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 (http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/Creature_type), 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]

http://magiccards.info/scans/en/tsts/19.jpg

[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 :1: 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.

[PirateKing]

I can't believe that I am responsible for my opponent's skillful ability to operate the game. By all measures what my opponent means is a mystery to all, I can only judge on what they say. When my opponent says "fish", in what world am I supposed to know he means otherwise? What sort of game is it where I am motivated to correct him?

[Windmill]

It is true - you can misname a card (you say Card A), but if it was clear to the judge that you meant a different card (Card B) then the judge will rule in favour of Card B. You don't even need to know a creature type name, you can describe it in detail and that suffices for official rulings. They do that, to make the game more accessible to everyone. If he says "fish" then explains to the judge that he means Merfolk and everyone calls it fish and he thought that is what it was, he'd probably be warned, but it would pass through. If he said "lion" then no, that would not suffice.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

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 :1: to their pool, it's up to them.


Amazing list... :laugh:

[Angelfire]

I saw someone lose a game to tapping a Batterskull with his Merrow Reejerey and then attacking only to have his fish:P blocked by the Germ >_< There are almost zero scenarios where you would want to tap Batterskull over the Germ, but he clearly said tap the Batterskull which is a legal target. I guess you gotta let stuff like this stand as to not run into problems when the area is more grey.

[Quasim0ff]

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.

Imagine this: It's R1 of a GP. You are sitting down, facing an opponent. He win's the roll, goes first, ponders his hand and keep.

His first line is: Cavern of Souls naming "Fish". You get clarification that "fish" is meant. You have no reason to believe he isn't an avid vintage-player who took his Bant Fish deck with him, compared to an old time legacy player, who played menfolk before Mental Misstep was a thing.

You, as a competitive player, should be explicit in your actions, such that these situations occur. If they two knew each other, and how known each other for years, would they misunderstand each other? Obviously not, due to the fact that they both, most likely, knew which deck he was bringing. You have to be clear, and leave NO chance of misinterpreting. Ahmed did here. That's just too bad. (Consider before there was issued the "new" rule to cavern: You had to explicit name creature type, AS WELL as mentioning you used caverns SECOND ability to cast said creature type, otherwise you could get judge-called on. You have to be explicit, otherwise you leave yourself in this situation.)

[FTW]

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.

The Stoneforge situation is different, because he still could have meant Human (for a later Dark Confidant, Snapcaster Mage, etc.) as Human is a popular creature type among tier Legacy decks and is a legitimate choice. Even if he is casting the Stoneforge Mystic off that mana this turn, it is not clear he meant to make the Stoneforge uncounterable (as opposed to some other creature he might play later).

Nobody plays Fish.tribal. If you see mono-Islands and a Caverns naming Fish, any experienced Legacy player (regardless of whether being anal retentive and refusing to admit it) intuitively knows that the player is referring to Merfolk. Any dispute over the matter is rules lawyering over semantics, but not an expression of actual confusion over intent. Thus, without actual confusion, I would say the 100% rule applies here.

The Human situation is a bit more up to interpretation, therefore "tough luck".

[Lemnear]

The Stoneforge situation is different, because he still could have meant Human (for a later Dark Confidant, Snapcaster Mage, etc.) as Human is a popular creature type among tier Legacy decks and is a legitimate choice. Even if he is casting the Stoneforge Mystic off that mana this turn, it is not clear he meant to make the Stoneforge uncounterable (as opposed to some other creature he might play later).

Nobody plays Fish.tribal. If you see mono-Islands and a Caverns naming Fish, any experienced Legacy player (regardless of whether being anal retentive and refusing to admit it) intuitively knows that the player is referring to Merfolk. Any dispute over the matter is rules lawyering over semantics, but not an expression of actual confusion over intent.

The Human situation is a bit more up to interpretation.

Sorry, but being to stupid to name the creature types in your own decks is nothing your opponent caused, nor see I the requirement to confirm my opponents decision more than once.

It's like casting Cabal Therapy for Spell Pierce and after your opponent reveals spell Snare you Start discussing that you meant the other and want your opponent to discard Snare.

[TsumiBand]

Yeah, there's no way that naming an established creature type when you mean another should be acceptable to rewind, regardless of player's understanding of the game state.

There are certain times where being unable to name something correctly can still result in the correct play. Last time I checked, this was a viable example -- Meddling Mage resolves and the player goes to name their card, but they suddenly draw a blank. They call a judge, and say "omg I'm trying to remember the name of the card, it is a 4/5 flyer with Morph, it's an Angel, and when it deals damage its controller gains that much life…" The judge can correctly state the name of the card and acknowledge that the player named Exalted Angel as part of Meddling Mage's resolution.

In the OP's situation, they are using a real creature type and it doesn't matter if it's a good one or the right one - he named a legit creature type and confirmed it. You can't just use words that have a game-relevant definition! That's why we have different words for all the things! If my opponent names "Fish" I'm not gonna be like "now when you say fish…" This isn't a Google search, there's no "did you mean: merfolk"

[FTW]

Sorry, but being to stupid to name the creature types in your own decks is nothing your opponent caused, nor see I the requirement to confirm my opponents decision more than once.

It's like casting Cabal Therapy for Spell Pierce and after your opponent reveals spell Snare you Start discussing that you meant the other and want your opponent to discard Snare.

Yeah, exactly. Being stupid to the creature type (Stoneforge example) is not the opponent's fault and therefore you should get "tough luck". The creature type is locked in as Human and Stoneforge being a Kor is unaffected. I think we're in agreement on that. If you screw up, too bad.

Same with picking the wrong name on Cabal Therapy, particularly when both cards are commonly played. The guy fucked up. Too bad. But if he said "Liliana of Veil" or "Liliana of the Whale", neither of those are magic cards, but it's pretty clear what the guy meant. I bet any judge would allow that. Maybe the guy just has a lisp/accent/etc.

The "fish" case is not being stupid to the creature type. It's a case of the opposite: the player is so familiar with the format that he is using a shorthand. Shortcuts are acceptable in competitive play and shorthands are acceptable in naming cards as long as there is no reasonable grounds for confusion. Although Magic is a game of a precision, when played in person and not on MTGO we communicate in English (or another language), not code with binary logic. The whole point of having shorthands and shortcuts is to allow people to communicate in language instead of speaking like monotonous anal-retentive robots, particularly when there is clear understanding of what is intended on both sides, or at least a clear interpretation to a judge and the average Legacy player base. This makes the experience of playing the game more pleasant while still requiring attention to details, understanding of the game rules, understanding of the format, skill at Magic, etc.

Example 1: If you name "Bob" with Cabal Therapy, it means Dark Confidant. If the opponent is new and hasn't heard that nickname before, he might be confused, maybe mistake it for "Penumbra Bobcat". But a judge would rule that "Bob" is a long-accepted nickname in MtG and allow it.

Example 2: I believe with meddling mage you're allowed to say "uh... that red enchantment you played last game that costs 3R and lets you put a hasty creature from your hand to the battlefield until end of turn for R" and a Judge will count that as meaning Sneak Attack without punishing the you for forgetting the name.

Until I see someone sleeving up DandanTribal.dec at a major Legacy tournament, given the long history in the magic community, I think "fish" is an acceptable shorthand for "merfolk", despite the conflict with an existing creature type. Even for a Vintage player, hatebear.dec doesn't share a tribal creature type specifically associated with the strategy so it is unlikely a player would make that association when naming a creature type with Cavern of Souls. I mean, a player hypothetically could, but it would be making an unreasonable leap. Whereas "fish"="merfolk" is a pretty reasonable leap for the average Legacy player. Especially if his registered decklist has all creatures of type "Merfolk".

I think the two situations are very different. It's not a case of being stupid to the name or the creature type or missing a trigger or really even an error. It's just colloquial communication, like "bob", and would hope that any judge that doesn't have a stick up his/her rectum would allow it to count.

[PirateKing]

Magic is a code, but it's a code written in plain English. You may need some hand holding to learn the rules, but you shouldn't need any special treatment to follow basic instructions. In game or out. Magic lore or history or nomenclature should have no bearing on card function. Shortcuts exist, but are clearly spelled out in the rules. Find me the one where I can shortcut [CREATURE TYPE] for [CREATURE TYPE]. He named fish, he was questioned on fish, he confirmed fish. If he meant literally anything other than fish, then he has a problem with words, not Magic.

[FTW]

Magic is a code, but it's a code written in plain English.

Magic lore or history or nomenclature should have no bearing on card function.

If he meant literally anything other than fish, then he has a problem with words, not Magic.

If you do a Gatherer search on "Bob", one of the top hits is Penumbra Bobcat. In fact, it is the only hit that has any word that starts with "Bob". Without factoring in Magic lore or history or nomenclature, it is the most logical interpretation. (that, or no existing Magic card at all).

Yet would a judge not accept it as "Dark Confidant"?

[alphastryk]

Magic is a code, but it's a code written in plain English. You may need some hand holding to learn the rules, but you shouldn't need any special treatment to follow basic instructions. In game or out. Magic lore or history or nomenclature should have no bearing on card function. Shortcuts exist, but are clearly spelled out in the rules. Find me the one where I can shortcut [CREATURE TYPE] for [CREATURE TYPE]. He named fish, he was questioned on fish, he confirmed fish. If he meant literally anything other than fish, then he has a problem with words, not Magic.

+1


If you do a Gatherer search on "Bob", one of the top hits is Penumbra Bobcat. In fact, it is the only hit that has any word that starts with "Bob". Without factoring in Magic lore or history or nomenclature, it is the most logical interpretation. (that, or no existing Magic card at all).

Yet would a judge not accept it as "Dark Confidant"?

"Bob" isn't a card and clarification is needed. Can assume nothing.

[FTW]

"Bob" isn't a card and clarification is needed. Can assume nothing.

If clarification is returned as "Bob" which is not a Magic card and you call "Judge!" what would the judge rule here? Would the Therapy just do nothing because it named a card that does not exist?

What about when a player says "I'll 6 you" or "all yours" or "go ahead" or "swing with the team" or "just the Delver" or uses any other euphemism for declaring attackers or ending the turn? Do all those players have problems with words? Even using acceptable shortcuts in the rulebook, you don't need to say "Declare combat phase. Skip to declaring attackers. Declare the Wurmcoil Engine on the left as the sole attacker" or "End My Turn" every time in sanctioned events. Trust me, people don't. Players like to think Magic is played in code, but people use euphemisms and non-specific language all the time, even in competitive events. It's the nature of human language. Judges understand that and apply that all the time, particularly when the language made it 100% clear what was intended.

[TsumiBand]

If you do a Gatherer search on "Bob", one of the top hits is Penumbra Bobcat. In fact, it is the only hit that has any word that starts with "Bob". Without factoring in Magic lore or history or nomenclature, it is the most logical interpretation. (that, or no existing Magic card at all).

Yet would a judge not accept it as "Dark Confidant"?

EDIT: What about when a player says "I'll 6 you" or "all yours" or "go ahead" or "swing with the team" or "just the Delver" or uses any other euphemism for declaring attackers or ending the turn? Do all those players have problems with words? Even using acceptable shortcuts in the rulebook, you don't need to say "Declare combat phase. Skip to declaring attackers. Declare the Wurmcoil Engine on the left as the sole attacker" or "End My Turn" every time in sanctioned events. Trust me, people don't.

There is 'one' Dark Confidant and it is colloquially referred to as 'Bob'. There is no standalone instance of 'Bob' being a cardname in Magic.

Contrary to this, 'Fish' is very much a creature type. Its competitive relevance is besides the question; Cavern of Souls says "Name a creature type". 'Fish' has a meaning in the game. 'Bob' does not.

Let's imagine I'm naming a card with Cabal Therapy, and I say, "I name… oh, fuck, judge!! I'm trying to think of that card, you know, what's it called?! It's a Bear and it Tims things, that's all I can remember right now." Like, what do you even do with that? Search the opponent's decklist for their putative 2/2 that can deal damage to things? There is a minimum of effective communication that has to be established.

Using in-game words is the clincher here, for my part. There's a big difference between 'Bob' and 'Fish'. 'Bob' doesn't exist in the game. 'Fish' is a creature type. Dude said 'Fish'. The ability to let 'Fish' represent multiple creature types when others typically just represent their own ('bear' vs 'Bear' is not really much worse or better than 'counter' versus 'counter', though it is a little unfortunate).

[FTW]

Let's imagine I'm naming a card with Cabal Therapy, and I say, "I name… oh, fuck, judge!! I'm trying to think of that card, you know, what's it called?! It's a Bear and it Tims things, that's all I can remember right now." Like, what do you even do with that? Search the opponent's decklist for their putative 2/2 that can deal damage to things? There is a minimum of effective communication that has to be established.

100% agreed. There's a minimum amount of information that needs to be given to make the reference unambiguous. If you say "that blue spell that costs 1 mana and draws cards", it could easily mean Brainstorm, Ponder, etc.. and that would be insufficient. Because you actually might not know what he meant. That would clearly be an error on the player's part. In the case, the player doesn't remember important details, forgot something, doesn't know the format well enough, is stupid to the card name, etc. But when saying "fish", there is no stupidity. There is no forgetting the creature type, or lack of knowledge of the cards or the format. The mental mechanism behind it is completely different. He does not fail know something important to the game. He's probably just being "cute" and saying "Fish" as an homage when he very well knows that the creature type is "Merfolk" and intends to apply it to "Merfolk". That's the major difference between the scenarios.

You argue that because "Fish" exists as a creature type there is possible ambiguity (unlike with the cardname "Bob" or the creature type "Gobbos"). But if his registered decklist contains all Merfolk and 0 "Fish" creatures and the title of his deck is "Merfolk" then there really is no ambiguity to either player or any judge. Everyone knows what he meant. If everyone knows what he meant, then the language was sufficient to communicate the required game information, just like any of the other game euphemisms.

It's a judgement call on whether the information provided is enough for both players and the judge to know what he meant. In the "2/2" or "blue draw spell" or scenarios, the information given is too vague and insufficient. With "Fish", given his registered decklist is a Merfolk deck, it is not. I would hope some judges would recognize that.

So it boils down to whether a judge should punish a player for being cute when everyone knows what he meant. Or if the judge would decide that simply saying "Fish?" back was not sufficiently asking for confirmation (saying "do you mean the creature type Fish?" would be). For all the player knew, opponent could have meant "Fish?" as casually asking if that's the deck he was playing, not confirming the creature type choice. The request for confirmation is vague... could be interpretated different ways... or could be interpreted as pretty lame attempt to trap the opponent... Both sides are being vague.

[PirateKing]

I don't know what he meant! I only know what he said! Which was, back to back, fish. If his meaning was something else, he should take some time on his own to work on that. Meanwhile, as his opponent, there is no chance I'm letting him produced colored mana for anything other than creature type-Fish. Even if I knew that he might mean something else, what of it? Two players agreeing on something means zero for the game. I want to play Ponder on my opponent's turn. He has no objections. After all, Sorcery and Instant are just words, right? They hold no other game function beyond those set by Mr. Webster, right?

If words don't mean words, then I don't know how to play this game anymore.

[Koby]

If clarification is returned as "Bob" which is not a Magic card and you call "Judge!" what would the judge rule here? Would the Therapy just do nothing because it named a card that does not exist?

What about when a player says "I'll 6 you" or "all yours" or "go ahead" or "swing with the team" or "just the Delver" or uses any other euphemism for declaring attackers or ending the turn? Do all those players have problems with words? Even using acceptable shortcuts in the rulebook, you don't need to say "Declare combat phase. Skip to declaring attackers. Declare the Wurmcoil Engine on the left as the sole attacker" or "End My Turn" every time in sanctioned events. Trust me, people don't. Players like to think Magic is played in code, but people use euphemisms and non-specific language all the time, even in competitive events. It's the nature of human language. Judges understand that and apply that all the time, particularly when the language made it 100% clear what was intended.

The difference between naming "Fish" for Cavern of Souls and naming "Bob" for Cabal Therapy all comes down to GRV.

The former is a legal play.
The latter is NOT a legal play; as no card called "Bob" exists. The corrective action is to issue a GRV warning, then make another legal selection.

Tournament Shortcuts should be clear for their purpose, and NOT made up on the spot.



4.2 Tournament Shortcuts
A tournament shortcut is an action taken by players to skip parts of the technical play sequence without explicitly announcing them. Tournament shortcuts are essential for the smooth play of a game, as they allow players to play in a clear fashion without getting bogged down in the minutia of the rules. Most tournament shortcuts involve skipping one or more priority passes to the mutual understanding of all players; if a player wishes to demonstrate or use a new tournament shortcut entailing any number of priority passes, he or she must be clear where the game state will end up as part of the request.

A player may interrupt a tournament shortcut by explaining how he or she is deviating from it or at which point in the middle he or she wishes to take an action. A player may interrupt their own shortcut in this manner. A player is not allowed to use a previously undeclared tournament shortcut, or to modify an in-use tournament shortcut without announcing the modification, in order to create ambiguity in the game.

A player may not request priority and take no action with it. If a player decides he or she does not wish to do anything, the request is nullified and priority is returned to the player that originally had it.

Certain conventional tournament shortcuts used in Magic are detailed below. If a player wishes to deviate from these, he or she should be explicit about doing so. Note that some of these are exceptions to the policy above in that they do cause non-explicit priority passes.

Emphasis added for relevancy.

Tournament shortcuts work so long as both players have a clear understanding of their use. Anytime there is a dependency, players should slow down, communicate clearly their actions, and allow for priority to pass back and forth. Moving from Main Phase 1 and tapping your creatures and saying "attack for 6" is a shortcut that means: "I'm want to move to my attack phase and attack with these creatures for 6". If the opponent has something to respond, they will stop you as appropriate.

The OP mentions a scenario in which both players agree - "Fish" is named with Caverns. That is a legal, but stupid, play. No Game Rules Violation occurs, and such there is no corrective action to fix the game state. Again, I reiterate, Judging should not be correcting legal missplays in which both plays agree occurred.

[TsumiBand]

100% agreed. There's a minimum amount of information that needs to be given to make the reference unambiguous. If you say "that blue spell that costs 1 mana and draws cards", it could easily mean Brainstorm, Ponder, etc.. and that would be insufficient. Because you actually might not know what he meant. That would clearly be an error on the player's part. In the case, the player doesn't remember important details, forgot something, doesn't know the format well enough, is stupid to the card name, etc. But when saying "fish", there is no stupidity. There is no forgetting the creature type, or lack of knowledge of the cards or the format. The mental mechanism behind it is completely different. He does not fail know something important to the game. He's probably just being "cute" and saying "Fish" as an homage when he very well knows that the creature type is "Merfolk" and intends to apply it to "Merfolk". That's the major difference between the scenarios.

You argue that because "Fish" exists as a creature type there is possible ambiguity (unlike with the cardname "Bob" or the creature type "Gobbos"). But if his registered decklist contains all Merfolk and 0 "Fish" creatures and the title of his deck is "Merfolk" then there really is no ambiguity to either player or any judge. Everyone knows what he meant. If everyone knows what he meant, then the language was sufficient to communicate the required game information, just like any of the other game euphemisms.

It's a judgement call on whether the information provided is enough for both players and the judge to know what he meant. In the "2/2" or "blue draw spell" or scenarios, the information given is too vague and insufficient. With "Fish", given his registered decklist is a Merfolk deck, it is not. I would hope some judges would recognize that.

So it boils down to whether a judge should punish a player for being cute when everyone knows what he meant. Or if the judge would decide that simply saying "Fish?" back was not sufficiently asking for confirmation (saying "do you mean the creature type Fish?" would be). For all the player knew, opponent could have meant "Fish?" as casually asking if that's the deck he was playing, not confirming the creature type choice. The request for confirmation is vague... could be interpretated different ways... or could be interpreted as pretty lame attempt to trap the opponent... Both sides are being vague.

So, I agree sort of, but only because I understand the dialog around the game. See, this puts the responsibility on the listener and not the speaker to 'just know' what's up. What if Player B has been out of the loop for several years? They checked the banned list, updated some jank control list from 200X, registered in a tournament and now they are sitting across from someone who is using a real creature type to reference a different one. To that individual, the game state is being misrepresented, because the 'Fish' land is actually sitting on 'Merfolk', and just nobody told him because, oops, we're Magic players and we love our circumlocution and shortcuts.

I know Fish has been around a while, but if we move from the specific to the general, this is just a case of misrepresentation. Moving back to the specific from that understanding means, IMHO, that it isn't worth the trouble and the Merfolk player should name his creature types like a good player.

I don't want to invoke a slippery slope argument, but I guess I don't like the amount of "I know you know I know" that this can lead to. You can't start allowing for "CLEARLY I meant [blah]" with Cavern and then get pissed when judges have to deal with bad or unclear Meddling Mage/Cabal Therapy calls. "Therapy naming Goyf" *reveals a Lhurgoyf* "Yeah I'll take that." Dude you said 'goyf' "Well DUH I meant Lhurgoyf, you aren't playing any others are you??"

[Quasim0ff]

100% agreed. There's a minimum amount of information that needs to be given to make the reference unambiguous. If you say "that blue spell that costs 1 mana and draws cards", it could easily mean Brainstorm, Ponder, etc.. and that would be insufficient. Because you actually might not know what he meant. That would clearly be an error on the player's part. In the case, the player doesn't remember important details, forgot something, doesn't know the format well enough, is stupid to the card name, etc. But when saying "fish", there is no stupidity. There is no forgetting the creature type, or lack of knowledge of the cards or the format. The mental mechanism behind it is completely different. He does not fail know something important to the game. He's probably just being "cute" and saying "Fish" as an homage when he very well knows that the creature type is "Merfolk" and intends to apply it to "Merfolk". That's the major difference between the scenarios.

You argue that because "Fish" exists as a creature type there is possible ambiguity (unlike with the cardname "Bob" or the creature type "Gobbos"). But if his registered decklist contains all Merfolk and 0 "Fish" creatures and the title of his deck is "Merfolk" then there really is no ambiguity to either player or any judge. Everyone knows what he meant. If everyone knows what he meant, then the language was sufficient to communicate the required game information, just like any of the other game euphemisms.

It's a judgement call on whether the information provided is enough for both players and the judge to know what he meant. In the "2/2" or "blue draw spell" or scenarios, the information given is too vague and insufficient. With "Fish", given his registered decklist is a Merfolk deck, it is not. I would hope some judges would recognize that.

So it boils down to whether a judge should punish a player for being cute when everyone knows what he meant. Or if the judge would decide that simply saying "Fish?" back was not sufficiently asking for confirmation (saying "do you mean the creature type Fish?" would be). For all the player knew, opponent could have meant "Fish?" as casually asking if that's the deck he was playing, not confirming the creature type choice. The request for confirmation is vague... could be interpretated different ways... or could be interpreted as pretty lame attempt to trap the opponent... Both sides are being vague.
Everything you said makes sense from the point that, both players knows what's up.

Image player B, Norbert, has two lands in hand: A wasteland as well as… a fetch-land. He plays daze. He neglects to waste Ahmed land, due to him naming and agreeing that he named fish. Ahmed then proceed to cast some sort of menfolk-creature-type dude, ie. a lard. Norbert dazes, but Ahmed points to his cavern and says "It's on menfolk". How should the judge handle that situation? Ahmed clearly misinformed his opponent. That's hiding public known information, and is most likely a warning. Just because he used shortcuts. If he said "Cavern on fish" "Fish?" "Merfolk, obviously, but they are fish anyway" then everything was clear, and both player A and player B was aware that the cavern was on Merfolk. He didn't, which is his own fault and he should get punished by it, not player B.


Besides: if you name "Bob" with Cabal Therapy, and player B goes "Bob?", you obviously declare "Yeah, Dark Confidant". Be upfront, and these situations won't happen all the time.

[LMental]

I'll be the dissenting voz:

The idea was clear. The dude named fish; everyone here is an adult — that is, a semi-competitive, intelligent player of Magic: The Gathering (are we really adults, in that case?) — and therefore, as these adults are playing legacy, knows what everyone means when they say "Fish." We're not stupid. We're not, as someone pretty lamely pointed out earlier, children. Therefore, we owe it to each other to cut each other some slack (be mature, sí?). What Norbert did was to abuse the niceness of his opponent, who clearly was buddying around, having fun, saying "Fish" because he knew both he, and his opponent, knew what he was talking about. Norbert, obviously, took advantage of that. Look, you can tell me that he didn't know. And if he really didn't know, then it's different. Then I'm totally cool with Ahmed being screwed. But, since we're all players of competitive Legacy here, let's not pretend Norbert didn't know. He shouldn't pretend he didn't know. If you're going to win a game, let it be on the strength of your ability and meta-game choice, not on your ability to be anal and make people feel bad.

My several sense.

[FTW]

@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/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=judge/article/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.

[TsumiBand]

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:



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.”


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!

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.

[FTW]

Ultimately, IMO this is a Good Example of a Bad Shortcut.

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.

[iamajellydonut]

You argue that because "Fish" exists as a creature type there is possible ambiguity (unlike with the cardname "Bob" or the creature type "Gobbos"). But if his registered decklist contains all Merfolk and 0 "Fish" creatures and the title of his deck is "Merfolk" then there really is no ambiguity to either player or any judge. Everyone knows what he meant. If everyone knows what he meant, then the language was sufficient to communicate the required game information, just like any of the other game euphemisms.
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.


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

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.

[TsumiBand]

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.

[alphastryk]

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.

[FTW]

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.

[PirateKing]

In life, but especially in a judge call, if you explain yourself with
I said X but I meant Y.you 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.

[FTW]

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.


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.

[alphastryk]

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
...

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.

[PirateKing]

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.

[iamajellydonut]

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.

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.

[TsumiBand]

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.

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.

[FTW]

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?
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?

[iamajellydonut]

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.

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/search.php?searchid=1324318
http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=45917.0
http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=40611.0
http://community.wizards.com/comment/5152736#comment-5152736
http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/Vintage_Fish_deck

[FTW]

And give me a "Merfolk" deck worth playing at a sanctioned Legacy tournament.

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.


Seriously though, please, attempt to grasp the fact that "Fish" even as a game term does not absolutely mean Merfolk.

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.

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.

[iamajellydonut]

Tribal Tribal Tribal tribal

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.

[barcode]

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.

[TsumiBand]

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

[FTW]

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.

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

[iamajellydonut]

+1 on closing thread
That doesn't work as a disclaimer. You can't just spew out a bunch of nonsense and then try to pass it off as fact by forbidding people to reply.

The same people consistently top 8 for a good reason. They don't make mistakes. If Joel is playing against Elves and casts Cabal Therapy knowing his opponent's hand, does Joel get to clarify upon resolution that "nonono! I meant Elvish Mystic not Llanowar Elves!"? No, of course he doesn't. That's Joel's mistake and he has to deal with it. There's no way a Judge can resolve this in anyone but Joel's opponent's favor just the same as our fish scenario. There are certain times where synonyms just don't cut it, and sometimes people have to learn that the hard way.

[cdr]

Closing is more a matter of not beating a dead horse. I was going to see if Sourcers could avoid that, but: closed.

We have a more or less judge-agreed upon answer; "fish" is fish barring previously established shortcuts. And that's pretty much what FTW/etc were saying.