Meddling Mage

[M.Solymossy]

So in the top 8 of the last tournament I was in, my opponent played a Meddling Mage and named "Recall".  Obviously the intent is to name Ancestral recall, but there is actually a card Recall from Legends.  So my question is, does he get intent to name Ancestral Recall, or does he actually name Recall?

[Anusien]

If they named an unambigious, legal card, they're stuck with it.  If there's any confusion you're obligated to try and resolve it: you can't let your opponent just name "Circle of Protection" or "Twister" for example.  But if they screw up, you're allowed to capitalize on it.

[chrissss]

How are the official rulings when it comes to pronouncing cards? What if I were to mispronounce a card ( lets say shichifukujin dragon, because its the hardest name ever) and my opponent would play it ( just hypothetically, I know he won't play it) can he then say "no, because you said; "shishukauina dragon" instead?

Also, If you know the card, and you can completely describe the card does that work? Normally I am ok with cards, but if I reach top 8 and people stand around me I'd forget simple cards like Mystic Remora for example.

I assume you have to name it, describing doesn't count? Someone told me that if you can name the ability and casting cost that is enough, is this true?

[BC]

I assume you have to name it, describing doesn't count? Someone told me that if you can name the ability and casting cost that is enough, is this true?

If you can't remember the name of a card, if you are able to describe it to the point that you have uniquely identified it, then it counts.  For instance, if you couldn't remember the name Ancestral Recall for some reason, you could just say "the blue instant that costs  and says 'Target player draws three cards'".

[Anusien]

When in doubt, call a judge.  If you can uniquely describe it, they can get the card name to match (and then you can see if that's the card you were thinking of).

[Clariax]

How are the official rulings when it comes to pronouncing cards? What if I were to mispronounce a card ( lets say shichifukujin dragon, because its the hardest name ever) and my opponent would play it ( just hypothetically, I know he won't play it) can he then say "no, because you said; "shishukauina dragon" instead?

How you pronounce it doesn't matter.  You must name a magic card which actually exists.  If you were to name "Arcbound Ravanger" or "Elemental Harbringer" your opponent could not then play "Arcbound Ravager" or "Elemental Harbinger" and claim you named something else.  If you are unclear as to what card your opponent is naming due to mispronouncing or similar, you must ask him to clarify.  If you're unable to reach an understanding, call for a judge.

Also, If you know the card, and you can completely describe the card does that work? Normally I am ok with cards, but if I reach top 8 and people stand around me I'd forget simple cards like Mystic Remora for example.

I assume you have to name it, describing doesn't count? Someone told me that if you can name the ability and casting cost that is enough, is this true?

Any time you're required to name a card, you don't need to provide an actual name.  What you must do is uniquely identify the card (name is typically the easiest and most unique single identifier).  As long as your description is as such that there's only one card it could be, and both you and your opponent understand it, it's perfectly acceptable.  Again, if you're unable to reach an understanding, call for a judge.

Also, in formats with limited cardpools (i.e. not vintage or legacy (yes, I know meddling mage is only legal in those, but there are other effects which ask you to name a card)), you only need to uniquely identify from among cards in that format.  For example, naming "1/1 Elf for G that taps to add G to your mana pool" would uniquely identify Llanowar Elves in an extended tournament.  In a Legacy event, however, this would not be sufficient because the description fits Fyndhorn Elves as well.

[Yare]

If they named an unambigious, legal card, they're stuck with it.  If there's any confusion you're obligated to try and resolve it: you can't let your opponent just name "Circle of Protection" or "Twister" for example.  But if they screw up, you're allowed to capitalize on it.

My understanding (from a while ago) was if you named "Thirst" in a Vintage event, obviously intending Thirst for Knowledge rather than Thirst the card, the named card was Thirst for Knowledge. Apparently that is incorrect.

I am asking why the outcome/ruling has changed rather than about the accuracy of the ruling. Alternatively, I may just be incorrectly remembering the past. Any help would be appreciated.

[Apollyon]

There's been a lot of discussion about naming cards, and it crops up every time that a new card requires you to name a card. The answer is that "You need to distinctly name a unique card."

That says nothing about "Naming the English version of the card name." If you want to call Woolly Thoctar "Vice Admiral Fangs-a-lot" and your opponent knows that you refer to Woolly Thoctar, then that's enough.

An interesting implication to consider: If you had previously played Ancestral Recall, calling it "Recall", and you named "Recall" with Meddling Mage, then your opponent will have a tougher time to argue that you named the Legends card. Likewise for Thirst for Knowledge. If they accept that shortcut ("Thirst"), then they most likely know that "Thirst" is ambiguous in this context.

[oneofchaos]

Another question is say your opponent plays meddling mage naming X.  You think about countering it, but decide to let it resolve.  When it comes into play, he decides to name Y.  Is this legal?

[Anusien]

If a player plays a spell or ability and announces choices for it that aren’t normally made until resolution, the player must adhere to those choices unless an opponent responds to it. If an opponent inquires about choices made during resolution, that player is assumed to be passing priority and allowing the spell to resolve.

If you did not respond to Meddling Mage, he's locked into the choice made on announcement.

[chrissss]

If a player plays a spell or ability and announces choices for it that aren’t normally made until resolution, the player must adhere to those choices unless an opponent responds to it. If an opponent inquires about choices made during resolution, that player is assumed to be passing priority and allowing the spell to resolve.

If you did not respond to Meddling Mage, he's locked into the choice made on announcement.

So basically its his own fault for having named the card before? I guess the same applies to Cabal therapy, it's the casters choice to name the card before it can be countered then. This is good, the number of times people said a card and then changed it drove me insane ( I never had  a judge around when this happened, next time I will tell them to go check this forum)

If you play a mage saying FoW, and then say to your opponent ( before he has a chance to do anything) that you made the wrong choice, and that you would name a different card upon resolution, is this allowed?

[Anusien]

There was a rather nasty trick running around that abused this loophole that the shortcut is designed to fix.  You're not supposed to name on announcement but on resolution ayway.

As long as you immediately corrected yourself, I'd probably be fine with letting them change the naming.  But it can't be "Meddling Mage naming Force of Will... (waits for a reaction) wait nevermind."

[oneofchaos]

Well Meddling Mage states when it comes into play, not when it is on the stack.  Wouldn't playing meddling mage and saying card X, have the same strategic effect as lying (bluffing) you had force of will backup by stating, don't even bother countering meddling mage, I have force backup.  You don't have to name a card till it comes into play, so until it resolves, shouldn't you be able to yell out any card name you want?

[Anusien]

That's exactly the loophole that the shortcut closes.  Players took advantage of ambiguity in the Magic works; since we use the same structures of communication (gestures and speech) to communicate and to play the game, it's not always clear when you're just saying stuff and when you're actually making a declaration about the card.  The DCI decided that intentionally sowing ambiguity was a bad idea and closed the hole.