Ran into a situation over the weekend looked like this.

AP: Serum Visions
NAP: Condescend your visions, X=4
AP: Spell Queller, exile Condescend.
NAP: Okay, not further effects.
AP: Who is now empty handed, resolves serum visions, drawing a card, and scrying two cards to the bottom.

Spectator: That queller couldnt target the condescend since it was CMC 5, Judge!

I made the call to backup the play. Now the first time there was an illegal game state is when Spell Quellers ETB targeted NAP's condescend and NOT AP's serum visions (the only legal target). Would you have backed up to the point where the Spell Queller was in the hand, or to when the ETB was on the stack?

Hi Jarret!

I think we have here a real problem becouse when AP resolve Visions, he got a lot of information. But here i prefer do a back up, becouse AP now have 1 card and he put 2 card to the bottom, but it dont make any difference in the line of game.

So the definition say "To perform a backup, each individual action since the point of the error is reversed, starting with the most recent ones and working backwards. Every action must be reversed; no parts of the sequence should be omitted or reordered."

What is the first mistake?…AP ilegal Played a Spell Queller or Spell Queller trigger hability choosing an ilegal target?

AP can played SQ, becouse its has flash, so its a legal play. (if it would have been a mistake, you can BU to the hand)

The first mistake here is the ilegal target of the trigger, so we can BU until AP put the trigger on the stack, then he need to choose a legal targget. (Put 2 card of the bottom on top in any order and the only 1 card in hand back to the top, resolved trigger and exile vision)

Cya!

Diger. :D

Edited Diego Antonio Hernández Meruane (Nov. 28, 2016 01:55:40 PM)

Originally posted by Jarrett Boutilier:

Ran into a situation over the weekend looked like this.

AP: Serum Visions
NAP: Condescend your visions, X=4
AP: Spell Queller, exile Condescend.
NAP: Okay, not further effects.
AP: Who is now empty handed, resolves serum visions, drawing a card, and scrying two cards to the bottom.

Spectator: That queller couldnt target the condescend since it was CMC 5, Judge!

I made the call to backup the play. Now the first time there was an illegal game state is when Spell Quellers ETB targeted NAP's condescend and NOT AP's serum visions (the only legal target). Would you have backed up to the point where the Spell Queller was in the hand, or to when the ETB was on the stack?

Where is the first point that the game has gone wrong? I'd argue with the targetting. Sure, AP may not have intended to target his own serum visions, but casting that spell queller was completely legal. Also, the card drawn could have been a different counter spell for condescend. In backing up here I'd assume we are moving the scryed cards to the top of the library in a random order, then returning a card at random from the hand to the top of library, so we have a good chance with returning spell queller to hand that the run of play may change significantly.

Spell queller on the field, trigger targetting serum visions is where I would leave it.

Originally posted by Guy Baldwin:

Spell queller on the field, trigger targetting serum visions is where I would leave it.

Is this consistent with how we've ruled in the past with things like oblivion ring trying to target a creature with hexproof or shroud? I ask because it seems odd that we'd ignore AP's clearly stated intention (even to the point of proposing a shortcut) and instead put the game into a state where they are forced to counter their own spell. I can't put my finger on it just yet, but something seems off about ruling in that way.

Is this consistent with how we've ruled in the past with things like oblivion ring trying to target a creature with hexproof or shroud? I ask because it seems odd that we'd ignore AP's clearly stated intention (even to the point of proposing a shortcut) and instead put the game into a state where they are forced to counter their own spell. I can't put my finger on it just yet, but something seems off about ruling in that way.

Their intent in this case doesn't matter. They made a legal play, they're now stuck with it. In standard at the moment I've seen multiple occasions of an Emrakul player casting their opponents stasis snare to eat a creature, only to realise they now have to eat their own Emrakul. No difference here.

Edited Sean Crain (Nov. 28, 2016 07:38:58 PM)

What is the reason we ignore the intent?

in this case, it seems pretty obvious. Would it be totaly wrong to backup until the spell queller was in his hand?

A: “I want to (propose a shortcut that I) do <this> and <that> and then <something illegal>. Ok?”
B: “Sure, go ahead.”
A: does <this> and <that> and goes to do <something illegal>
B: “Wait, you can't do that. Haha! You did <this> and <that> for nothing and wasted your play!”

If a player describes a sequence of actions he wishes to take, and that sequence contains something illegal in the middle, are we really going to hold him to everything up to the illegal part? Or does that invalidate the entire proposition, regardless of where in the sequence the illegal part is?

I feel that, if one of the described actions is illegal, the entire proposition is illegal, and should be rewound.

From how the OP was phrased, it sounds to me like that's what happened, AP declared his intention to “do <something> (cast Spell Queller) and <something illegal> (exile Condescend)”, and either the entire block is legal, or the entire block should be rewound.
If it went more along the lines of “Spell Queller, resolves?” - “Sure” - “Exile Condescend with the trigger”, then I'd agree that Queller was cast legally and we only rewind to when targets for the trigger are selected.

Originally posted by Sebastian Reinfeldt:

A: “I want to (propose a shortcut that I) do <this> and <that> and then <something illegal>. Ok?”
B: “Sure, go ahead.”
A: does <this> and <that> and goes to do <something illegal>
B: “Wait, you can't do that. Haha! You did <this> and <that> for nothing and wasted your play!”

If a player describes a sequence of actions he wishes to take, and that sequence contains something illegal in the middle, are we really going to hold him to everything up to the illegal part? Or does that invalidate the entire proposition, regardless of where in the sequence the illegal part is?

I feel that, if one of the described actions is illegal, the entire proposition is illegal, and should be rewound.

My concern here is that we're opening up the door to Magic: the Gotcha-ing, where phrasing things the right way gets you a free pass but phrasing things the wrong way gets you punished.

Consider:
A: “I want to (propose a shortcut that I) do <this> and <that> and then <something illegal>. Ok?”
B: “Can you actually go through it step-by-step?”
A: “Sure. <This> resolves? <That> resolves? <Something illegal> resolves?”
B: "“Wait, you can't do that. Haha! You did <this> and <that> for nothing and wasted your play!”

Do we want to rule differently in this case than in the previous case?

Intent there is clearly one - to exile counterspell with Spell Queller ETB abbility. Unfortunately for AP, Spell Queller ETB don't work this way (reading the card explain the card). It's clear GRV (+FTMGS) with possibility to back-up.
If we will choose to back up, we do it to the point of error, and by that I mean game play error nor error in player train of thoughts. As few pointed above, choosing Condescend instead of Serum Visions is an error here. We don't backup Lightning Bolt targeting 2/3 Goyf without Instant in graveyard because of intent, so why apply that there?
Back to the backup - I would do as follow: take 2 cards from scry and shuffle them back in random portion of library, then select 1 card at random from AP hand and put it on top of his library. Return Condescent and Serum Visions onto the stack and put Spell Queller ETB trigger with proper target, resume.

But that's only one option, second one is to do nothing and leave game state as it is now.

Originally posted by IPG 1.4:

Due to the amount of information that may become available to players and might affect their play, backups are regarded as a solution of last resort, only applied in situations where leaving the game in the current state is a substantially worse solution. A good backup will result in a situation where the gained information makes no difference and the line of play remains the same (excepting the error, which has been fixed). This means limiting backups to situations with minimal decision trees.

AIPG 1.4
It’s not “backup if you can, else leave everything alone” it’s “leave things alone unless it’s really really worse than backing up.” Remember, both players are responsible for the game state. No matter how messed up things have gotten, both players had opportunities to prevent it.

Considering all cards seen and drawn by visions were uniquely identifiable (IE: Otherwise empty hand, and bottom of deck), I would rewind to the last legal play, which was casting spell queller.

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

Sebastian Reinfeldt
A: “I want to (propose a shortcut that I) do <this> and <that> and then <something illegal>. Ok?”
B: “Sure, go ahead.”
A: does <this> and <that> and goes to do <something illegal>
B: “Wait, you can't do that. Haha! You did <this> and <that> for nothing and wasted your play!”

If a player describes a sequence of actions he wishes to take, and that sequence contains something illegal in the middle, are we really going to hold him to everything up to the illegal part? Or does that invalidate the entire proposition, regardless of where in the sequence the illegal part is?

I feel that, if one of the described actions is illegal, the entire proposition is illegal, and should be rewound.

My concern here is that we're opening up the door to Magic: the Gotcha-ing, where phrasing things the right way gets you a free pass but phrasing things the wrong way gets you punished.

Consider:
A: “I want to (propose a shortcut that I) do <this> and <that> and then <something illegal>. Ok?”
B: “Can you actually go through it step-by-step?”
A: “Sure. <This> resolves? <That> resolves? <Something illegal> resolves?”
B: "“Wait, you can't do that. Haha! You did <this> and <that> for nothing and wasted your play!”

Do we want to rule differently in this case than in the previous case?

Personally, I think that such a situation would merit some serious investigation by a judge, let alone potentially involving the Head Judge. Because if that's what the players described to me, I would be hard pressed to think that Player B's intent was anything other than shenanigans.

That being said, this does illustrate the difficulty in distinguishing between a shortcut which contains an illegal action despite the desired result versus a shortcut which contains completely legal actions and produces an undesired result. It also requires judges to take a step back from an overly technical consideration, and look at the functional elements of the process and rule accordingly. At the same time separating strategic considerations from a player perspective and generally adhering to the principles outlined in MIPG 1.4.

It may be that some situations could have the entire shortcut backed up, whereas others could only have a partial backup. Which might send a rather unwanted message to players regarding consistency in rulings.

If we're rewarding superior knowledge and technical play, I see nothing wrong with Player B in Eli's scenario. Player A proposed a shortcut, Player B declined and asked her opponent to go through it step by step, and with the knowledge freely gained by Player A's proposal stopped the play at the point of the illegal choice. This isn't shenanigans at all.

Originally posted by Ben Quasnitschka:

If we're rewarding superior knowledge and technical play, I see nothing wrong with Player B in Eli's scenario. Player A proposed a shortcut, Player B declined and asked her opponent to go through it step by step, and with the knowledge freely gained by Player A's proposal stopped the play at the point of the illegal choice. This isn't shenanigans at all.

Allowing a player to “decline” a proposed shortcut without saying where they wish to interrupt the shortcut seems to completely defeat the point of tournament shortcuts, being to smooth the play of the game. MTR 4.2 does not say a player may decline a proposed shortcut in order to angle-shoot their opponent into making a suboptimal play. Rather, it says they can state where they are interrupting / deviating from the proposed shortcut. That's not what Player B is doing in this example.

Originally posted by Ben Quasnitschka:

If we're rewarding superior knowledge and technical play, I see nothing wrong with Player B in Eli's scenario. Player A proposed a shortcut, Player B declined and asked her opponent to go through it step by step, and with the knowledge freely gained by Player A's proposal stopped the play at the point of the illegal choice. This isn't shenanigans at all.

You are free to disagree, but my feeling is that the section you are pulling from per MTR 4.1 is being applied a bit too liberally when we're discussing MTR 4.2.

I don't generally disagree with the principle to which you allude, and this may not have the end result of Infraction/Penalty, but I also do not view this as being completely above board.

Now is probably a good time to bring up how the CR handles shortcuts. Nothing in MTR 4.2 contradicts or explicitly over-rides this process for proposing shortcuts.

719.2b

Each other player, in turn order starting after the player who suggested the shortcut, may either accept the proposed sequence, or shorten it by naming a place where he or she will make a game choice that’s different than what’s been proposed. (The player doesn’t need to specify at this time what the new choice will be.) This place becomes the new ending point of the proposed sequence.

719.2c

Once the last player has either accepted or shortened the shortcut proposal, the shortcut is taken. The game advances to the last proposed ending point, with all game choices contained in the shortcut proposal having been taken. If the shortcut was shortened from the original proposal, the player who now has priority must make a different game choice than what was originally proposed for that player.

Importantly, this procedure makes it impossible to ‘decline’ a proposed shortcut without doing something different from in the original proposal. In Eli's scenario, Player B doesn't do this, they are (presumably) only modifying the shortcut to “gotcha” Player A, so I'm not inclined to reward that sort of play.