Firespout and "announcing" colors used

[Angelfire]

Hypothetical situation...

I am playing Merfolk against Countertop.

My opponent has a 4/5 Goyf and a Vendilion Clique. I have 2 Silvergill Adepts and a Coralhelm Commander (level 2) on the battlefield.

My opponent taps a Volcanic Island, a Tropical Island and an Island to cast Firespout. However, they don't announce which colors were used to play the spell. What happens? If I ask them, I feel like this is me coaching them into evaluating the board and making the optimal play (they may have forgotten Coralhelm has flying). Do I call a judge? How will they rule?

[cdr]

If the type of mana they're using matters, they're obviously required to announce what they're using. Just ask them; if you call a judge all that's going to happen is the judge asking them plus maybe a warning.

[majikal]

Just ask him if he's paying red. If he says yes and doesn't specify that he's also paying green, then he didn't pay green.

[cdr]

Just ask him if he's paying red. If he says yes and doesn't specify that he's also paying green, then he didn't pay green.

That's not correct. If he didn't specify what he used his Tropical Island for, you don't know whether he paid green or not.

[majikal]

That's not correct. If he didn't specify what he used his Tropical Island for, you don't know whether he paid green or not.
It's not private information. He has to announce the colors. If he says red but not green, that means just red.

[Julian23]

@cdr: I know you are correct but I hope you at least realize the problem, this ruling creates as outlined in the original post. I always wish there was a fair war to resolve these kind of situations in Magic.

[Rico Suave]

There already is a fair way: it is to ask him whether or not he is paying green mana for it.

[cdr]

It's not private information. He has to announce the colors. If he says red but not green, that means just red.

No, it doesn't. If you ask him if he's paying red and he says yes, that says nothing about whether he's paying green or not. "Are you paying red?" is not a sufficient question - end of discussion. "What colors are you paying?" is ok. "Are you paying red or green?" is ok.

I know you want to benefit from the ambiguity, but neither player can be allowed to let ambiguity exist - you have to clear it up.

[Julian23]

I don't want to profit from ambiguity but from my opponent making a mistake. Asking for the colors gives him the chance to clear up his mistake because it's close to impossible to give actual prove for his initial intent.

[cdr]

Whether or not he's making a misplay, you have to clear up the ambiguity.

[COBBLER]

That Makes Perfect Sence

[Rico Suave]

I don't want to profit from ambiguity but from my opponent making a mistake. Asking for the colors gives him the chance to clear up his mistake because it's close to impossible to give actual prove for his initial intent.

The only mistake is a failure to announce that green is being paid. It is no different than if he plays a Swords to Plowshares and did not announce his target - the resolution to this is simply asking him something he has to announce anyway.

Sure he could Plow his own Goyf, but seriously this is trying to make a play mistake where none exists.

[Julian23]

The only mistake is a failure to announce that green is being paid.

That's a pretty big failure if you ask me because it will very likely have a huge impact on the outcome of the game. I can see that you just have to clear up any ambiguity. What I am saying is that you should never be punished for doing so if you didn't create it in the first place. But right now, there's no way to prevent that.

I'm so dedicated about this because just in my last tournament I was playing with Merfolk against 4c Counterbalance. I had Kira and some Merfolk on the table when my opponent cast Firespout, tapping Island, Volcanic and Tropical without announcing anything. He also did so in game 1 when it was obvious that he would just wrath the ground. This time it was different, so well...I asked him "colors?" and he went like "Green....oh, and yeah, red". My question made him change his intent and there's nothing I could do about it. I still won the match, but I just hated having to ask in that situation...

[Rico Suave]

There is no punishment for clarifying the game state.

Iif you think asking "colors?" in repsonse to a Firespout is coaching, then you would think asking "modes?" in response to a Cryptic Command is also coaching. Both remind the player that there is text on the card beyond what the caster might have originally thought.

This whole thread stinks anyway. A judge will never be able to tell you this, but the world would be a better place if people had some class.

[Julian23]

When there's money on the line, way to many try bending the rules as far as possible.


Both remind the player that there is text on the card beyond what the caster might have originally thought.

In case of Firespout it's not about him forgetting to announce also paying another color but about him willingly not announcing the 2nd color because he made the mistake of wrongly evaluating the board state. The only way to avoid such a kind of disadvantage would be to always call a judge when someone forgets to announce all modes etc. and also hand out penalties (depending on the REL).

[johanessen]

No, it doesn't. If you ask him if he's paying red and he says yes, that says nothing about whether he's paying green or not. "Are you paying red?" is not a sufficient question - end of discussion. "What colors are you paying?" is ok. "Are you paying red or green?" is ok.

I know you want to benefit from the ambiguity, but neither player can be allowed to let ambiguity exist - you have to clear it up.

In case the caster of Firespout has only three lands (a Taiga and two Islands) in play, it's ok if we simply ask "Are you playing red"?

[cdr]

In case the caster of Firespout has only three lands (a Taiga and two Islands) in play, it's ok if we simply ask "Are you playing red"?

If there's no ambiguity about whether he's paying green (because none of the lands tapped can produce green), no need to ask about it.

In your Taiga example, paying red is mutually exclusive with paying green, so "Are you paying red?" is acceptable there too.

[Angelfire]

Well this sparked quite a hot debate. I'm glad to see it.

Anyway, this is how I will handle the situation (should it come up). I will simply put my ground creatures in the graveyard. If he points out that I forgot to put Coralhelm in the Graveyard (without putting his Clique in the Graveyard) I will call a judge. If you don't announce the most optimal play, I assume the most likely play.

[Jacob]

Really, calling a judge would only cause the judge to ask what mana was used.

Of course, we have no control on what happens when a judge isn't called.

[cdr]

Well this sparked quite a hot debate. I'm glad to see it.

Anyway, this is how I will handle the situation (should it come up). I will simply put my ground creatures in the graveyard. If he points out that I forgot to put Coralhelm in the Graveyard (without putting his Clique in the Graveyard) I will call a judge. If you don't announce the most optimal play, I assume the most likely play.

You can't do this. You can't assume anything. You are required to resolve the ambiguity. Deliberately not resolving ambiguity when you know you're required to would be Cheating.

You can call a judge if you like so your opponent gets a warning, but the judge will also just ask your opponent what colors he paid.

[gottfrid]

You just ask him, "so your clique survives then ?"

If he anewers yes, he's toast =).