Cranial Insertion: States-Based Effects

[BJPaskoff]

This thread is for the discussion of my latest article, Cranial Insertion: States-Based Effects. We would be grateful if you would let us know what you think, but please keep your comments on topic.

[Joe Cross]

Very nice article. I love the Cranial Insertion series. It is always the first thing I do when I get to work on Monday, cause work is overrated. I'm pretty excited to see who is going to get picked to write. We've got questions, and you always seem to have the answers.

[DeaditeX]

I love the Blind Guardian reference.

[bateleur]

Stay tuned next week when we give you an exciting choice: Who will be the second new Cranial Inserter?

Wow - it's like Cranial Idol!

Sad that we're losing Urchin, though. Kids these days take their studies way too seriously! In my day...

[MadMageQc]

Nice second CI, BJPaskoff ! You decidedly fit right in.

It took me a little while to notice the pun in the title, but I must say it's a good one, unlike many from the titles of recent mtg.com columns...

Oh and...

there's one to enslave all rings
to find them all in time
and drive them into darkness
forever, they'll be bound...

[Laimbrane]

Two quick things...

First, in regards to the Figure of Destiny/Snakeform question, I want to make sure I have a couple things right. If his or her opponent activates the 2/2 kithkin, and he/she plays snakeform in response, when the FoD's ability resolves it will find it a very snaky non-kithkin and fizzle, correct? Then, after the turn is over it returns to a 2/2, right? But if he/she plays the snakeform and the player responds with the activation, then it will return to a 4/4 at eot, correct? In other words, the only way to make sure that it doesn't become a 4/4 at eot is to snakeform it in response to the activation, while the activation is on the stack?

Secondly, regarding the Cairn Wanderer/Troll Ascetic question - after the ascetic is removed from combat the Wanderer doesn't deal damage to the player since it was blocked, correct?

[MadMageQc]

Originally Posted by Laimbrane

Two quick things...

First, in regards to the Figure of Destiny/Snakeform question, I want to make sure I have a couple things right. If his or her opponent activates the 2/2 kithkin, and he/she plays snakeform in response, when the FoD's ability resolves it will find it a very snaky non-kithkin and fizzle, correct? Then, after the turn is over it returns to a 2/2, right? But if he/she plays the snakeform and the player responds with the activation, then it will return to a 4/4 at eot, correct? In other words, the only way to make sure that it doesn't become a 4/4 at eot is to snakeform it in response to the activation, while the activation is on the stack?

Secondly, regarding the Cairn Wanderer/Troll Ascetic question - after the ascetic is removed from combat the Wanderer doesn't deal damage to the player since it was blocked, correct?

First thing : Correct on all counts, [nitpick]except that the ability doesn't "fizzle" by the usual meaning of the term. Fizzle means being countered on resolution for lack of legal targets. Figure's abilities don't target; they have an "if" clause that will prevent them from doing anything if Figure is not the appropriate creature type when they resolve. They are not countered[/nitpick].

Second thing : Again correct. A creature that's been blocked remains blocked through all of the combat phase, and a blocked creature cannot assign combat damage to the defending player unless an ability like Trample allows it, even if all its blockers are not in combat anymore as the combat damage step begins.

[Horseshoe_Hermit]

"Q: I control a Chalice of the Void set at 0 and a Sphere of Resistance in play. Can I play a Chrome Mox?"

Is "Yes" an acceptable answer to this question, as a judge?

Is "What do you mean?" an acceptable request for clarification, as a judge? (I'd figure yes, if the answer in this article is permissible.)

Is "I'm not sure what you mean." an acceptable reply to this question, as a judge?

[epeeguy]

The only rule or policy that governs a judge's responsibilities (and I'm referring to any person acting as a judge in a tournament) is the following from UTR, Section 15:

Judges have the responsibility to deliver fair, impartial rulings and to assist the Head Judge and other tournament officials in any area that is required to ensure a well-run tournament. Judges must take action to resolve any floor or game rule infraction they notice or that is brought to their attention.

In general, it is interpreted that judges should exercise some care in how they answer questions (so as to avoid coaching the player), as well as to avoid answering questions that are more about what play to make, rather than if the play is legal or not ("rules" vs "play skill"). Ultimately, it is up to an individual judge's discretion and understanding of the situation as to how to answer the question, or whether or not to seek additional clarification.

That being said, this is an answer in an article. The same standard doesn't apply here.

Originally Posted by Horseshoe_Hermit

Is "Yes" an acceptable answer to this question, as a judge?

Is "What do you mean?" an acceptable request for clarification, as a judge? (I'd figure yes, if the answer in this article is permissible.)

Is "I'm not sure what you mean." an acceptable reply to this question, as a judge?

There's nothing inherently wrong with any of the above. The first is obviously the most technically correct answer and addresses the question as it was literally asked, even though it may miss the "intent" of the player asking the question. Then again, the player may just want to know if he can play the card, thinking that Chalice of the Void prevents Chrome Mox from being played at all (like Meddling Mage would), because he wants to Stifle the triggered ability instead. Hence why it's usually a bad idea for judges to answer based on what they perceive to be the "intent" of the player, and answer the question that was asked.

I personally don't see that much difference in the other two questions, but I think both would certainly be helpful for a judge in making sure he or she understands what is being asked, or making sure the question asked was a "rule" question. Even just repeating the question back to the player accomplishes the same thing, and makes certain that is what the player wants to know. That way the appropriate question can be answered, especially if the player isn't exactly sure what to ask. As direct a question as was asked here, it may not be necessary, but it can certainly make sure that is the question the player wants answered.

Ultimately, if the player asked the question "Can I play X spell?", then that's the question that should be answered. To go beyond that, I personally think, introduces the potential of bias and/or favoritism (even the appearance of such) into the situation. Which is bad for judges to do in an actual tournament setting. But in an article? I think the writer is free to answer in any way he or she wants.

[MadMageQc]

Originally Posted by Horseshoe_Hermit

"Q: I control a Chalice of the Void set at 0 and a Sphere of Resistance in play. Can I play a Chrome Mox?"

Is "Yes" an acceptable answer to this question, as a judge?

Is "What do you mean?" an acceptable request for clarification, as a judge? (I'd figure yes, if the answer in this article is permissible.)

Is "I'm not sure what you mean." an acceptable reply to this question, as a judge?

Originally Posted by epeeguy

There's nothing inherently wrong with any of the above. The first is obviously the most technically correct answer and addresses the question as it was literally asked, even though it may miss the "intent" of the player asking the question. Then again, the player may just want to know if he can play the card, thinking that Chalice of the Void prevents Chrome Mox from being played at all (like Meddling Mage would), because he wants to Stifle the triggered ability instead. Hence why it's usually a bad idea for judges to answer based on what they perceive to be the "intent" of the player, and answer the question that was asked.

If the judge answers only "yes" to the question, he should probably stay around to make sure that Chalice of the Void will trigger and try to counter the Chrome Mox, because if he goes away, that "yes" has a very high chance of making the OP and his opponent believe his Chrome Mox will resolve freely because of Sphere of Resistance. Either the game state will become illegal, or his opponent will tell him his Chrome Mox is countered, and the OP will say "but the judge said..." and the judge will most likely be called again. Whether the judge stays to watch the legality of the play or is called again (or even if the OP gives up right away to his opponent's explanation and lets his Chrome Mox gets countered), the OP will probably feel cheated by the judge and see him as a jerk who consciously led him to misplay.

"Yes" is technically a correct and complete answer to the question as it was asked. Whether or not it is ethical is debatable. However, you'll have to agree with me that 1) that answer is ambiguous as to how the players will understand it, and is thus very likely to lead to an illegal game state and 2) you might be indirectly helping the OP's opponent by making the OP misplay. All of that because the OP didn't formulate his question the exact right way using the verb "counter".

I think there is a way to answer this question directly without presuming OP's intent AND without creating those problems, simply by giving more explanation : "Yes, you can play Chrome Mox. Chalice of the Void doesn't prevent any spell from being played. It counters them after they are played". Which may lead to "Ah, ok. But then, will my Chrome Mox will be countered ?", answered by "Yes, because Chalice of the Void looks at the converted mana cost of the spell, which is always zero for Chrome Mox, not what you actually paid to play it".

[epeeguy]

Originally Posted by MadMageQc

If the judge answers only "yes" to the question, he should probably stay around to make sure that Chalice of the Void will trigger and try to counter the Chrome Mox, because if he goes away, that "yes" has a very high chance of making the OP and his opponent believe his Chrome Mox will resolve freely because of Sphere of Resistance.

I wouldn't argue that, and most judges know enough to stay around in such situations.

Originally Posted by MadMageQc

Whether the judge stays to watch the legality of the play or is called again (or even if the OP gives up right away to his opponent's explanation and lets his Chrome Mox gets countered), the OP will propably feel cheated by the judge and see him as jerk who consciously led him to misplay.

Nor would I argue that either. But, again, this has to be balanced against whether bias or favoritism is being shown by the judge in answering the question. While judges should be viewed as a benefit to the players, judges should also be neutral as well. This is especially true, as judges do not have any responsibility to prevent tactically disadvantegous plays. Edit: judges don't have any responsibility to prevent illegal plays either. That does fall to the responsibility of the player as well. Again, the judge should not be trying to divine the intent of the player. He or she should keep in mind the actual question being asked.

Originally Posted by MadMageQc

Whether or not it is ethical is debatable.

As I quoted previously, judges have a responsibility to deliver fair and impartial rulings. Likewise judges should also be seen as a benefit to the players. Regardless, if the player actually asked the question and that's what he wanted to know, then that's the question that needs to be answered. Going beyond that, regardless of "right" or "wrong", can undermine the appearance of being fair and impartial. As I said, ultimately each judge is going to have to exercise some discretion and judgment in how to handle the situation.

Originally Posted by MadMageQc

However, you'll have to agree with me that 1) that answer is ambiguous as to how the players will understand it, and is thus very likely to lead to an illegal game state and 2) you might be indirectly helping the OP's opponent by making the OP misplay. All of that because the OP didn't formulate his question the exact right way using the verb "counter".

At some point, the player needs to have some responsibility for his or her own actions and knowledge of the game. That doesn't mean a judge shouldn't assist the player with the player's questions at all. Far from it. But it does mean that the judge, at some point, needs to realize that where the question goes from being about the rules towards being more about strategy. And it's once the question has gone to far towards strategy, and the answer provided may not be as rules-oriented as desired, that the judge needs to strongly consider how he or she answers the question. It may even be that the judge simply says "I can't answer the question as you asked it, since I think my answer could be construed as giving you advice." I don't like that, but there are questions that, as asked, might not be appropriate to answer at all.

Originally Posted by MadMageQc

I think there is a way to answer this question directly without presuming OP's intent AND without creating those problems, simply by giving more explanation : "Yes, you can play Chrome Mox. Chalice of the Void doesn't prevent any spell from being played. It counters them after they are played". Which may lead to "Ah, ok. But then, will my Chrome Mox will be countered ?", answered by "Yes, because Chalice of the Void looks at the converted mana cost of the spell, which is always zero for Chrome Mox, not what you actually paid to play it".

The argument could be made that providing a more exhaustive answer, beyond what the player actually asked (once that's been clarified), is simply disquising the presention of information that is more strategic in nature. Giving the player more information to make a decision than what was requested can certainly be perceived as being outside advice. Which calls into question the judge being biased or favoring a player. Afterall, the opponent has as much stake in this, even if he or she didn't ask the question.

In this circumstance, perhaps that is the appropriate answer to give, and there is no additional information being presented that would be construed as "strategic". Other situations, that might not be the case. Again, it is something for a judge to weigh right before he or she actually answers the question.

[MadMageQc]

Originally Posted by epeeguy

The argument could be made that providing a more exhaustive answer, beyond what the player actually asked (once that's been clarified), is simply disquising the presention of information that is more strategic in nature. Giving the player more information to make a decision than what was requested can certainly be perceived as being outside advice. Which calls into question the judge being biased or favoring a player. Afterall, the opponent has as much stake in this, even if he or she didn't ask the question.

For a judge wanting to be impartial in the case we are discussing, the problem is that providing a non-exhaustive answer is very likely to give an advantage to the opponent. And a huge one at that : the player losing a card. I think that advantage far outweights the supramarginal strategic advantage the player might get by being pointed out that Chalice counters spells instead of preventing them from being played. It's not just that the answer most likely won't satisfy the player's true concern, it's that the answer leads him to make the worst play in regards to that concern.

Giving an exhaustive answer like the one I suggested will both directly answer the question as it was asked and lead the player to spell out his intent in a second question if applicable and if he wants to. That's why I think it's a better choice than "What do you mean", which is not likely to make the player use the correct "will Chalice of the Void counter..." formulation. There is no advice here, only rules knowledge, and you are being a much better rules teacher by saying why the answer is "yes". Should judges avoid explaining the rules behind a ruling because that knowledge might be applied for strategic advantage afterwards ? A game's strategy is always based on its rules. Therefore, you cannot explain a rule to someone without giving him potential strategic advantage.

I agree with you on the fact that the players should take some amount of responsibility as to what they should know, what they ask to judges and how they ask. I also agree that different situations will lead to different answers, and that judges can't answer to some questions without being partial, thus having to decline to answer. Maybe this was such a case, but I don't think so.

As a rules advisor I will always try to adapt in order to provide the players with the most impartial and fair answer I can manage. For me, that answer is more likely to be "Yes, because..." than just "Yes". It is never gonna be "I guess you mean X, so what you should do is Y", which is what we should really try to avoid.

[epeeguy]

Originally Posted by MadMageQc

For a judge wanting to be impartial in the case we are discussing, the problem is that providing a non-exhaustive answer is very likely to give an advantage to the opponent. And a huge one at that : the player losing a card. I think that advantage far outweights the supramarginal strategic advantage the player might get by being pointed out that Chalice counters spells instead of preventing them from being played.

I would say that by doing this, you are attempting to actively compensate for what you perceive to be an advantage to be gained by either player. That is, you are offering extra information to one player as way of "reducing" any gain the other player may have passively gained as a result of the question. By doing so, the actuality (or even the perception) is that you may not be acting in a fair and impartial manner in the situation by answering in such a way.

Originally Posted by MadMageQc

It's not just that the answer most likely won't satisfy the player's true concern, it's that the answer leads him to make the worst play in regards to that concern.

You are attempting to assert some intent behind what the player wants to do in answering the question, which itself is evaluating the situation in some strategic manner. Ultimately, the judge can answer the question that is asked, and the player uses that information as he or she sees fit to make a decision. Trying to "compensate" for the decision that player may make... I can only caution that this is can appear very inappropriate and questionable, and puts a person at risk of not being fair and impartial (at least in appearance).

Originally Posted by MadMageQc

As a rules advisor I will always try to adapt in order to provide the players with the most impartial and fair answer I can manage. For me, that answer is more likely to be "Yes, because..." than just "Yes". It is never gonna be "I guess you mean X, so what you should do is Y", which is what we should really try to avoid.

Whether one is a rules advisor or a certified judge is irrelevant, it only matters the role that you have in the tournament itself. While it could be argued that a certified judge may be held to a slightly higher standard (due to the policy knowledge required as part of being a certified judge, which isn't required of a rules advisor), the policy per the UTR section I cited above applies regardless.

To be fair, this is a question that's been discussed on a few occassions among the certified judge community. Simply put, there is no easy way to answer questions where there could be a "gain" or "loss" as a result of the question. But, my own personal belief is that by actively trying to compensate, then you are doing a greater disservice to the players than an actual service, and you put yourself in a position where your motives can be questioned, as well as whether you are truly impartial or not. As I said in my very first post, how such questions are answered ultimately is a matter of judgement and discretion on the part of the judge answering the question.

[MadMageQc]

I understand, even tough I don't like it. This only further convinces me I should not become a certified judge... I don't wanna have to answer yes to a question for which I know the answer would be no if only it had been formulated correctly, and ruin a player's day. I knew that disapointing honest people is part of a judge's job, but I didn't think it could go to that extreme. I wonder how often such cases happen... anyway, I still admire you for what you do. Thanks for enlightening me.

[epeeguy]

Originally Posted by MadMageQc

I knew that disapointing honest people is part of a judge's job, but I didn't think it could go to that extreme. I wonder how often such cases happen... anyway, I still admire you for what you do. Thanks for enlightening me.

Truthfully, situations like this don't come up that often, out of the total number of calls a judge generally receives during an event. If this does happen, I'd seek out the player after the match and talk to him or her about the question and try to help the player understand the position I'm in. Part of that is educating the player to understand where the line is between helping answer his or her question, but recognizing where the line is for the judge as well. While I may try to do as much as reasonably possible to assist the player... There are limits.