I agree with the majority, GPE-GRV, warning no upgrade. Opp acted quick enough so no FTMGS.

Reason for no upgrade is it was on the battlefield and the opp could have reminded opp to verify by saying something along the lines of “force away, what it is”.

Note we don't currently need the information needed to verify with the new wording it just says that we had that there was a state where we could have verified it.

this is also supported within the article

When you think about the player actions surrounding the times at which morphs don’t get revealed, who controls the flow of the game? At the end of the game, it’s the loser – they are the one who acknowledges the game ending first: “yep, you got me”. It’s also the same for bouncing a morph – the opponent is initiating the action (there’s a corner where you’re bouncing your own morph, but that’s unusual enough that it’s going to draw everyone’s attention). Since the opponent controls the flow of the game at the time, it seems reasonable to put some burden on them as well. Thus, we’re going to update the appropriate Game Rule Violation paragraph in the IPG to read:

People getting hung up with the at the end of game, I believe it is meant to be treated as one specific case that occurs the most (someone fails to reveal at the end of the game), and not the only time it happens (as most instances in the IPG where they give examples).

edit: opps forgot about additional fix. If I believe it him on which is was (since this is KP I assume this would be the case), I would reveal it else leave it alone.

Edited Kyle Connelly (Dec. 18, 2014 10:43:18 PM)

this is also supported within the article

When you think about the player actions surrounding the times at which morphs don’t get revealed, who controls the flow of the game? At the end of the game, it’s the loser – they are the one who acknowledges the game ending first: “yep, you got me”. It’s also the same for bouncing a morph – the opponent is initiating the action (there’s a corner where you’re bouncing your own morph, but that’s unusual enough that it’s going to draw everyone’s attention). Since the opponent controls the flow of the game at the time, it seems reasonable to put some burden on them as well. Thus, we’re going to update the appropriate Game Rule Violation paragraph in the IPG to read:

People getting hung up with the at the end of game, I believe it is meant to be treated as one specific case that occurs the most (someone fails to reveal at the end of the game), and not the only time it happens (as most instances in the IPG where they give examples).

I agree that the blog post supports this (and the general "failure to reveal a morph is a warning ), but the IPG update leaves something to be desired in the clarity department.

Having read most of the responses, my opinion is thus:
Andy gets GRV. No upgrade. No ftmgs. At the table ask Andy “what was the morph” so that Nat can hear. I think what cards are in the hand are irrelevant (since we're assuming, as usual, no cheating). I'd expect “Nat” to be likely to ask to see it, and would expect 99% of the time Andy would reveal the card from hand without any prompting or demand from me.

The update to morph policy at Competitive now makes it similar to Regular, where we've had to deal with this for awhile. At FNM I have already, on occasion, been attacked for lethal and pointed at an opponents morph and said “I concede, what's that”. This may seem extreme, but players have that capability. Similarly, here, “tap 2 mana, please let me see <points card at morph> that creature prior to returning it to your hand”. (I'm illustrating an extreme version of doing/saying it. Unless Andy is super-duper quick then more likely “force away that, what is it?” is sufficient).

I wouldn't mention this unless Nat seemed upset at the ruling. I'd reiterate that IS a warning, and that Nat has control over this in the future.

I would rule this as a GPE - GRV warning without upgrade. The previous points made that NAP does control the flow of the game when they bounce the morph are correct. Nat had an opportunity to ask his opponent to reveal the morph during the resolution of the spell. I usually would accomplish this with the phrasing “Force Away, targeting your morph, do you have any responses?” This indicates that I have passed priority prior to the spells resolution.

Based upon the assumption that the AP is not cheating after a sufficient investigation, I would instruct the player to reveal the Rattleclaw Mystic. I think that any attempts at deconstructing the game have a high probability of revealing the hidden information that there are multiple morphs in AP's hand. Simply the act of asking specifics about the morph and its time on the board give the NAP information on the contents of the AP hand, specifically that it could be multiple cards in the APs hand. Thus revealing the mystic results in the closest game state without intervention.

Philosophically I view warnings as a method of educating a player when they have committed an infraction. Additionally, they offer us the ability to track history of violations in competitive play. Both players could have been practicing better communication, and at the conclusion of my ruling, I would explain what is expected of each player in this situation, and I would encourage the players to be more explicit about what they are doing and when they are doing it.

I find it interesting that it mentions there was also a Mountain in his hand. If this were the creature bounced, he would still be facing a game loss, but again we are assuming no foul play here.

EDIT: OH, I knew I was missing something. I reread the article, found this:

“If the information was ever in a position where opponents had the opportunity to verify the legality (such as on top of the library, as the only card in hand, or on the battlefield at the end of the game), do not upgrade the penalty and reveal the information if possible.”

“…where opponents had the opportunity to verify the legality (such as on top of the library, as the only card in hand…”

"as the only card in hand…"

So yeh, game loss.

I found the fact that there were two morph creatures here bothersome, and didn't feel comfortable just taking this player's word when his opponent obviously couldn't have any say in the matter.

Edited Sal Cortez (Dec. 19, 2014 09:37:28 AM)

Before reading other responses:

This scenario really digs into the new morph philosophy. A week ago, this is a cut-and-dried Game Loss. Now, on Toby Elliot's blog, the TLDR reads “Effective immediately, failing to reveal your morph is now a Warning.”.

What does the IPG actually say, and what's the philosophy?

The IPG, once updated, will say

An error that an opponent can’t verify the legality of should have its penalty upgraded. These errors involve hidden information, such as misplaying the morph ability or failing to reveal a card to prove that a choice made was a legal one. If the information was ever in a position where opponents had the opportunity to verify the legality (such as on top of the library, as the only card in hand, or on the battlefield at the end of the game), do not upgrade the penalty and reveal the information if possible.

A strict reading of this text potentially excludes the situation. The update adds the example of being on the battlefield at the end of the game as a point where an opponent has an opportunity to verify the legality of an action. Why the end of the game? At the end of the game, a game rule indicates that all face-down cards are revealed. Until the end of a game, an opponent generally can't legally look at a face-down card, but they have an opportunity to do so at the end.

On the other hand, we have a TL;DR of “Failure to Reveal is now a Warning”. There's the philosophy that the player bouncing a creature controls the flow of the game, and has the opportunity to pause their opponent and check the legality.

I think, given the sum of the philosophy behind the new change, an upgraded GRV is not applicable here.

Andy has committed a GPE - GRV, with a Warning. No further fix. This means Nat does not know the identity of the card, nor the number of Morph cards in Andy's hand (except that it's >= 1). I would apply this same non-fix if the hand consisted of Mystic, Mountain, Mountain.

Has Nat committed FtMGS? The scenario is not clear. If Nat called us immediately, then clearly not. If the error is allowed to persist, there's not really any further damage to the game state, so I wouldn't consider the infraction in that case either.


After reading other responses:

I missed the “Reveal the information if possible.”. While it's important for the general case of opponent-verified actions, I don't think it's possible here. I understand ‘if possible’ to mean that it's still in a uniquely identifiable position - still the top card of a library, still the only card in hand, etc. For example, If an opponent doesn't reveal the target of a Mystical Tutor, then draws it into a non-empty hand, that's not an upgrade, but it's also not revealed.

There's still some debate about whether bouncing should also be excluded from upgrade, not just end-of-game procedures. It's worth remembering the other part of the philosophy - A player is almost certainly not going to intentionally play a non-morph card as a morph card, since it's a cheat that's so likely to get caught. It's far more likely that an opponent will allow a player to accidentally break a game rule, in order to grab a free GL - and that's not behavior we want to incentivize.

Yes, this means that players might have to do a certain amount of reminding their opponents how to play.

This case is clearly a GPE-GRV.

According with the IPG, this case is to be upgraded to a game loss, because it does not fall under the exception of “If the information was ever in a position where opponents had the opportunity to verify the legality (such as on top of the library, as the only card in hand, or on the battlefield at the end of the game), do not upgrade the penalty and reveal the information if possible.” Because there's multiple cards in hand, it's not the end of the game or the card is on top of the library, there is no way not to upgrade this GRV.

It seems that quite a few people misinterpret the new wording of the IPG. What is the difference between a face-down creature (or more) being scooped up from the battlefield at the end of the game, or a face-down creature being bounced back into hand? I'd say there's no difference from the opponent's point of view, in both cases he has the opportunity to remind the other player to reveal, so I wouldn't upgrade the penalty. “Such as” is quite important here, the list that comes after it is by no means exhaustive, and as per Toby's comments below the article, the Warning is applied without the upgrade for any failure to reveal morph cards. However personally I would have left out the “at the end of the game” part, it seems to confuse more people than expected.

Subject: Re: Rattleclaw Missed. Ick. - GOLD (Knowledge Pool Scenarios)
From: forum-14759-bc1e@apps.magicjudges.org
To: fejer.istvan@outlook.com
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 11:39:16 +0000

This case is clearly a GPE-GRV.

According with the IPG, this
case is to be upgraded to a game loss, because it does not fall under
the exception of “If the information was ever in a position
where opponents had the opportunity to verify the legality (such as on
top of the library, as the only card in hand, or on the battlefield at
the end of the game), do not upgrade the penalty and reveal the
information if possible.” Because there's multiple cards in
hand, it's not the end of the game or the card is on top of the
library, there is no way not to upgrade this
GRV.

——————————————————————————–
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/95440/

Disable
all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/14759/
Receive
on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/14759/?onsite=yes

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

Edited István Fejér (Dec. 19, 2014 01:14:44 PM)

Warning for GPE - GRV, as per the new rules. The morph was in a position to have been uniquely identified when it should have been revealed, and hence the GRV does not get upgraded to a game loss, as per the new rules.

I am having a hard time with this.

From what I understand from reading the blog post is: Now if the opponent has the opportunity to verify The GPE is no longer considered to involve hidden information (Whether they actually verify or not. Since the losing player is the last one to act in a game they have opportunity to verify face down creatures. So, failing to revel at the end of the game doesn't get upgraded. (A great change IMO).

However I disagree with the blog post when they say the bouncing player has control over the flow of the game.
I believe Andy has control of the flow of the game at the time Force Away resolves. He is the last one to receive priority before it resolves.

So now the penalty here would be a warning without an upgrade because it was “in a position where opponents had the opportunity to verify the legality.” The trouble here is the “reveal the information if possible” clause in the Game Rule Violation section of the IPG. So you have 3 options:

1: Reveal the Rattleclaw Mystic. I don't think this is the best choice. Based on rules such as randomly putting a card on top to reverse a draw, I think there is a principle of not to trust players to be honest about information only they know. Well maybe so much “not to trust” as “don't introduce to opportunity to be dishonest.” However I do think for a lot of people this would be the default and I understand why.

2: Reveal nothing. You could argue that since there are two morphs, precisely revealing the information correctly is impossible. I think this is probably the best solution even though I don't like the fact that Andy gets an advantage by whisking a card back to his hand in a way that Nat can't really prevent. You then have the option to explain to Nat that normally you would reveal the information but you can't because Andy's hand contains another morph, which I think I would do.

3: Reveal both morphs. You could also argue that it is possible to reveal the card that was bounced, but the only way to do that is reveal both morphs. I like that for the most part it prevents Nat from getting an advantage, but it only narrows down the identity of the card, so it could be compared to a “partial fix.” It also has a punitive aspect to it and. So I don't think this is the best option but I do see the argument for it.

As always, thanks to everybody for their responses, insight, and a constructive discussion, Here is the Knowledge Pool team's official answer.

This is a Game Rule Violation, and in this case Nat can't verify that Andy's use of the morph ability was legal. Until recently, this would have resulted in a game loss for Andy. However, there was a point in time when Nat had the opportunity to verify the legality of the play, which was when he cast the spell that bounced the mystic. As such, the penalty is not upgraded. Andy receives a warning for Game Rule Violation. As an additional remedy, we also ask Andy to reveal the Rattleclaw Mystic to Nat.

One thing to note here is that we're choosing to trust Andy about what card in his hand was just returned to it. A few of your responses alluded to a phrase we sometimes use when you stated that the mystic is no longer ‘uniquely identifiable’ now that it's in Andy's hand. While that is true, and we can't know with 100% certainty that the mystic is the correct card, it's okay to trust players in this sort of situation. If you don't believe the player or you get the inkling that he may be deceiving you based on your format knowledge, feel free to investigate. However, the additional remedy for the solution includes a reveal and we'd be remiss if we didn't do that whenever possible.

Thanks for joining us for the last scenario of this year! Our team is going to take a much-deserved break during the weeks of Christmas and New Years, so look back in the first week of January as things get running again!