I recently got to talking about the over complicated rules to MTG on another post and it got me to thinking about when the rulings are so goofy that even judges don't understand them. So I am going to post two incidents where a judge made a mistake during a sanction tournament and ask everybody to post your own stories if you have any.

The first one happened back when Doubling Season was printed. A disagreement between a player and a judge on what happens when two Doubling Seasons are in play. This was happening during a sanction standard tournament, the guy had two Doubling Seasons and played a spell that put a token creature into play, he argued that he should get four (the original token, one extra from the first doubling season doubling it, then two more from the second) But the judge argued that he only gets three. He explained that if one Doubling Seasons creates two, then the other one creates four, then the first one would try to create eight, then the second one would try to create sixteen and this would go on for infinity which would result in a automatic draw. Instead the judge explained that both Doubling Seasons try to copy exactly one token coming into play, the first one creating one extra, then the second also creating one extra for a total of three. This is how he ruled and as a result for the rest of the tournament this guy had to play by the judge interpretations which of course were wrong.

The second happen to me personally. I was playing one of my favorite standard decks back when Ravnica block came out. It was Red and Green aggro deck and ran Dryad Sophisticate because of all the non basic lands that were being used during that time. I also ran Blood Moon for the same reason. When I was playing one of my opponents in a sanction tournament I had both in play at the same time, I attacked with my Dryad and my opponent attempted to block, I said that he couldn't block because of her landwalk ability which he said was negated by Blood Moon. I called a judge to the table and he ruled in his favor. Of course the judge was wrong on this one as well but in principle I actually agree with the judge's initial reaction that Dryad Sophisticate shouldn't have been able to keep her landwalk ability, but as it was written in the rules she keeps it and I was able to take advantage of it, at least until this judge made his mistake.

I guess my point here is that some thing need to be kept simple. The reason Dryad Sophisticate still works with a Blood Moon in play is because Blood Moon only changes the land's type and sub type and abilities, it does not change it's super type. I am willing to bet that your average player doesn't even know that their lands have a super type. I'm willing to bet also that if a new player was to have this type of ruling affect his game he would probably be discouraged from wanting to play or at least play in tournaments any more.

I've made a few wrong calls in my time (I know, I know, but just try not to be too shocked). One that I can remember was due to a recent (at the time) rules change that I was unaware of. I was asked if Momentary Blink blinked a token, would the token return to play. The rules as I knew them allowed the token to return to play (state-based actions wouldn't be checked until the Blink and finished resolving and the token was back in play). However, the rules change that I was unaware of stated that a token that had left play could not return, for any reason.

This, I can't agree with. If changing a land's subtype altered its other types, then really, where does it stop? By that rule, any creature that gained the type Construct should automatically be an artifact, since there are no non-artifact Construct creatures. Also, cards like Madblind Mountain would be considered basic, technically allowing any number of them to go into a deck. I like the fact that by and large, Magic is a very literal game and what's stated on the cards is exactly what they do - changing a land's subtype only changes its subtype, nothing else.

I remember when +1/+1 counters and -1/-1 counters used to not cancel each other out. Mathematically they would, but if a creature had a +1/+1 counter and a -1/-1 counter on it, the creature still had two counters on it, then the rules were changed to where they both disappeared and then weird combos started to pop up taking advantage of this rule. I think anytime a player can take advantage of a rule that is buried so deep into the rules that it is listed with decimal points followed by a lower case letter, then this gives the player a unfair advantage of the game. Most players don't know the rules to the extent of that level. MTG should be fun and not feel like a lesson in real estate law or something.

Say what you will, I actually think it's fun getting into the gritty technics and loopholes and finding new and creative ways to exploit them.

And I still don't see how knowing the rules better counts as an "unfair" advantage.

I used to love the Mesmeric Fiend and Astral Slide combo back in the day.

Because your average player cannot quote rule 347.78d (made up numbers to make a point) off the top of his head meaning that your average player won't know that whatever your about to do is legal. It's like if you get a knock on your door one day and a man is standing there telling you that he now owns your house because he took advantage of a loophole somewhere in the system, is it legal? Yes it would be, but is it fair? Take the following dialogue from Star Trek:

Capt. Kirk: The name of the game is called, uh... fizzbin.
Kalo: Fizzbin?
Capt. Kirk: Fizzbin. It's, uh... not too difficult.
Kalo: Uh huh.
Capt. Kirk: Each player gets six cards, except for the dealer, eh, the player on the dealer's right, who eh, gets seven.
Kalo: On the right?
Capt. Kirk: Yes. The second card is turned up, except on Tuesdays.
Kalo: On Tuesday.
Capt. Kirk: Mm-hmm.
[exited]
Capt. Kirk: Oh, look what you got: two jacks. You got a half fizzbin already!
Kalo: Heheh! I need another jack.
Capt. Kirk: No, no. If you got another jack, why, you'd have, eh, a sralk.
Kalo: A sralk?
Capt. Kirk: Yes. You'd be disqualified.
Kalo: Oh.
Capt. Kirk: No, what you need now, is either a king and a deuce, except at night, of course, when you'd need a queen and a four.
Kalo: Except at night.
Capt. Kirk: Right. Oh, look at that. You've got another jack!
[Kalo laughs]
Capt. Kirk: How lucky you are! How wonderful for you. Now, if you didn't get another jack, if you'd gotten a king, why, then, you'd get another card, except when it's dark, when you'd have to give it back.
Kalo: If it were dark on Tuesday.

Get the point yet?

No, I really don't. Knowing the rules of a game isn't an "unfair" advantage at all. It's an advantage, yes. But the player went to the work of learning those rules and finding a way to utilise them. He did the extra homework and is reaping the rewards. That's not unfair at all.

And, again, being able to exploit the rules because you know them better doesn't guarantee a win, at all.

I agree with the dragon. Everyone has access of some sort to the rules so its not unfair. Just like in school the people who studied more tended to have the better grades. That player put in the extra effort and it showed.

Agreed. If WotC wanted to eliminate the extensive rulebook that would be one step closer to a new set coming out with Wizards telling everybody: Alright, here are all the combos you might not have thought about. Oh! and here's the best deck with all the cards we printed. Imagine if every set wizards just came out and said "we've made Jund aggro the best deck and here's what you should play in it..."

All I was trying to say is that the rules are so complicated that even the judges who are in charge of making sure that the game is being played according to those rules can't do it correctly sometimes. I don't think WotC should simplify so much that it would compare to Candyland or anything like that but having a spell that only affects land types and it's sub types but not it's super types, this bit of info should probably be printed on the spell itself rather than buried in a abstruse set of rules. If playing a madness ability exiles the spell as part of the ability maybe the explanation that appears after the madness ability should include this bit of information. But back to my original post about examples of Judges making mistakes I still would like to hear other examples. Another one occurred to me the other day, it was quickly resolved though by protest from another player who was watching us play which caused the judge to reconsider his decision and eventually look it up online.

I had a Marsh Flitter in play and sacrificed one of the goblins to make it a 3/3, later in that same turn my opponent did something (I forget what) to give my Marsh Flitter -2/-2 until the end of turn. I allowed the ability to resolve and followed up by sacrificing another goblin. My opponent said that it didn't change the fact that he played a spell that gave my creature -2/-2 until end of turn emphasizing the UNTIL END OF TURN part. Basically for the rest of my turn no mater what I do to my Marsh Flitter it will always have a -2/-2. I argued that once I sacrificed my goblin it Becomes 3/3 again emphasizing the word BECOMES as though it changes everything about the creature even it's -2/-2 that it has. The judge initially agreed with my opponent but luckily for me another player saw what was happening put in his two cents which caused the judge to look it up online (originally he wasn't going to). I think that perhaps a new rule could be made that if a player disagrees with a judge's decision he can request the judge to look it up but I'm sure people will argue that this is giving the player a opportunity to stall.

Where I live sanctioned stores are far and few between and when the ones that are within your area have judges that make slip ups like this it causes frustration among players, I'm not the only one who has complained about this type of thing happening. It was even such a big deal that at one recent tournament before it began the judge made a announcement that if you don't agree with his decisions then tough luck. If he had to make this announcement then it must of been an issue with him before. I as a player I don't have a lot of options it's not like when I dislike a McDonald's down the street, I just go to another McDonald's in a different direction. If I dislike a sanctioned store I now have to drive anywhere from 15-20 miles to get to the next closest one. This among other reasons is contributing to the decline in interest in competitive play.

ALARM BELLS GO OFF.

The judge made the correct call in that example - your Flitter would have been 1/1 until the end of the turn.

The person watching your game was thinking under the pre-M10 rules when your Flitter would have been 3/3 after this all happened - but among the rules changes with M10 was a change to the layering system that makes effects like Disfigure or Giant Growth apply after effects that set power and toughness.

This happened before the rule change so the correct call was the one eventually made. The judge even looked it up and confirmed it. The flitter was still a brand new card when this happened.

Fair enough then. Just be wary of rule changes like that.

Wow that does suck! I have never played in a tournament so i have never had any issues with judges. I am a very hot headed guy, so if that were to happen to me i probably would've punched the judge out. I guess thats why i dont do tourneys.

Now I have been playing for about 7 months now the only problem. I 've have had with a judge was when he voiced his personal opinton of other players and how new players shouldnt be playing in "his" tournaments and because of this some of his judgments where byaist by his own omisson.

It is extremely irritating when a judge mis-rules. I've encountered my fair share of that. But why is your reaction to say "obviously, the game is too complicated"? I find that most of these mistakes happen when the people unconsciously try to make things more complicated than they actually are. I mean, you said that maybe Blood Moon should say that it doesn't change/add a supertype. By that logic, it should also point out that it doesn't gain you life, damage your opponent, destroy all creatures, etc. It does say that it doesn't add a supertype, because it says exactly what it does - the mistake came from someone trying to assume that it did something that was never on the card. This is the same type of assumption that led people to think that RoE was going to be an artifact block - they build their own associations between things in their minds, and interpret situations based on those fabricated assumptions rather than on what's sitting right in front of them.
The only one of your examples that involves even semi-obscure rules knowledge was the layering issue with the Marsh Flitter. The vast majority of "judge calls" at my local FNMs (I put it in quotation marks because as a Rules Advisor, I'm the highest-ranking rules official there) do NOT involve obscure rules. More often than not, they're questions that can be answered just by reading the card. I've been asked if deathtouch worked while blocking, and whether lifelink still worked if the damage was prevented. If people just gained a basic grasp of what the terms of the game mean ("cast", "activated ability", etc.), and did what was written on the cards without making up their own rules (like Mountain=Basic or colorless=artifact), then 95% of rules questions would disappear. Failure of players to follow clearly printed instructions right in front of their faces is NOT the fault of the rules of the game.

/rant

ok i read everything and i understand a bit more then i would have last year. the flitter would stay a 1/1 due to new m11 rules about(re-read above), but the other about the ?supertype?? is that saying the basic land-mountain where basic is the supertype? i know you can only have 4 cards of any card in a deck except for basic lands and cards that state specifically that you can have more of like the zendikar rats; but you cant have more then 4 of lands without the type "basic"...so is that the supertype?

The supertype is the thing before the type (basically XD).
Stuff that comes before "creature", "land" and all that stuff before the "-". (If you (yes, you, the reader) are confused just ignore this and follow whatever Jiggy sais).

Hey Jiggy, couldn't you sum that up with something like "cards have written exactly what they do and there's no need to add imaginary stuff"? I can't believe I read all that to just agree with you in the end...

My way to solve problems here is to read the cards to the other players. Usually works. The nastier confusions are the ones related to speed and when something resolves.
WotC should create a rule with few numbers and definitly no lower case letters that'd be like "If two or more players can't agree in a certain situation, they should take it outside and solve it there (if the game is being played indoors)". I imagine that if Garruk and Jace were fighting each other and Garruk disagreed with Jace "unsummoning" his beasts, they wouldn't call a judge or check it online to see if it was legal. He'd just beat up the little basterd (can I say something like this in this forum?), but I'm just promoting the flavour thing like WotC wants.

Stuff like "creature" is the card type. The only supertypes that exist are Legendary, Basic, and Snow.



Yeah, basically. There are other judge calls, of course. But a lot of questions boil down to a need to RTFC.

Yes, that, sorry for the confusion (will edit). I guess my example was wrong too. Shapeshifters are not blame...