I had just recently attended a pptq and had a strange ruling that went contrary to what I believed. I would like to know your thoughts andif the judge here, who made the ruling is right.
Situation:
I had 3 cards in my hand and there was a complicated board state and board stall. My opponent has some mana dorks, and an ashiok with 2 dices on it, totalling 8. I did some math, and had I used up all my cards in my hand, I would have only gotten him down to 1, so instead of using them, I passed back the turn. On my opponent's turn. He declared he will ultimate ashiok, and exile my entire hand and graveyard.
My response is, wait, isnt ashiok only at 8 loyalty? He said no, it is at 11. The 8 shown by the dice and the 3 base loyalty.
His argument:
It is similar to favored hoplite having counters put on it and still having its base stats added to find out its true power and toughness
My argument:
I have never seen or heard anything regarding planeswalker having dices on it, but not representing its true loyalty. Also, what would happen if lets say, i hit ashiok down to 1 loyalty remaining? Obviously, there isnt a -2 dice to represent it is at 3 minus 2 loyalty. Also, I referenced doubling season works with planeswalker counters and counters are put onto a planeswalker as it enters battlefield to represent its loyalty.
Judge says:
He has seen this method of representing a planeswalker's loyalty before and is accepted by him. It is up to me to confirm with my opponent regarding its correct loyalty. I then asked if it was possible to rewind back a turn, because I would have played differently had I known ashiok was capable of ultimating the following turn. The judge says no, and that I had passed the turn.
As long as it is easy to determine the board state then it is acceptable way to keep track of it.
That being said it is not unheard of to keep track of loyalty that way (tho i dislike it). Although his method is less popular, because you didn't question it when he started using it then it would seem to him that you know his way of tracking loyalty.
The judge is right and you should be a little more careful, as you could have seen this the turn ashiok came down till his loyalty changes become hard to track.
I probably would have ruled the same. It's both player's responsibility to maintain a clear board state. He had been using this method of tracking loyalty counters for several turns prior to you questioning it. The only grounds for a rewind is if he had committed a Communication Policy Violation, which would require you specifically asking about it and him providing an incorrect answer.
Personally, I REALLY don't like that method of tracking loyalty and I would ask him to change it for the remainder of the tournament.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 2 Magic Judge
Cards do what they say they do. No more. No less.
Based on the rules for Planeswalkers, I would agree with Thorgor's ruling, and in my opinion anyone who knowingly tries to argue that the method your opponent used is ok is clearly in rules violation.
306.5b A planeswalker is treated as if its text box included, “This permanent enters the battlefield with a number of loyalty counters on it equal to its printed loyalty number.” This ability creates a replacement effect (see rule 614.1c).
306.5c The loyalty of a planeswalker on the battlefield is equal to the number of loyalty counters on it.
Unfortunately, you're kind of out of luck, but you really should have noticed this upon the first activation of the PW ability.
In my mind, there was never any doubt that ashiok was not at 8 loyalty, so it never occurred to me that I should double check with my opponent. I assumed, and wrongly so, that the dice represented its true loyalty. To make things more complicated, he had used his plus and minus ability couple of times prior already, so I have not been keeping track. Unfortunately, he was the only judge at the tournament, and I was not able to appeal the judge's decision.
If I was the judge, I would ask how this wasn't noticed before. Did you not notice it when your opponent cast Ashiok and put no counters on it? I know the board state was complicated, but it takes several turns to get 8 extra counters on it. Seems like you had a lot of opportunities to notice that something wasn't right.
And as it's been noted, asking a pertinent question when the outcome of the game depends on it is far from trivial.
All that said, this method of noting counters on planeswalkers is pretty unorthodox and I'd advise against it generally.
I did not notice it the moment it was cast, as that card is incredibly useless versus a hyper aggressive deck. I just ignored it altogether. He also made no mention of how he was representing his loyalty counters.
According to the rules that wizards had laid out, planeswalkers enter the battlefield with counters equal to its base loyalty and even the judge agrees with this point. He mentioned that is how the rules are written, but he can accept the other method, since he has seen it used before. My question is, is this part of the ruling even up to the judge's discretion? As it seems to be against what the official written ruling regarding planeswalker loyalty would suggest.
121.1b The number of loyalty counters on a planeswalker on the battlefield indicates how much loyalty it has. A planeswalker with 0 loyalty is put into its owner’s graveyard as a state-based action. See rule 704.
209.1. Each planeswalker card has a loyalty number printed in its lower right corner. This indicates its loyalty while it's not on the battlefield, and it also indicates that the planeswalker enters the battlefield with that many loyalty counters on it.
As for what I think the judge could have let happen was
A) letting me replay out my last turn and let me use my hand.
B) have ashiok stay as is, at 8 loyalty
I understand the ruling, but don't like it either. Dude seems to be intentionally misrepresenting the board state. Still, it's competiive play so the RTFC argumet could be made: it is one you to know how many counters Ashiok comes in with.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Until you have lived as a statue, do not talk to me of pigeons."
—Karn, silver golem
People frequently tap an attacker and all the attached auras/equipment with it. Technically, those permanents are untapped even if they're displayed incorrectly.
How is that ok? Even if the rules (sadly) don't define a counter as a physical object, they do define a tapped permanent as turned sideways. How can you be allowed to turn a permanent sideways when nothing happening in the game instructs you to do so? Is it still ok if one of the auras is Flowstone Embrace or Second Wind? Is it still ok if the aura is a bestowed card that may become a creature later in the turn?
Are we really allowed to represent the game state in a way that is not immediately clear to our opponent without explaining it to him/her? Is it ok if I represent only half of the counters on a creature? If I add its base power to the number? If I add some random offset just because I feel like it? If I count the counters using base 6 instead of base 10? Am I still accurately representing the game state if I do any of this, or am I being purposefully confusing in the hope to gain an advantage out of it if my opponent fails to question my method?
I agree that the OP should have noticed that something was strange and raised the point the very moment Ashiok entered the battlefield, and I agree that no backup is possible at this point. But is there really no problem at all with the method his opponent used and the way he didn't communicate at all about it?
edit: I realize I may sound vindicative here, but I'm genuinely surprised by this ruling, and a little worried too. If this kind of method is really allowed, I'm afraid it may be used to confuse the opponent into making mistakes or, worse, to facilitate cheating.
I think the difference between attached permanents turning sideways with the creature and the original situation is that there are so few corner cases with attached stuff that taps (you mentioned the only two auras that tap, and both were futureshifted cards which I don't think they'll ever revisit, and so far no Equipment taps itself), while Planeswalker loyalty is endemic to the Planeswalker type. And the way he presented the counters was problematic: After he uses Ashiok's ultimate, how does he show that Ashiok has 1 loyalty counter on it? He can't use the same counter dice to represent that, since that will make his opponent think it has 2 or 5 loyalty. It's confusing, and at higher RELs a judge might just determine that it was intentionally so.
This is a situation where there cannot be a definitive answer as all of it depends on the results of a judges investigation which we can't do several steps removed.
Thread Locked
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Situation:
I had 3 cards in my hand and there was a complicated board state and board stall. My opponent has some mana dorks, and an ashiok with 2 dices on it, totalling 8. I did some math, and had I used up all my cards in my hand, I would have only gotten him down to 1, so instead of using them, I passed back the turn. On my opponent's turn. He declared he will ultimate ashiok, and exile my entire hand and graveyard.
My response is, wait, isnt ashiok only at 8 loyalty? He said no, it is at 11. The 8 shown by the dice and the 3 base loyalty.
His argument:
It is similar to favored hoplite having counters put on it and still having its base stats added to find out its true power and toughness
My argument:
I have never seen or heard anything regarding planeswalker having dices on it, but not representing its true loyalty. Also, what would happen if lets say, i hit ashiok down to 1 loyalty remaining? Obviously, there isnt a -2 dice to represent it is at 3 minus 2 loyalty. Also, I referenced doubling season works with planeswalker counters and counters are put onto a planeswalker as it enters battlefield to represent its loyalty.
Judge says:
He has seen this method of representing a planeswalker's loyalty before and is accepted by him. It is up to me to confirm with my opponent regarding its correct loyalty. I then asked if it was possible to rewind back a turn, because I would have played differently had I known ashiok was capable of ultimating the following turn. The judge says no, and that I had passed the turn.
Is the judge correct?
That being said it is not unheard of to keep track of loyalty that way (tho i dislike it). Although his method is less popular, because you didn't question it when he started using it then it would seem to him that you know his way of tracking loyalty.
The judge is right and you should be a little more careful, as you could have seen this the turn ashiok came down till his loyalty changes become hard to track.
Personally, I REALLY don't like that method of tracking loyalty and I would ask him to change it for the remainder of the tournament.
Cards do what they say they do. No more. No less.
And if you are not aware that there is something wrong about PWcounters you don't ask to make "double sure".
306.5b A planeswalker is treated as if its text box included, “This permanent enters the battlefield with a number of loyalty counters on it equal to its printed loyalty number.” This ability creates a replacement effect (see rule 614.1c).
306.5c The loyalty of a planeswalker on the battlefield is equal to the number of loyalty counters on it.
Unfortunately, you're kind of out of luck, but you really should have noticed this upon the first activation of the PW ability.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
And as it's been noted, asking a pertinent question when the outcome of the game depends on it is far from trivial.
All that said, this method of noting counters on planeswalkers is pretty unorthodox and I'd advise against it generally.
When in doubt, call a judge.
Objectivist here. Hit me up to talk philosophy.
According to the rules that wizards had laid out, planeswalkers enter the battlefield with counters equal to its base loyalty and even the judge agrees with this point. He mentioned that is how the rules are written, but he can accept the other method, since he has seen it used before. My question is, is this part of the ruling even up to the judge's discretion? As it seems to be against what the official written ruling regarding planeswalker loyalty would suggest.
As long as their way for less than makes some sense it is fine.
209.1. Each planeswalker card has a loyalty number printed in its lower right corner. This indicates its loyalty while it's not on the battlefield, and it also indicates that the planeswalker enters the battlefield with that many loyalty counters on it.
As for what I think the judge could have let happen was
A) letting me replay out my last turn and let me use my hand.
B) have ashiok stay as is, at 8 loyalty
—Karn, silver golem
I think the difference between attached permanents turning sideways with the creature and the original situation is that there are so few corner cases with attached stuff that taps (you mentioned the only two auras that tap, and both were futureshifted cards which I don't think they'll ever revisit, and so far no Equipment taps itself), while Planeswalker loyalty is endemic to the Planeswalker type. And the way he presented the counters was problematic: After he uses Ashiok's ultimate, how does he show that Ashiok has 1 loyalty counter on it? He can't use the same counter dice to represent that, since that will make his opponent think it has 2 or 5 loyalty. It's confusing, and at higher RELs a judge might just determine that it was intentionally so.
Thread Locked
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru