should be given the benefit of the doubt as long as there isn't any prior advantage gained from it (e.g. Wasteland).
But even more ideally, both parties should use less vague communication.
No, not everyone knows what he meant. The player across the table doesn't know.
Though judges exist in the world of Magic and they're fine and fantastic, when you get down to it, the game is intended and designed and enforced to be able to be played without outside assistance. It's the entire reason you're allowed to search for less than four cards with Gifts Ungiven. Even though there's a judge not a stones-throw away, you're expected to be able to play the game without a third party.
You keep citing "oh decklist oh what else could he be playing oh etc", but there are a lot of things Ahmed could be playing. "Fish" is a term in Magic that has zero history with Merfolk. It's only a relatively recent trend to call Merfolk "Fish" and quite frankly something that many players, myself included, do not recognize. Even assuming "Fish" solely refers to Merfolk, what is Norbert supposed to do? How is the judge's knowledge of Ahmed's decklist supposed to help the situation? Does Norbert ask the judge if his opponent has any Fish creature cards in their deck? Go through a game of twenty questions? How can the judge even reply? What if Ahmed really was going for mind games? What if Ahmed really did have a secret tech Fish in his deck? How was the judge supposed to disclose this information?
Ahmed said Fish and upon a request for clarification confirmed Fish. That Ahmed's decision cost him dearly is, in the end, his own fault. Magic is not a game of hand-holding and butterflies. You are allowed to be a fool all you'd like, but if you are not competent enough to successfully play the game, then you quite simply fail.
p.s. Please, don't bold text for emphasis unless it's actually necessary to. Bolding your text for argumentative purposes is ineffective and makes your posts difficult to read.
It's worth noting that, while annoyed that this game is clearly going to take some time, I would not be surprised nor object if a judge "rewound" Scenario B to work for Merfolk. Simply because there was no point in time where I would have been able to make decisions based upon his own.
The tournament I started is over. You should join the next one.
Yeah, I mean… I'm being so serious right now. There are way worse cards than Shambleshark. I could see someone trying Shambleshark.
Imagine this situation as well:
Player A names Fish; Player B confirms, believing it to be a euphemism for Merfolk. Player A proceeds to cast fucken Shambleshark. Player B goes "Oh man, I thought you meant Merfolk. I would have done *this* and *this* differently." Player A didn't say Merfolk, but Player B was playing with the idea he was.
Is it fundamentally different from before? One player understood something and the other one didn't, and there's no clear intent to deceive. I don't like the idea that "Fish" means "Merfolk" unless it doesn't, and I really don't like the idea that the nature of the misunderstanding changes so drastically depending on the controller of the Cavern.
That changes nothing. Fish and Merfolk are two non-equivalent game terms. Player B made an absurd assumption and misplayed because of it. Tough luck.
Fish is technically a game term, but it's one that doesn't see play (like Banding or Badger). Seeing as it's slang for a game term that does see play, the slang should be the more accepted application.
LOL @ Shambleshark. Alright, I'll bite that someone may sleeve it. But fish tribal needs more than 1 card... what are the others? Without multiple Fish cards you wouldn't be running Caverns@Fish. The day someone sleeves up Shambleshark.tribal to a major Legacy event (and not as a joke) is the day that shortcut should cease to work.
But if you look at the history of registered decklists over the last 6 years, I HIGHLY doubt anyone has done that even once at a major event. So then you guys are talking about a "what if" that could happen but at least for now is extremely unlikely. What if lightning strikes in the middle of the battlefield, destroys part of the game state, and both players forget exactly what it looked like before? How does the match continue (assuming each player still has 60 cards remaining)? What if you call "judge!" for a violation but the judge has a heart attack? There is no ruling for that, but who cares since it's ridiculously unlikely to occur. We should only plan for "what ifs" that are likely to happen. If an unlikely one happens, rules can change later, but we shouldn't make decisions based on it today. That would be like banning Stitch in Time because there might be a card printed one day that makes an infinite combo with it.
In life, but especially in a judge call, if you explain yourself withyou pretty much lost your argument. This case is not exception. If you're not in the business of losing arguments, attempt to say what you mean, and mean what you say.I said X but I meant Y.
That's clearly the simpler solution. But people use "I said X but meant Y" all the time. See: shortcuts, and the link I posted above.
Many shortcuts are godawful and confusing but judges still accept them, depending on the situation, possible advantages gained, etc.
That's completely absurd. If he used something that was not a legal choice, like fish-people then clarification is needed. A legal choice was made. Tough luck if you're dumb enough to decide it means something else.
Shortcuts are for actions though, not for words. Plus any proper shortcut can be written out long form to explain the same thing, just shorter. Not the same thing, but different.
You keep raising the same three or four points and you keep just being wrong. Fish, even the archetype, does not mean Merfolk.
There are playable cards with the creature type "Fish". Dandân is the most notable example and one that I actually thought of using in Legacy as a rogue cheese. Since you're such a fan of debunking our "what ifs", what if I had thrown that deck together? What if I had played a Cavern of Souls and named Fish? Under your rulings, I would receive a penalty because "Fish" obviously means "Merfolk".
Weird stuff in tournaments does happen. Rogue decks do constantly show up at tournaments and they sometimes do pay off. A large portion of the game of Magic is based off of knowledge, and it's a reason why even mediocre rogue decks can do so well is because nobody knows how or is prepared to deal with them. Nicolas Goldberg's deck at BoM was an absolutely brilliant and deserved win, but his victory would have been far less paved had OmniHalls been a known deck.
Fish is Fish. Merfolk is Merfolk.
The tournament I started is over. You should join the next one.
I may have missed something, but I feel like there's a big difference between sleeving up a card that actually exists and playing with it, and supposing a non-game event interferes with the match. O_o
It's easy to make a ruling based on today that accounts for real and putative situations. Did the player use a word that the game recognizes as an in-game term, without introducing outside factors such as pet deck names and colloquialisms? If so, that is what they meant. If not, they may have been using a slang term, so start indexing those. Heart attacks need not be written into the DCI floor rules to account for this.
It's like when people say "I'll turn my Wild Mongrel pink." Well okay, but you actually have to pick a color that exists. It can matter for several reasons; Mother of Runes is a card after all, and maybe you've discarded down to your last card and now I have to decide whether or not I want you to consider pitching that, too. I know nobody is playing Wild Mongrel these days, but that isn't the point - the point is, the choice matters. Why it matters is unimportant - just that it matters is reason enough to favor explicit terms and non-slang whenever the possibility exists to be that clear.
Ok, so do so. What would be in your deck? What would it look like? Why would it be worth playing? If you guys are so insistent that language regarding Magic need be precise, then be precise. Give a concrete list of a "Fish" deck worth playing at a sanctioned Legacy tournament. Otherwise it's just some abstract boogie monster. There's no use in speculating about the boogie monster if it doesn't exist.
@Tsumi: yeah, OK, it's a stretch. The point was that people typically don't plan contingencies for events with very low probability. Planning for all such events gets crazy out of hand.
Game rules are different. They need to be specific and cover all situations unambiguously. But we're talking about a judge call to resolve a dispute over a communication breakdown. I'm operating under the premise that, although judging is mostly straightfoward resolving rules disputes and doling out penalties for game errors, there is also a "soft skills" conflict resolution component. Maybe they only do that here in Canada because Canadians are nice? But that WOTC article I linked suggests that judges should also care about intent, not just what was said, when resolving disputes.
Does anyone disagree with the article or think WOTC is wrong?
Also, if the issue was so black-and-white Fish=Fish, why would this have been circulated as an e-mail around the Judge circuit? You think the judges would know Fish is a game term... Or maybe there is more to the role of judging than that single fact?
And give me a "Merfolk" deck worth playing at a sanctioned Legacy tournament.
(HOOOOOOOOOOOO sick burn to anyone who plays merfolk)
Seriously though, please, attempt to grasp the fact that "Fish" even as a game term does not absolutely mean Merfolk.
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...archid=1324318
http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=45917.0
http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=40611.0
http://community.wizards.com/comment...omment-5152736
http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/Vintage_Fish_deck
The tournament I started is over. You should join the next one.
No need to. You're suggesting a "what if". If you're convinced it's a valid one to consider, and not just trolling, please either be specific and produce a valid one (FishTribal deck) or admit it's a ridiculous "what if".
"It could happen" is about as plausible an argument as "he could have a heart attack". People play rogue decks. People have heart attacks. So what? It's meaningless without a reason why we should seriously consider someone playing Fish Tribal in particular.
I obviously get that. Those aren't exactly secret decks. But that archetype is not Tribal, so the reference does not make sense with Cavern of Souls. The only tribal Fish-style deck is Merfolk. I'm not saying "Fish" should ABSOLUTELY mean "Merfolk". The whole point is that, sadly, a lot of Magic players use imprecise colloquial language to describe game actions and game terms. They do not always "absolutely mean" what they say; "in response" is a great example of this. People say it to mean one thing when it actually means another thing and judges have to decide how to resolve it. Read the linked article. It advises to consider not just what the words absolutely mean but what was likely intended and advantages gained.Seriously though, please, attempt to grasp the fact that "Fish" even as a game term does not absolutely mean Merfolk.
I am not saying that players SHOULD do that, merely that imprecise language is common practice, that penalties are often not given for it, and that judges sometimes give players the benefit of the doubt when they are imprecise if it does not give either player an unfair advantage. If you don't like imprecision, forget face-to-face Magic and play more MTGO. In person, people use imprecise language.
This is another myth you are continually purporting that is outright false. Why does a deck have to be tribal in order to run Cavern of Souls? Sure, it's the most prominent reason to, but there was a point in time in Standard where Cavern of Souls naming Giant or Beast was one of the most strongest and most popular plays. I would say it's only a matter of time before someone throws a Rock deck together that runs Cavern of Souls either as part of a tutor-box or even as a simple excuse to land a Deathrite Shaman, but that has actually already been happening for quite some time and is also not uncommon in Vintage.
Edit: Fun Fact! Of the 14 decks running Cavern of Souls that are listed on SCG, 1 of them is Merfolk, 3 of them are Goblins, 1 of them is Junk, and 9 of them are Death and Taxes. But, please, by all means, continue to imply that Cavern of Souls requires tribal to be viable.
The tournament I started is over. You should join the next one.
How is this thread still going on? Even the thread on Judgeapps was locked and consensus is the poor bastard named Fish and has learned a valuable lesson. L5 judge Scott Marshall's opinion (not Official) is that the Cavern of Souls is on Fish.
If you're a judge and come across this scenario use your brain and investigate what the players have done in the previous games, just like with any other nonstandard shortcut.
♀
+1. Can has /thread?
sent from phone, don't be a dick
Thank you. This is basically what I was getting at. I was never arguing "Fish=Merfolk" always always always. Ruling always "Fish=Fish" or "Fish=Merfolk" 100% of the time seems like bad judging. Like any communication dispute or nonstandard shortcut, you need to use your brain, evaluate the other information and make a call.
Thanks for updating on what the judge discussion yielded.
+1 on closing thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
