In the finals of a PPTQ, Anastasia plays a Reckless Imp for its Dash cost. She attacks with it, then puts it back into her hand. Then she tries to play a Champion of Arashin.

Obviously, Anastasia committed a Game Rules Violation. But which one? Did she try to play a creature in her end step, or did she bounce the Imp at the end of combat?

This won't change the penalty, but it is important for the continuation of the game: if you choose the first interpretation, she won't be able to play her creature. If you choose the second one, she will (the backup is mostly irrelevant).

In the actual event, I ruled that she was in her end step. Now, I am not so sure.

Originally posted by Florian Horn:

In the actual event, I ruled that she was in her end step.

I would have given the same ruling as you did.

Returning the Imp to her hand is an action Anastasia could only perform during the end step. Since (I assume based on your story) she didn't communicate that she was returning the creature in the combat phase instead, her opponent and other people watching the match can safely assume she returned the Imp back into hand in the end step and not earlier in the turn.

Edited Eric Paré (April 20, 2015 04:42:48 PM)

I would ask Anastasia why she choose such line of play.
Based on her answer I would rule:
GRV (we are in Main Phase): if she said something like: I thought that dash creature come back at the end of the combat
No penalty and OooS: if she said, that she just want to play a creature and speed up ending a turn, and she doesn't care of the order.
GRV, we are in Ending Phase: if she said something like: I thought that I can play a creature in my End Step.

Just because an action can only take place during a certain point in the turn does not mean that if the player takes this action they must me at that point. You should ask the player when they returned the dash creature (likely thought it was an end-of-combat trigger) and use that to make your ruling. Just using what physical actions took place is not enough to make a good ruling.

I think you made the correct ruling. Unless Anastasia specifically says something about bouncing at end of combat, the first indication that anything is wrong is trying to play a creature after bouncing the Reckless Imp. We deal with errors as they happen, we can't make an assumption (or allow a player to get out of a tactical error with a clever explanation) about the first action being an error.

Agree with Shawn - and I'll go a step beyond that, even. What damage is caused to the game state by the player getting a bit ahead of herself, and returning the Dash creature a bit early? It's not like Rout, Quicken or Vedalken Orrery are legal in Standard… ;)

I'd simply explain when Dash happens, and caution her to be more careful. Since it's Comp REL, it's appropriate to record the GRV. And, of course, you'd need to give her opponent a chance to act, with the Champion on the stack, and again before Dash goes on the stack or resolves - just in case there's a trick up their sleeve.

d:^D

I would find it very difficult to believe that Anastasia was trying to cast a creature in her end step. It's unheard of in any format in my experience. It's far more likely she just returned the imp too early.

If you argue that returning it is legal in the end step, therefore it is now the end step, what does casting the Champion mean? That we're now in the first main phase of her next turn? I suspect not :p I suspect a simple question or two will reveal that she did indeed bounce the imp too early.

Depending on the answer to a few questions, it is reasonable for this to be Out-of-Order Sequencing. Otherwise, what Scott Marshall described is appropriate.

Anastasia said nothing beyond stating her actions. Notably, she did not announce in which phase or step she was at any point (not that I would consider it necessary in general).

She let enough time for her opponent to answer between any two actions, so I did not consider Out of Order sequencing. I think that she believed Dash returned the creature at the end of combat, rather than the end of turn (though I did not ask).

The (apparently wrong) ruling seemed obvious to me at the time. I think I was likening it to the following situation:

Augustus: May I discard?
Nero: Sure
*Augustus discards*
Nero: At the end of your turn, I Think Twice.
Augustus: Judge!

I don't think I'd ever let Nero act, even if it is clear that he is confused on the distinction between end step and cleanup step.

These two situations are not exactly the same, as there is more communication and information transfer, but they are somewhat similar.

Florian, I initially agreed with your ruling, and after reading the opinions of the more experienced judges and thinking about it more, I think a part of the difference between the original scenario and the discard one is the damage to the game state. As Scott said, there really isn't any harm to returning a creature and casting a different one in the wrong order. In the case of discarding, there is material information gained (seeing what card was discarded) that affects the game and makes it less reasonable to allow the technically incorrect play to happen.

I think the original scenario would have had a different answer if something had happened that depended on the timing of the dash (e.g. NAP casts Wild Slash in response to the return trigger, and then AP tries to play a creature now that the removal spell has been used). However, since it was a simple error with no real effect on the game state (and one that would likely have been perfectly valid OoOS if done in one fluid action), there's no harm to anyone in backing it up to the correct situation and doing things correctly.

There is also the consideration that, in the cleanup step scenario Chuck
posted, there was fairly clear communication about where the players were
in the turn and what was going to happen. That the NAP did not realize she
could not act during the cleanup step is not the AP's fault, and the AP
gave the NAP a clear window in which to take actions before the turn ended.

This is not the case in the OP, as the AP simply returned the Dash creature
to hand and played another creature, presumably without saying anything.
As such, there was no clear communication about where they were in the turn
or what the confusion was. I think we can all agree that if Anastasia had
said “at end of combat, return Reckless Imp” or “at end of turn, return
Reckless Imp,” our rulings would be a lot more clear and there would be
very little disagreement about what had gone wrong.