Im attending to PTKTK, and i have a question just to verify if i'm correct, as is something i'm being asked about, and i would like to have an official answer.

The situation is:

My opponent controls a Morph, and he just won me the game, at the end of the game, i see that he's taking his cards but i don't ask or stop him before he puts his morph together with the rest of the cards. Then i call a judge.

According to 707.09, “At the end of each game, all face-down permanents and spells must be revealed to all players”.
so he's breaking this rule, and in the GRV Definition. “An error that an opponent can’t verify the legality of should have its penalty upgraded. These errors involve misplaying hidden information, such as the morph ability or failing to reveal a card to prove that a choice made was a legal one”

So my opponent is receiving a Game Loss. If a Judge comes, and i say to him, I knew he was taking his cards but i didn't want to call until he definitely took them, I'm receiving any penalty?

My guess is I don't because i call at the first time an infraction was committed.

Also wanted to know. If I won and if I lost. Is the Game Loss being applied in the game where he didn't revealed the card?, This is because if he does after he lost the game, he could potentially take the risk, because he's only a receiving a “Warning” even if it appears as a Game loss in the Tournament record.

“Game Losses are applied to the game in which the offense occurred unless the players have begun a new game or
the tournament is between rounds, in which case the loss is applied to the player’s next game”

Thanks!

I'm not sure if you're looking for an official answer or not, but Scott's usually pretty good at closing threads if he wants to give an official answer, so here goes.

A player is never obligated to predict or prevent his opponent from making an error. Once a player notices an error, he is required to call a judge. In this case, an error is made as soon as the player has shuffled a face down card into his library. I'm not going to try to create any contrived scenario where the player started scooping up his cards but the Morph card is still in a unique position - generally players scoop everything up in a fluid motion. The first time the player can see that his opponent is making an error, it's already too late. It may be sporting to remind your opponent “I concede, and by the way don't forget to reveal those morph cards”, but it isn't mandatory, and suspecting that your opponent will make an error doesn't qualify as Cheating.

As for the second part, I will leave that for perhaps someone more “O”fficial - that's an argument I've seen a few times and I'm not really happy with any solution. I hope that the fabled Policy Perspectives blog will lay down the law for us in a few weeks, because I could interpret the current wording either way, and both solutions seem awkward.

Edited Dan Collins (Sept. 11, 2014 03:17:53 PM)

Originally posted by Sergio García:

Is the Game Loss being applied in the game where he didn't revealed the card?

I'll take a shot here and say yes because failing to reveal a morph to prove legality is an infraction that is still committed during the current game even if it's toward the end of play. I think that this is how it is done because it is logistically possible for a judge to give the game win to the “player that was supposed to lose” if the situation is being handled right away and the players have not started their next game or filled out their slip yet.

Edited Eric Paré (Sept. 11, 2014 02:55:05 PM)

As Dan said, you aren't required to prevent your opponents from making mistakes - you just have to call attention to them right away.

As for the timing of the Game Loss - there is no good answer. This is also an old debate, going back to the first Onslaught of Morph (heh). “unless the players have begun a new game” - the new game hasn't begun until both players keep their opening hand, so - from an overly technical standpoint - you can use that to argue for applying it to the game just completed.

If you apply to the game just completed, then you either take away a win or the penalty has no effect; if you apply it to the next game, and the player doesn't have a next game, then again there's no effect.

But the potential for abuse is significant enough that the Game Loss is appropriate.

Because there's no good solution, our best plan is to be highly proactive as judges - as Kim noted, in her blog, we should remind players before the event starts, and - if not playing in the event - inspect a few face-down cards for legality.

d:^D

Can't that penalty get the same kind of leeway that Unsporting Conduct - Major had back when it was a game loss?

I guess that one still has that kind of leeway:

If the offense occurs at the end of a match, it is acceptable for the judge to apply the penalty to the next match instead.

Is it acceptable to decide whether to apply the penalty to the just completed game or the next game of that player depending on the result of the just finished game? So apply it to the next game if the GL would do nothing in the just completed game (because the player already lost) and apply it to the game in which it happened in every other case.

Seems the best for me because I feel the penalty should influence the game in which it happened but if we give a penalty there should be no way a player says something like ‘Yeah sure, I got a game loss, nothing changes at all for me.’

Expanding on this:

What if I have a lense of clarity (Allows me to look at any morphed dude), and I've used it extensively during the game. Near the end, I look again, then my opponent wins. My opponent then doesn't reveal the card, because I've JUST seen it.

Would we consider a downgrade? The opponent was able to verify the legality of the action.

What about if a player has a lense of clarity, and looks at most but not all of the morphed dudes, trying to “trap” their opponent?

Edited Olivier Jansen (Sept. 11, 2014 11:56:18 PM)

It wouldn't really be a downgrade, as the game loss is due to an upgrade of a GRV for an error “the opponent cannot verify the legality of”. If you can and have verified the legality, I don't see an infraction here





——– Original message ——–
From: Olivier Jansen <forum-12490-156e@apps.magicjudges.org>
Date:09/11/2014 7:53 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: coffman.travis@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Morph, Should I remind to my opponent? (Competitive REL)

Expanding on this:

What if I have a lense of clarity (Allows me to look at any morphed dude), and I've used it extensively during the game. Near the end, I look again, then my opponent wins. My opponent then doesn't reveal the card, because I've JUST seen it.

Would we consider a downgrade? The opponent was able to verify the legality of the action.

——————————————————————————–
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/80341/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/12490/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/12490/?onsite=yes

You can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/

Edited Travis Coffman (Sept. 12, 2014 12:49:11 AM)

Originally posted by Travis Coffman:

It wouldn't really be a downgrade, as the game loss is due to an upgrade of a GRV for an error “the opponent cannot verify the legality of”. If you can and have verified the legality, I don't see an infraction here

There's still a GRV in the failing to reveal at the end of a game, which is still required. Instead of using the word “downgrade” perhaps I should have said “don't upgrade”

Or would you consider it such a minor infraction at that point as to only give a caution?

Has it been considered to change the language from “unless a new game has begun” to “unless the current game has ended”? That seems to help fix this scenario, as the infraction occurs after the result of the game has been determined.

I suppose that leads to some funny stuff in the GPE/TE distinction.

Maybe this is something to work in and add on the policy changes for KTK, as i see this as a common scenario on the next GPs-PTQs and i see a consistency problem in here.

Locking this thread for now, and if/when policy has a definitive answer, I'll update.

d:^D

Edited: this official answer was changed, significantly, further along in this same thread.

OK, after conferring with at least half of the L4s & L5s, we seem to agree: apply this in such a way that it's really a penalty. If the offending player won the game, apply the Game Loss to that game; if they lost, apply it to their next game. Yes, they might drop or be eliminated at this point, but otherwise it's a real Game Loss.

There's some similar philosophy already, re: Unsporting Conduct: “If the offense occurs at the end of a match, it is acceptable for the judge to apply the penalty to the next match instead.”

In both cases, the concept is that a player shouldn't think “oh, well, I'm about to lose anyway, so I might as well…” - granted, that thought process is most likely going to lead to Cheating; all the same, we can discourage it.

d:^D

Edited Scott Marshall (Oct. 11, 2014 04:29:22 AM)

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

If the offending player won the game, apply the Game Loss to that game; if they lost, apply it to their next game

Just to make sure I'm getting this right: If a player fails to reveal a morphcard AFTER a game he won, we apply the gameloss retroactively* and make him have lost that game after which he failed to reveal?

*Lethal damage has been dealt, Statebased actions have been checked, the game would be over.

In other words, if I say ‘I concede’ and my opponent scoops up his cards including a morph, I will have won a game I have conceded?

I believe the loser shouldn't think
“Oh, well, I'm about to lose anyway, so I might scoop quickly to make the opponent forget revealing the morphs.”

So, in the Philip's situation, the winner shouldn't be penalized I think.