<\/p><\/div>Communicating with non-English Speakers<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n There are many things that make Japan special. One of them is the unique challenge it brings when you do not share either a common language or even alphabet. I was about to expand a little bit on this topic but it turns out QJ Wong<\/a> <\/p>\n <\/p>\n A Rules Question<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Avacyn Archangel and Dragonlord Silumgar<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Avacyn\u2019s ability will trigger. Indeed:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Should you intervene?<\/strong><\/p>\n Warning: To better appreciate this situation, you need to keep in mind that AP and NAP do not share a common language and they therefore do not communicate verbally. <\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Situation<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n AP controls five lands and casts Archangel Avacyn<\/a> in Main Phase 1, then declares Lambholt Pacifist<\/a> and Sylvan Advocate<\/a> as attackers.<\/p>\n NAP looks confused and points at the Pacifist. AP looks at his Pacifist, realizes it hasn\u2019t been transformed, apologizes and untaps it.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n The ruling<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Then, another question arises: Should the judge intervene?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n First, AP\u2019s reaction certainly implies that he believes NAP is saying that the Pacifist is an illegal attacker. From an outside perspective, since I was watching the game at that moment, this is also what it seemed to be. Finally, Jeff Morrow<\/a> <\/p>\n The answer to the second question derives from the first conclusion: If NAP points out that the creature can\u2019t attack, this is a wrong statement. NAP cannot state this since he\u2019d be misrepresenting a derived information incorrectly, which falls under Communication Procedure Violation.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Therefore, if a player makes a wrong statement, unless it is about hidden information or a future game state, you need to step in to correct it. Be careful to not intervene if the statement is true but incomplete, since this is legal. <\/p>\n There has been little investigation for Cheating since, when we reminded NAP of the presence of Avacyn, which had been put slightly aside of the other creatures, NAP\u2019s body language let us feel about an honest mistake.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Would you backup?<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n The situation<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n AP casts a Thraben Inspector<\/a>, sacrifices the clue to draw a card, thinks for a while, simulating attacks and blocks since both players respectively control nine and seven creatures. After some time, he declares his nine humans<\/em> attacking, including the newly cast Inspector.<\/p>\n NAP thinks for a bit and casts Archangel Avacyn before blockers. AP casts Ojutai’s Command<\/a>, countering Avacyn and bringing back Thalia’s Lieutenant<\/a>.<\/p>\n While AP is putting one +1\/+1 counter on all his creatures, NAP realizes the Investigator was cast this turn and could not attack.<\/p>\n There is definitely a Game Rule Violation. But the interesting part is: Would you backup?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Looking at the IPG, this situation is not covered in the list of allowed partial fixes. Therefore, you either need to leave the situation as it is, namely allowing that summoning sick Investigator to keep attacking, or to backup to declaring attackers.<\/p>\n The default solution being to leave the situation as it is, let\u2019s evaluate how safe backing up the situation is.<\/p>\n AP needs to declare a new legal set of attackers.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n The ruling<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n NAP has revealed he has Archangel Avacyn, which AP did not know. AP has revealed he has Ojutai\u2019s Command and the full extent of what it implies.<\/p>\n By backing up here, it\u2019s not unreasonable to see NAP not casting Avacyn Archangel so that AP would need to cast Ojutai\u2019s Command first if he wants to pump his creatures. Knowledge of the Command\/Lieutenant interaction is also a strong hint for NAP to declare blockers in a way that takes it into account.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n It is true that AP is the one committing the infraction here and leaving the situation as is can indeed be perceived as giving AP an undue advantage. However, NAP also had plenty of time to realize.<\/p>\n Backing is really unsafe here. Two contextually game-decisive spells have been revealed and putting them back to their owner\u2019s hand can radically modify the game.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n<\/span><\/span> wrote an extensive article which I can\u2019t recommend enough!<\/p>\n
<\/p>AP controls a Dragonlord Silumgar<\/a> which took control of NAP\u2019s Archangel Avacyn<\/a>. NAP casts a removal spell on Silumgar, which dies. What happens?<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>That\u2019s a tough call. Because of the non-verbal communication, the judge first needs to make assumptions as to what NAP meant: Does he imply that Pacifist is an illegal attacker? Does he imply something else (which would need to be determined)?<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/span> also turned to me to say \u201cWait, what is he doing?\u201d. All these elements converge to a unique conclusion: The message NAP conveys is \u201cPacifist can\u2019t attack\u201d<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>AP is at 10. NAP is at 18.<\/p>\n
<\/p>The reasoning<\/em><\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>As I state regularly in this blog<\/a>, a good backup leaves the game very close to what you would have achieved by partial fixing it. Here, this is not the case at all.<\/p>\n