I'm a MTGS rules guru and have been a L1 judge for a little while. I'm much more of a comprehensive rules expert than a skilled judge. I have little first-hand experience at Comp REL judging, I only judge at casual events where the atmosphere is pretty laid back and I can explain interactions freely. I've recently started chatting with a guy who judged in my area after getting his lvl 1. We're having an argument about how a judge should answer rules questions asked during a match, depending on REL.
Two examples :
1) A player asks : if I cast Lightning Helix on my opponent's 2/3 Tarmogoyf, as you can see with no Instants in graveyards, will it die or will the instant pump it in time for it to survive?
2) A player asks, with his opponent having a Cryptic Command on the stack : if I sacrifice the creature he's targeting with the bounce part, will he still draw a card?
Depending on REL, can you, as a judge, answer these questions directly, or you can't because that would be giving strategic advice? On Regular REL, can the opponent ask you to not answer so you don't help the player who asked?
My stance is that these questions are clear and precise enough to be answered directly (his stance is they aren't). He even goes as far as to say that he won't answer them at Regular REL if the opponent doesn't want the asking player to get help.
Thanks!
EDIT : For 1), is the answer different if the player doesn't state that he counted the Tarmogoyf's current p/t and just asks if the tarmo will die without implying he knows its current p/t?
I'm a former judge (lapsed), who keeps up to date on rules and policy. Keep in mind that judges' answers aren't necessarily more valid than those of people who aren't judges; what matters is we can quote the rules to back up our answers. When in doubt, ask for such quotes.
I'm not a Magic: The Gathering judge, but I'm a Yu-Gi-Oh! judge and I'd think both are treated very similarly for this kind of issue.
Generally, we cannot answer a question if the player obtaining the answer may change what moves he is going to make in the foreseeable future in the game. The general stance is that most "What happens if I do X" questions cannot be answered unless the player has in fact committed to do X and cannot affect that choice any longer. So you would only answer what's the outcome of question A provided the player has already cast Lightning Helix targeting Goyf and has passed priority and so has his opponent (aka, at Helix's resolution).
You may answer "can I do X" questions or information in general that can be obtained from the card itself (example: "does Lightning Helix target?") but not tell a player the outcome of an action he hasn't performed yet and may perform.
Again, this is from a Yu-Gi-Oh! judge, so I may be wrong. Just my two cents.
If you're not sure of an answer or think you may not be qualified to answer, then please leave the answer to someone else. Spam warning issued. ~ Hendrik
Those are very clear questions with definite yes/no answers. I'd answer them regardless of REL.
Where it gets debatable is when they ask one question but it's clear that they're intending to ask something else. Example:
In your exact situation if the question asked is "Can I Lightning Bolt my opponent's 2/3 Tarmogoyf?" Now, the answer to this is of course yes. However, it's obvious that he's asking if the Bolt will kill Goyf...which the answer is no. My answer to this would depend on REL. At Regular, I'd probably say something like 'well, technically you can....', but make it quite obvious that it's not the question/answer he's looking for. At Comp REL, I'd simply answer that with a yes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 2 Magic Judge
Cards do what they say they do. No more. No less.
I'm not a Magic: The Gathering judge, but I'm a Yu-Gi-Oh! judge and I'd think both are treated very similarly for this kind of issue.
Generally, we cannot answer a question if the player obtaining the answer may change what moves he is going to make in the foreseeable future in the game. The general stance is that most "What happens if I do X" questions cannot be answered unless the player has in fact committed to do X and cannot affect that choice any longer. So you would only answer what's the outcome of question A provided the player has already cast Lightning Helix targeting Goyf and has passed priority and so has his opponent (aka, at Helix's resolution).
You may answer "can I do X" questions or information in general that can be obtained from the card itself (example: "does Lightning Helix target?") but not tell a player the outcome of an action he hasn't performed yet and may perform.
Again, this is from a Yu-Gi-Oh! judge, so I may be wrong. Just my two cents.
I can tell you for sure that the philosophy is different in Magic tournament rules. You can ask rules questions during a match even if the answer could influence decisions, as long as they are pure rules questions and not strategic questions. The difference is "will this happen if I do this" VS "should I do this or that". The philosophy of Yu-Gi-Oh is that you must know the rules beforehand or you can't use rules knowledge to make decisions, while in Magic, you can inquire about rules facts on the spot. The Yu-Gi-Oh philosophy has the advantage of the judges not having to draw the line between rules and strategy, while the Magic philosophy has the advantage of the players not having to know every possibly relevant thing about the very complex rules of the game to be able to play correctly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm a former judge (lapsed), who keeps up to date on rules and policy. Keep in mind that judges' answers aren't necessarily more valid than those of people who aren't judges; what matters is we can quote the rules to back up our answers. When in doubt, ask for such quotes.
It comes down to helping players interpret game state, and explaining rules to them. So the judge should usually say something along the lines of "What part don't you understand?" or "What specifically are you unsure about?" If it ever comes down to something like that, where the player may be trying to get additional information out of those questions, at regular REL.
At competitive, if you ask "Can i bolt his tarmo?" The judge is going to say yes. Then when you do it and it doesn't die, the judge will explain to you why it didn't die, because understanding the rules is a part of the competition.
At lower REL, if they ask "Will his tarmo die if i bolt it?" You can answer freely, because it is considered public knowledge. At higher levels, these questions shouldn't be answered.
Using a Virtual Gamestate is helpful too. If they ask a question, respond by telling them what the card does. Say they have a glorious anthem and a grizzly bears out, and cast a giant growth on it. They ask the judge what the p/t of the GB is, and the judge will say "it is normally a 2/2." If the player says "But i cast a giant growth on it." The judge will say "a grizzly bears under the effect of giant growth is a 5/5." If the player forgets to mention their glorious anthem, and continues as if it is a 5/5 creature, that is the player's fault, not the judges, at competitive REL. At casual though, a judge could probably tell him that his bears were a 6/6.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Whats the big deal about black lotus you ask? Well you see, there is no big deal about it. It IS the big deal.
I am not a judge...mostly for these kinds of topics. However, I personally love the rules of Magic, study the Comprehensive rules and read these rulings forums for fun....
While I appreciate all of the "attitude" and "philosophy" responses of previous posts, I was wondering if anyone would object to the following summary:
Situation 1 at REL:The player recognizes that there is a direct rules question. The previous posts of " you can target it" have nothing to do with what was asked. This is asking about how a spell resolves. I assume you would always answer this at REL. The environment is about learning and having fun. Rules "gotcha's" are not fun.
Situation 2 at REL: Again if you want to be safe, you can slowly explain modal spells and how each of the clauses of Cryptic are independent. If you want don't even mention the cards in questions. Give the most generic information possible and then let the player figure out how the rules apply in their situation.
Situation 1 at COMP: " I can only assist you with understanding the current game state" impersonal, but applicable to the level of competition. They are obviously asking about how things will be if they took an action. It is strategic advice.
Situation 2 at COMP: " I can only help you with the current game state, it appears that the cryptic command is on the stack and you have Priority? What modes were selected?" I would imagine the judge getting a better picture of the game state would occur on such a judge call. Astute players under such scrutiny might then ask about modal spells.I don't know if answering the question about modal is wrong because it is giving strategic advice. BUT if the players at COMP are expected to know the rules of magic, then the Judge can stick to the line of " I can only help you with the current game state. Any illegal action will be reversed until a legal game state is achieved." (now with the judge watching however, you can sac the bounce target and see if your opponent is Supposed to get the card, while making the decision yourself. For many players the insecurity is not in their ability to play the game strategically, but rather that their opponent is cheating in some way.)
The philosophy that players at REL are almost expected to NOT understand all of the rules and players at COMP are expected to know MOST of the rules suggest that The judges responsibilities at higher levels really are making sure the game state is legal, and not much more. Anyone who gets angry about judges explaining rules at REL should be reminded that this is a game. At best it is a hobby at REL. If they want bleeding edge competition, they should go to events labeled as competition. Perhaps it would help ease their mind if they considered ANY REL event like a pre-release, where everyone is figuring out the interactions, and that great amounts of leniency should be given .
In short to the OP: While you may want to be careful about giving direction at REL. You should always be able to take the time so that each player fully understands each card IN PLAY. The opponent CAN NOT STOP JUDGE CALLS. that is a red flag to me that they don't want scrutiny and may try to abuse the lack of rules savy in the player who called for a judge. If the player has a problem with your judging style, ask them to come to you after the match. And in the end if the conflict can not be resolved, suggest more competitive venues. It may prove useful if you have alot of younger/new players in your group to have "Rules tip of the day" before each event where you can go through different scenarios. Thus giving rules advice for these situations without giving strategic advice during a match. I SOOOOOO wish my venue would have done that for BESTOW....oi the pain...
P.S. No, the omission of current knowledge about the p/t of tarmo doesn't change any of these philosophies.
While I appreciate all of the "attitude" and "philosophy" responses of previous posts, I was wondering if anyone would object to the following summary:
The summary is inaccurate. Both those questions posed in the original post are rules questions I would happily answer in the finals of the Pro Tour.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Two examples :
1) A player asks : if I cast Lightning Helix on my opponent's 2/3 Tarmogoyf, as you can see with no Instants in graveyards, will it die or will the instant pump it in time for it to survive?
2) A player asks, with his opponent having a Cryptic Command on the stack : if I sacrifice the creature he's targeting with the bounce part, will he still draw a card?
Depending on REL, can you, as a judge, answer these questions directly, or you can't because that would be giving strategic advice? On Regular REL, can the opponent ask you to not answer so you don't help the player who asked?
My stance is that these questions are clear and precise enough to be answered directly (his stance is they aren't). He even goes as far as to say that he won't answer them at Regular REL if the opponent doesn't want the asking player to get help.
Thanks!
EDIT : For 1), is the answer different if the player doesn't state that he counted the Tarmogoyf's current p/t and just asks if the tarmo will die without implying he knows its current p/t?
Generally, we cannot answer a question if the player obtaining the answer may change what moves he is going to make in the foreseeable future in the game. The general stance is that most "What happens if I do X" questions cannot be answered unless the player has in fact committed to do X and cannot affect that choice any longer. So you would only answer what's the outcome of question A provided the player has already cast Lightning Helix targeting Goyf and has passed priority and so has his opponent (aka, at Helix's resolution).
You may answer "can I do X" questions or information in general that can be obtained from the card itself (example: "does Lightning Helix target?") but not tell a player the outcome of an action he hasn't performed yet and may perform.
Again, this is from a Yu-Gi-Oh! judge, so I may be wrong. Just my two cents.
If you're not sure of an answer or think you may not be qualified to answer, then please leave the answer to someone else. Spam warning issued. ~ Hendrik
Where it gets debatable is when they ask one question but it's clear that they're intending to ask something else. Example:
In your exact situation if the question asked is "Can I Lightning Bolt my opponent's 2/3 Tarmogoyf?" Now, the answer to this is of course yes. However, it's obvious that he's asking if the Bolt will kill Goyf...which the answer is no. My answer to this would depend on REL. At Regular, I'd probably say something like 'well, technically you can....', but make it quite obvious that it's not the question/answer he's looking for. At Comp REL, I'd simply answer that with a yes.
Cards do what they say they do. No more. No less.
https://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=judge/article/20090629a
It comes down to helping players interpret game state, and explaining rules to them. So the judge should usually say something along the lines of "What part don't you understand?" or "What specifically are you unsure about?" If it ever comes down to something like that, where the player may be trying to get additional information out of those questions, at regular REL.
At competitive, if you ask "Can i bolt his tarmo?" The judge is going to say yes. Then when you do it and it doesn't die, the judge will explain to you why it didn't die, because understanding the rules is a part of the competition.
At lower REL, if they ask "Will his tarmo die if i bolt it?" You can answer freely, because it is considered public knowledge. At higher levels, these questions shouldn't be answered.
Using a Virtual Gamestate is helpful too. If they ask a question, respond by telling them what the card does. Say they have a glorious anthem and a grizzly bears out, and cast a giant growth on it. They ask the judge what the p/t of the GB is, and the judge will say "it is normally a 2/2." If the player says "But i cast a giant growth on it." The judge will say "a grizzly bears under the effect of giant growth is a 5/5." If the player forgets to mention their glorious anthem, and continues as if it is a 5/5 creature, that is the player's fault, not the judges, at competitive REL. At casual though, a judge could probably tell him that his bears were a 6/6.
While I appreciate all of the "attitude" and "philosophy" responses of previous posts, I was wondering if anyone would object to the following summary:
Situation 1 at REL:The player recognizes that there is a direct rules question. The previous posts of " you can target it" have nothing to do with what was asked. This is asking about how a spell resolves. I assume you would always answer this at REL. The environment is about learning and having fun. Rules "gotcha's" are not fun.
Situation 2 at REL: Again if you want to be safe, you can slowly explain modal spells and how each of the clauses of Cryptic are independent. If you want don't even mention the cards in questions. Give the most generic information possible and then let the player figure out how the rules apply in their situation.
Situation 1 at COMP: " I can only assist you with understanding the current game state" impersonal, but applicable to the level of competition. They are obviously asking about how things will be if they took an action. It is strategic advice.
Situation 2 at COMP: " I can only help you with the current game state, it appears that the cryptic command is on the stack and you have Priority? What modes were selected?" I would imagine the judge getting a better picture of the game state would occur on such a judge call. Astute players under such scrutiny might then ask about modal spells.I don't know if answering the question about modal is wrong because it is giving strategic advice. BUT if the players at COMP are expected to know the rules of magic, then the Judge can stick to the line of " I can only help you with the current game state. Any illegal action will be reversed until a legal game state is achieved." (now with the judge watching however, you can sac the bounce target and see if your opponent is Supposed to get the card, while making the decision yourself. For many players the insecurity is not in their ability to play the game strategically, but rather that their opponent is cheating in some way.)
The philosophy that players at REL are almost expected to NOT understand all of the rules and players at COMP are expected to know MOST of the rules suggest that The judges responsibilities at higher levels really are making sure the game state is legal, and not much more. Anyone who gets angry about judges explaining rules at REL should be reminded that this is a game. At best it is a hobby at REL. If they want bleeding edge competition, they should go to events labeled as competition. Perhaps it would help ease their mind if they considered ANY REL event like a pre-release, where everyone is figuring out the interactions, and that great amounts of leniency should be given .
In short to the OP: While you may want to be careful about giving direction at REL. You should always be able to take the time so that each player fully understands each card IN PLAY. The opponent CAN NOT STOP JUDGE CALLS. that is a red flag to me that they don't want scrutiny and may try to abuse the lack of rules savy in the player who called for a judge. If the player has a problem with your judging style, ask them to come to you after the match. And in the end if the conflict can not be resolved, suggest more competitive venues. It may prove useful if you have alot of younger/new players in your group to have "Rules tip of the day" before each event where you can go through different scenarios. Thus giving rules advice for these situations without giving strategic advice during a match. I SOOOOOO wish my venue would have done that for BESTOW....oi the pain...
P.S. No, the omission of current knowledge about the p/t of tarmo doesn't change any of these philosophies.
I am sorry, For some reason I had it in my head as "Regular Enforcement level"
The summary is inaccurate. Both those questions posed in the original post are rules questions I would happily answer in the finals of the Pro Tour.