Coaching?
from UDE's Player Management Forums
from UDE's Player Management Forums
Instead of necrothreading this thread, I figure I'll start a new one. I am judging my first 'big' tournament (WoW Nats) in a month. Up until now I've judged 1 regional and a whole bunch of weekly tourny's, where the environment was much more friendly. To make sure I don't mess anything up, I want make sure I completely understand what is and is not coaching. To better describe my question, I pose you with a group of situations:
1) Player A plays 'Chain Lightning', targeting Player B's 'Searing Totem' for the initial damage, Player B's 'Jeleane Nightbreeze' with the 2nd, and Player B's 'Apprentice Teep' for the 3rd. Player B does not believe this is legal (due to the untargetable nature of the 2nd and 3rd targets) and calls a judge. What exactly would you say?
For me, I would say "Chain Lightning only requires a target for the initial damage. The other 2 damages don't require a 'target', just that the player 'chooses' the 2 allies, which is different."
Would that be coaching? I don't believe so.
2) Player A is unsure whether or not 'Chain Lightning' will be able to hit an untargetable ally, and calls over a judge. He says "Will this (indicating Chain Lightning, in his hand) be able to hit that (indicating the untargetable ally)?"
Would you apologize and say that you can only make judgements on cards in public view? Or would you try to answer the question vaguely enough that the opponent can't 'figure out' the card, saying something about targets?
What if the opponent off-handedly said 'What, Chain Lightning'? and Player A said 'Yes, it is'. Does that change your answer, now that it is public knowledge that the card in question is 'Chain Lightning'?
3) Almost the same as situation #2, but instead of indicating an untargetable ally in play, Player A indicates a totem instead of an untargetable ally in play.
I just want to make sure I don't coach the players too far, but I still want to be as helpful as possible. thanks for any/all help! I would enjoy specific replies to my examples, as well as some general tips on how to make sure you are not coaching players.
Click here to view the full discussion Then feel free to return to discuss the subject here.1) Player A plays 'Chain Lightning', targeting Player B's 'Searing Totem' for the initial damage, Player B's 'Jeleane Nightbreeze' with the 2nd, and Player B's 'Apprentice Teep' for the 3rd. Player B does not believe this is legal (due to the untargetable nature of the 2nd and 3rd targets) and calls a judge. What exactly would you say?
For me, I would say "Chain Lightning only requires a target for the initial damage. The other 2 damages don't require a 'target', just that the player 'chooses' the 2 allies, which is different."
Would that be coaching? I don't believe so.
2) Player A is unsure whether or not 'Chain Lightning' will be able to hit an untargetable ally, and calls over a judge. He says "Will this (indicating Chain Lightning, in his hand) be able to hit that (indicating the untargetable ally)?"
Would you apologize and say that you can only make judgements on cards in public view? Or would you try to answer the question vaguely enough that the opponent can't 'figure out' the card, saying something about targets?
What if the opponent off-handedly said 'What, Chain Lightning'? and Player A said 'Yes, it is'. Does that change your answer, now that it is public knowledge that the card in question is 'Chain Lightning'?
3) Almost the same as situation #2, but instead of indicating an untargetable ally in play, Player A indicates a totem instead of an untargetable ally in play.
I just want to make sure I don't coach the players too far, but I still want to be as helpful as possible. thanks for any/all help! I would enjoy specific replies to my examples, as well as some general tips on how to make sure you are not coaching players.