@john-cox said in Academy Rector:

What I'm wondering is if this falls into the "forgetting" chalice area. He could mean Academy Rector, which is a valid card. My opponent might also name a card like "jace" when theres a Jace, Vryn's Prodigy on the table and then say he meant big jace when I resolve one.
How much of this is me, and how much is them?

If your opponent gives unclear information simply put it needs to be clarified. Just ask him, "Academy? Can you be more specific?" You do not need to give him information like, "Do you mean academy rector?" but you should ask for clarification on which Jace for example if Jace is all he says. Even if there is a jace on the board already.

It's not the same. Playing Brainstorm into Chalice for 1 isn't illegal, it just gets countered by a trigger.

Also, it's not a problem to use shortcuts to name cards for things like Revoker or Meddling Mage, but it must be very clear for both players what card it is. Not clarifying that is a problem for both players - but you can even name "that 4 mana creature with trample that only untaps when you play historic spells" and it is a legal move to Meddling a Traxos.

last edited by fsecco

I agree completely about the clarification.
What if this happens in a tournament setting and several turns have passed? is it different in a setting like an FNM than a PTQ? My understanding is that if this happens at a competitive REL tournament (misnaming jace) both players are penalized.

@john-cox have no idea about how penalties work. Better wait for a judge here. ๐Ÿ˜‰

@fsecco said in Academy Rector:

@john-cox have no idea about how penalties work. Better wait for a judge here. ๐Ÿ˜‰

No need for a judge. The rules and associated documents are incredibly thoroughly written!*

@john-cox said in Academy Rector:

If my opponent names "Academy" (just says "academy") with Phyrexian Revoker. Am I required to tell him that my Tolarian Academy is an invalid target? Does REL matter? How would it be resolved?
I'm curious about keeping track of the game state and enforcement because my opponent could intentionally make play mistakes.

The rules require that you name a card legal in the format when naming a card.

CR 201.3:

If an effect instructs a player to choose a card name, the player must choose the name of a card that is legal in the format of the game the player is playing. (See rule 100.6.) A player may not choose the name of a token unless it's also the name of a card.

Phyrexian Revoker places further limitations on that name.

CR 201.3a:

If a player is instructed to choose a card name with certain characteristics, the player must choose the name of a card whose Oracle text matches those characteristics. (See rule 108.1.)

By naming a card that is not legal, whether it be because the card isn't legal in the format (in this case, does not even exist), the Revoker player has committed a Game Rule Violation**.

IPG 2.5:

This infraction covers the majority of game situations in which a player makes an error or fails to follow a game procedure correctly. It handles violations of the Comprehensive Rules that are not covered by the other Game Play Errors.

The penalty for a Game Rule Violation (GRV) is a warning.

The remedy for a GRV is a simple backup. I won't quote the MTR but the short version here is that the game would go back to when the illegal card was named (in an ideal world, nothing has happened since the illegal name) and then the player would name a legal card.

In the case John asked later in the thread, multiple turns have passed since the illegal name. In this case, a simple backup may not be performed. The IPG lists an alternative fix; simply correct the card name now.

IPG 2.5:

If a player made an illegal choice (including no choice where required) for a static ability generating a continuous effect still on the battlefield, that player makes a legal choice.

Note well that by allowing several turns to have passed, the Revoker's opponent will have earned a penalty (warning) for Failure to Maintain Game State:

IPG 2.6:

A player allows another player in the game to commit a Game Play Error and does not point it out immediately

Additionally, there may be an investigation for cheating as the player may have used this illegal name to dodge Revoker hitting the correct card.

IPG 2.6:

If a judge believes a player is intentionally not pointing out other playersโ€™ illegal actions, either for their own advantage, or in the hope of bringing it up at a more strategically advantageous time, they should consider an Unsporting Conduct โ€” Cheating infraction.

@john-cox said in Academy Rector:

is it different in a setting like an FNM than a PTQ?

FNM is run at Regular REL. Judging at Regular REL is governed by a different document appropriately called Judging at Regular Rules Enforcement Level (REL). This document doesn't really need to be read as long as you understand its philosophy. Regular REL is for learning. We shouldn't penalize people while learning. Therefore, the only way to really get a penalty at Regular is to make repeated rule violations or to get disqualified.

At Regular REL, the judge would have the person who originally named a card with Phyrexian Revoker re-name choosing a legal card and then let the player know to be more careful in the future.

* Though it really helps to know what the documents are called and what information is where. I recommend bookmarking Yawgatog as it has the entire comprehensive rules with all rules hyperlinked. You'll also want to know to search for the Infraction Procedure Guide (IPG), Magic Tournament Rules (MTR), and Judging at Regular REL (JAR). These can usually be quickly found on your phone by Googling "MTG IPG", "MTG MTR", and "MTG JAR", respectively.

* *While I can't find an actual rule for it, it is generally accepted that if what you've said positively identifies a single card, that is acceptable. EG, "Jace 2.0" or "The Jace that has Brainstorm on it" is acceptable while "That utility land from Legends" isn't. This is essentially a shortcut for calling a judge, describing the card, and then being told the English name of the described card. Additionally, slang must be taken into consideration here. When someone says "Academy," they're using a common nickname for Tolarian Academy. Because that does not positively identify a single card, you should be asking for clarification anyway.

@fsecco and @thecravenone are both correct here.

If a player names "Academy" with a Phyrexian Revoker that player has not named a legal Magic card. They MUST clarify at any REL whether at the prompting of their opponent or by calling a judge.
If they name Tolarian Academy - that is not a legal card name for Phyrexian Revoker. If they name Tolarian Academy, they get to rename to a legal card which is any non-land card legal in VIntage.

One thing to make sure of, is to make sure to never let your opponent break a rule.

If you have any follow-up questions, I am a Level 2 judge so just ping me on this thread.

@thecravenone , @infant_no_1 , that is pretty much what I thought.

@infant_no_1 But I CAN say ""that 4 mana creature with trample that only untaps when you play historic spells" for a Meddling Mage, right? Or did this change recently?

EDIT: typo was saying can't when I meant can.

last edited by fsecco

@fsecco I think the issue with naming a card by ability is the number of grizzly bears and gray ogres out there. I have been in situations where there was not an agreed upon pronunciation for a card (Pulmonic Sliver comes to mind), we could agree on how the card worked though.

@fsecco, yes you can describe the card such that it is no longer ambiguous if you don't know or can't remember the name.

MTR 3.6
A card is considered named in game when a player has provided a description (which may include the name or partial name) that could only apply to one card. Any player or judge realizing a description is still ambiguous must seek further clarification.

  • 13
  • 4694