Originally posted by Matt Cooper:

CPV is the next line of thought, but Oracle/rules are derived information and Alan isn't breaking any of the guidelines in the MTR Communication Policy

A little bit of a side-track here, since I don't actually think this is CPV, but I want to unpack this sentence because it's off target in a few different ways :-)

1) Which replacement effects are currently affecting the Visionaries as they die is a detail “of current game actions,” so it's free information, not derived.
2) Regardless of whether the information is free or derived, Alan can't misrepresent it–it's not private!
3) Regardless of whether it's free or derived, Alan is under no obligation to volunteer it if Norma doesn't ask.

The argument for CPV would be that by stating that he *does* get a zombie, he is stating that a single replacement effect is affecting the visionaries, rather than accurately describing effects on the current game state (two competing replacement effects are holding up the game, waiting for Norma to make a choice).

However, there are two problems with this. The first is, that's not explicitly what Alan said. It could have been what he meant, but it's ambiguous. The second is that as James pointed out, a simple raised inflection and a ? at the end of Allan's statement would make his statement a clear bluff. He proposed a legal game-state and got Norma's okay. Even if we decide that Alllan's statement could be a CPV on a technicality, in practice we can't really issue the penalty because the line between Allllan asking and Alllllan telling is so fine as to be imperceptible.

I certainly agree that neither player can misrepresent the details of
current or past game actions that are being or were taken. It's a long
stretch to attempt to apply CPV to a player failing to enumerate their
opponent's possible choices.

If you want to ask AP to clarify what they meant, fine, but the answer
probably is “applying Kalitas' replacement effect would result in the
Visionaries being exiled and me getting Zombies”. If you say “NAP, you can
choose to apply Anafenza's replacement effect first”, that's coaching. If
there seems to be a confusion or dispute, I'd step in and answer any
questions players might have, or prompt NAP to state which replacement
effect they're applying, but if everyone involved is OK with what's
happening, then I'm not taking it any further. NAP is allowed to make
suboptimal plays and AP is allowed to suggest that she do so.

I stand corrected. I think you've also answered your original question: Allllllan proposed a legal gamestate, and as you said, we're going to have a really hard time telling the difference between asking and telling in this case. I don't think it worth stopping them in that case (obviously we can ask questions if Norma calls a judge on Alllllllan).

Obi-Wan might say “this (Anafenza) is not the replacement effect you are seeking … you want this (Kalitas) effect instead.”

d:^D

What's the difference between these?

“Pretty sure I get the zombies” :^D

and

“Pretty sure I get the zombies” >:(

Originally posted by Cristóbal Vigar Guerrero:

So James, is legal that the oponent make the choise?

I would not consider this as a choise but as a “proposed shortcut” where AP proposed not-optimal way for NAP as his shortcut. NAP allowing for that zombie tokens agree for that shortcut.
According to updated MTR:
AP knows that he benefits, if nap puts his trigger in specific order, NAP, beeing OK with ap proposal shows his inferior understanding of options provided by the rules, therefore I'm OK with that.

no, those are exiled and I get two zombies

I may be misunderstanding things, but if someone says a “no” in a sentence, it stops being a “proposal”.

Consider the following scenario:

AP casts a Lightning Bolt targeting NAP while NAP controls a planeswalker. NAP marks down 3 damage on his life pad.

NAP made a choice for AP here, to not apply the planeswalker replacement effect. Should a judge intervene and give him a penalty (GRV, CPV, whatever)? Of course not. Anafenza + Kalitas is the same situation. Norma has a choice, which Allan made for her. If Norma intervenes and says how she actually wants it to work, then that's what happens. But if Norma is fine with the proposed choice, it's perfectly legal for Allan to have done what he did.

Yeah, I was misunderstanding the scenario (a morning after a lack of sleep perhaps? :-)

The “no” was meant as against the idea of putting the Visionaries into graveyard. Then I would only keep watching and wait for any possible question coming from a player.

I hope you do not mind if I add a twist to the scenario:

What if the situation continues, the Visionaries are exiled, Allan puts 2 zombies onto the battlefield and Scooby (a spectator) asks me - and the players - something like “shouldn't Norma decide whether Allan gets the tokens?”.
Is this considered outside assistance (and a Match Loss for Scooby)?

Thanks.

That would be Outside Assistance whether Allan was behaving legally or not.

Hmmm… to me this is awkward because, to me, Alan hasn't proposed a legal outcome, but instead made a statement about either the rules of the game or the game state that may or may not be true. The exact intonation and phrasing makes a difference between “No, those are exiled. I get two zombies?” (proposed outcome) and “no, those are exiled; I get two zombies” (statement about the rules\game state that may or may not be true).

Alan does not get to decide whether or not he gets zombies, NAP does.

I'm trying to think how I would clarify the game state without tipping off NAP and thus providing outside assistance.

If I were standing there as described I would go to a question I use somewhat frequently, namely, “sorry, can you walk me through what just happened?” It lets AP propose the outcome and NAP confirm it (make the choice) without telling anyone anything about the game state. It has the unfortunate side effect of worrying a lot of players that they are about to get a GRV even they very rarely are, but helps clarify what both players think has occurred.

As for our Scooby situation, Scooby is an getting Outside Assistance penalty and an explanation from me both on why and on how to avoid it in the future (ask the players to pause, grab a judge and then ask the judge about the rules\problem they believe has occurred).

If the opponent doesn't object to the sequence of legal events proposed, it's good in my books.

Originally posted by Bryan Henning:

Alan hasn't proposed a legal outcome, but instead made a statement about either the rules of the game or the game state that may or may not be true.

Hasn't Alan proposed a shortcut to a legal outcome? Aren't all shortcuts just statements about rules and game states?

Originally posted by Matt Braddock:

Hasn't Alan proposed a shortcut to a legal outcome? Aren't all shortcuts just statements about rules and game states?

This is what the MTR has to say on the Shortcut issue:

A player is not allowed to use a previously undeclared tournament shortcut, or to modify an in-use tournament shortcut without announcing the modification, in order to create ambiguity in the game.

Is Alan creating ambiguity in the game through this shortcut?

</Devil's Advocate>

Edited Eli Meyer (Feb. 4, 2016 07:01:32 PM)

Nothing has happened yet, but you should keep watching the situation to see what happens next. If Norma says “oh, okay” then aLan gets zombies and no one did anything wrong. If Norma instead responds with something to the effect of “wait, who decides that?” or “wait, how do those cards work when they're both out at the same time?”, etc. and aLan explains it incorrectly, then you have something worth stepping in over.

Suggesting a strategically bad play to an opponent doesn't break any rule, nor does following such a suggestion. The “create ambiguity” part of the shortcut rules is about a situation more like “we've been handling this process such-and-such way the whole time, but now I want to trick you into letting me do it this-and-that way without you being able to stop me”.