I am trying to figure out what the Philosophy of the IP'G is. A short while ago we had the “use a judge for a bluff” topic where a Level 5 judge was “disappointed” by everyone who wanted to assign a penalty.

This time punishing hard seems to be the right way…. I will get there eventually and understand when an infraction is to be punished hard, while on other occasions “talking to the player” is enough. The latter being no valid option at all in the IPG. So how can something that is not in the IPG be correct, while downgrading is never done.

Why only a caution?
In this question it didn't take time at all… when arriving at the table both players knew what was going on. They both had already figured out that there were only 4 basic land types when AP cast Tribal Flame. The question clearly states that APs action was not intentional. Being Head Judge in this question I had the possibility to do so. It is also a better sign towards the player with the tactical error to pay more attention to the game.
Quote from the IPG:
“No extra time is required for a Caution, as any Caution that takes more than a few moments to resolve should be upgraded to a Warning.” meaning that if something only takes a few moments to clearify a caution is right.

Also: Announcing the “amount of damage” before resolution is no game information. He could also say “I kill your Rhine or Die, Rhino Die…. He did not respond to a specific question of the NAP for example ”how much damage does that tribal flame do". In a competitive Tournament the NAP should have known for himself how much damage tribal flame deals.

Originally posted by Denis Leber:

I am trying to figure out what the Philosophy of the IP'G is. A short while ago we had the “use a judge for a bluff” topic where a Level 5 judge was “disappointed” by everyone who wanted to assign a penalty.

This time punishing hard seems to be the right way…. I will get there eventually and understand when an infraction is to be punished hard, while on other occasions “talking to the player” is enough. The latter being no valid option at all in the IPG. So how can something that is not in the IPG be correct, while downgrading is never done.

Why only a caution?
In this question it didn't take time at all… when arriving at the table both players knew what was going on. They both had already figured out that there were only 4 basic land types when AP cast Tribal Flame. The question clearly states that APs action was not intentional. Being Head Judge in this question I had the possibility to do so. It is also a better sign towards the player with the tactical error to pay more attention to the game.
Quote from the IPG:
“No extra time is required for a Caution, as any Caution that takes more than a few moments to resolve should be upgraded to a Warning.” meaning that if something only takes a few moments to clearify a caution is right.

Also: Announcing the “amount of damage” before resolution is no game information. He could also say “I kill your Rhine or Die, Rhino Die…. He did not respond to a specific question of the NAP for example ”how much damage does that tribal flame do". In a competitive Tournament the NAP should have known for himself how much damage tribal flame deals.

In that case of using a judge to bluff, there isn't an IPG thing that really covers it, But in this case if you believe it is a PCV then you follow that sections penalty (unless it is an extreme case which this isn't).

Edit:

Also remember that a warning doesn't do anything to the player unless they keep making them.

Edited Kyle Connelly (June 27, 2015 06:34:39 AM)

Thank you Kyle. I am learning a lot at the moment and especially from this and the “using a judge”' thread.

Addison would receive a warning for Tournament Error - Communication Policy Violation. There may be a possibility for a backup as well. If I backed up, I would do it to the point where Nat has received priority after Tribal Flames was cast but before Tectonic Edge was activated.

Nat clearly activated Tectonic Edge as it appeared that Siege Rhino would be dealt lethal damage otherwise. With the information that Tribal Flames is only doing 4 damage, he may elect to save Tectonic Edge for later. The reason we would only consider a backup on Tectonic Edge and not Tribal Flames is that Nat was taking action based off incorrect information provided by his opponent.

I'm sure that Addison would like the chance to back up his play as well, but we don't backup misplays unless they violate the rules of the game. Siege Rhino was a legal target for Tribal Flames, even though it was probably not ideal.

EDIT: Trying to get into the habit of posting my answer first and then reading through. I think this is a clear CPV - Addison incorrectly calculated free information. Even though it is free information, if they had not caught it and the Tribal Flames had resolved dealing lethal to the Siege Rhino, that would be a big advantage for Addison.

There's nothing wrong with a warning here. Downgrading the warning to a caution would set precedent that errors like this are acceptable and something that doesn't need to be paid too much attention to. We want players to have a consistent experience between tournaments and the best way to do that is to deviate from the IPG as little as possible. Willingness to better educate the player is not a sufficient reason to deviate.

Edited Rich Marin (June 29, 2015 03:59:33 PM)

Rich: I have the same reasons but different result: we do not rewind tactical errors, that - in my opinion - includes Nats tactical error to sac Tectonic Edge :/

Is it a tactical error, though? Nat only activated Tectonic Edge because he believed Addison's representation of Tribal Flames' damage to be correct. Tactically, that's sound. Even though the actual amount of damage dealt by Tribal Flames is derived information, we shouldn't punish Nat just for presuming Addison's representation to be correct - it's supposed to be.

I am in the CPV Warning with backup camp. My reasoning basically mirrors Rich Marin's.

It is true that Nat “should have been aware of the situation that the active player controlled only 4 basic land types.” However, that does not absolve Addison of her responsibilities. MTR 4.1 states that “Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly.” Addison has misrepresented either the number of basic land types she controls or the characteristics of Tribal Flames while on the stack, both of which are derived information.

Example A in the IPG for CPV is of a player being asked how many cards they have in hand and answering “Three” when he actually had four. The fact that his opponent could have just counted his cards does not absolve him of the error. In the same way, Addison has misrepresented something; the fact that Nat could have figured it out independently does not get Addison out of a warning.

Finally, regarding the backup, the IPG says that “A backup may be considered in cases where a player has clearly acted upon incorrect information provided to them by their opponent.” Again, the fact that Nat would have been better off calculating the value of the Tribal Flames himself is irrelevant. Nat relied on Addison's assertion. The backup seems very straightforward (barring anything not mentioned in the scenario): put the Blood Crypt back in play, put the Tec Edge back in play, untap Tec Edge, untap whatever was used to pay for Tec Edge.

Does A actually have a responsibility to represent what will happen in the future accurately, regardless of whether it's based on derived or free info? The Flames hasn't resolved yet–it hasn't dealt any damage, so “five to your rhino” represents an (inaccurate) representation of what the board state will be after some priority passes, not as it is now.

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

Does A actually have a responsibility to represent what will happen in the future accurately, regardless of whether it's based on derived or free info? The Flames hasn't resolved yet–it hasn't dealt any damage, so “five to your rhino” represents an (inaccurate) representation of what the board state will be after some priority passes, not as it is now.

What would you rule if NAP actually let it resolve and puts his Rhino into the graveyard without further actions?

Originally posted by Markus Bauer:

What would you rule if NAP actually let it resolve and puts his Rhino into the graveyard without further actions?

GRV on the active player for having his Flames deal five damage–but I'd give him long enough to be sure that “5 to your rhino” was a mistake and not a mind-game.

Some thoughts bouncing around my head:

1. I see this as a kind of shortcut - Cast this, have it resolve and let it deal 5 to your Rhino. NAP breaks the shortcut by casting Tectonic Edge.

2. I counter my own thought by thinking we've had this discussion regarding Rakasha Deathdealer - “Attack for 2” does not prevent AP from pumping their Deathdealer. In fact - we even got as far as saying that “Attack for 0” with Noble Hierarch would not imply missing the trigger (the ‘for X’ merely represents the current power of the creature).

3. By saying “5 damage”, NAP is representing something and whatever it is, it's a misrepresentation.

4. This misrepresentation caused (or potentially caused) AP to activate Tectonic Edge.

Overall, I'm ruling CPV and allowing a back up to Tribal Flames on the stack, Tectonic Edge back in play (with associated untaps).

This may have been discussed elsewhere and I missed it; if so, just link me to the right post.

If this is a CPV (which I believe it is), and you choose to rewind the game to the point of the misinformation being given - when do you rewind to? I've seen a lot of posts saying “after the spell was cast”, but I feel like an argument could be made that this error was actually made during the casting of the spell itself, when the player announces the spell (601.2a). If the player was saying “5 to your rhino” as the announcement for the spell, then the point of error would be right there. This would imply that a rewind would rewind through the action of announcing the spell (since it was announced with incorrect information), meaning the spell would not be on the stack after the rewind.

I feel like that's not the right thing to do though. I don't like that A would be able to get their spell back, because I feel like the natural punishment here should be that the spell was cast and resolves. But unless my investigation revealed that the “5 to your rhino” was said after the spell had become cast, I feel like I'd have to use the above logic when rewinding.

Thoughts?

Time to wrap this one up!

As you all can tell, Addison misrepresented how much damage her Tribal Flames would do when she cast it. Addison is therefore guilty of a Communication Policy Violation. Look at a parallel situation: We give a CPV if you say ‘attack you for 3 with my Tarmogoyf’, then realize you accidentally miscounted when no blockers are declared and deal 4 damage. Just like with a tarmogoyf miscount, you also can't give inaccurate information about what a spell will do when it resolves. For her infraction, Addison will receive a warning. As for the fix, CPV does give us the ability to back up, and this is a situation where the gameis in a significantly better place if we back up than if we do not. Since it occurred after the CPV, the Tectonic Edge activation will be undone, and the Blood Crypt returned to the battlefield. Since casting Tribal Flames was legal, that action will stand. Play will resume with Tribal Flames on the stack targeting Siege Rhino, and Nat having priority.

Thanks for the discussion this week, and be sure to check back soon for the next Knowledge Pool scenario.