So far, so good:

Originally posted by Mats Törnros:

While you should not step in during the game

…however…

Originally posted by Mats Törnros:

I don't see the problem with talking to the players between games

Whoops! No, not between games; wait for the match to finish.

And I would probably talk to both players after the match, to make sure Alan knows how his cards work, and to educate Norma for future reference - and to (hopefully) defuse Norma's anger about being tricked in this manner. We can explain to her why it was legal for Alan to do what he did.

Consider a likely alternative, if we don't talk to Norma: she'll probably tell the story to someone who does know about the interaction, but then insists that Alan was Cheating, thus branding him as a Cheater, and questioning the ability of the judge.

d:^D

Edited Scott Marshall (Feb. 10, 2016 10:54:26 AM)

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Whoops! No, not between games; wait for the match to finish.

My apologies, that's what I meant. The duel/game/match/round terminology can get confusing sometimes.

Edited Mats Törnros (Feb. 10, 2016 11:31:10 AM)

I was taking Russel's idea that an entire tournament would pass without Alan being called/corrected on this issue out to the conclusion - I've made no ruling here, I haven't even been called to the table and I'm not interjecting either so I'm not sure the concerns about perception of my ruling are an issue. If I'm asked my answer changes significantly, but if Norma just accepts Alan's shortcut (as presented in the OP) I'm not stepping in.

There still seems to be the the assumption that Alan is in some way wrong for using his better rules knowledge (assuming it is such - if it's not he has a surprise coming when he plays with someone who does know the rules), but the competitive nature of higher level magic enshrines his right to do that.

I also worry about mid tournament rules coaching for a specific situation with a particular set of card interactions - this feels particularly as though it could be unfair to Alan and other players who are able to take advantage of a particular interaction and the rules knowledge required to do so. I wouldn't make a point of discussing tactics on any other deck or card combination so why this one in a situation where I haven't even been called to the table?

It is really possible that Allan believes that he is the one who makes the choice.

I will investigate on it, and determine if he's aware or not that it is it's opponent who choose which replacement effect he will apply first.

Originally posted by Maxime Hoube:

I will investigate on it, and determine if he's aware or not that it is it's opponent who choose which replacement effect he will apply first.

If you really want to do that, please do it after the match as there is no penalty here.

Even if it was a lake in rules comprehension nothing wrong is committed here.

Here is a good way to look at it, and why we dont intervene.

How many times have you observed this.

A and N are about to start their match, they roll for first turn. A wins the die roll, N says “So I'll take the play?”.

Would you intervene here if A said “Okay.”?

Originally posted by Maxime Hoube:

It is really possible that Allan believes that he is the one who makes the choice.

I will investigate on it, and determine if he's aware or not that it is it's opponent who choose which replacement effect he will apply first.

Maxime, thanks for contributing!

Why does his understanding matters? You seem to be saying that the exact same phrase, and the exact same action, might be legal or illegal depending on what Alan is “aware.” Do you see why that might cause problems?

Jarrett Boutilier
A and N are about to start their match, they roll for first turn. A wins the die roll, N says “So I'll take the play?”.

Would you intervene here if A said “Okay.”?

I'm not sure I understand how this is connected to the other situation. The example you've provided doesn't involve any complex rules interaction at all–it's a pure bluff. The example we're dealing with is complicated by the fact that the rules Alan is eliding are actually somewhat arcane to most players.

Bryan Henning
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?”

Bryan, this post went unnoticed last week, but it's actually very interesting to me. I've accepted the consensus that Alan's actions are okay, but I think you've pinned down my reservations quite succinctly.

As a Judge, I feel like I should be able to say “hang on guys, can you walk me through that last set of actions?” at pretty much any point. It's as innocent a question as a judge can ask, and an essential tool for spotting Game Play errors. Yet here, asking Alan “what just happened” is tantamount to spoiling his bluff. I can't ask Alan or Norma to explain the last few action without de facto providing Norma outside assistance, and that makes me very uncomfortable.

Originally posted by Jarrett Boutilier:

A and N are about to start their match, they roll for first turn. A wins the die roll, N says “So I'll take the play?”.

Would you intervene here if A said “Okay.”?

I'm not sure I understand how this is connected to the other situation. The example you've provided doesn't involve any complex rules interaction at all–it's a pure bluff. The example we're dealing with is complicated by the fact that the rules Alan is eliding are actually somewhat arcane to most players.



What I am trying to point out here, is that, at least from the example given; there hasnt been any infraction. This scenario is about 1 step away from requiring intervention on a number of different plot lines, but it doesnt. We have to view this as a bluff.

So by this same token it would be legal to say: "I'll cast Browbeat and you will take 5 damage.“. Wait for some sign of affirmation and just do it?

Or ”I'll cast Browbeat and draw three cards.". Wait for some sign of affirmation and just do it?

Assuming that the opponent doesn't know and doesn't check to see what your card does (some don't) you can just make the choice for them?

I am very apprehensive about a player being able to implicitly represent one legal outcome as the only outcome.

So we're getting way off topic, but there is an interesting question you've alluded to, Grant. Simply put, am I, as the controller of an effect, obligated to make sure my opponent makes any choices they're instructed to make, or am I only required to make sure my opponent takes “game actions”.

Consider Veteran Explorer. If it dies, and I search my library, and my opponent does not, am I allowed to “assume” that they're choosing not to search, or am I required to explicitly offer the search? If my opponent fails to search, is this an example of me taking advantage of superior rules knowledge, or misrepresenting the game state?

I will tell you that the consensus on the Veteran Explorer case is that it is not Cheating, although it may not be very Sporting. I'm not required to call attention to an error until I see my opponent make one. “Didn't decide to search” isn't an error. I'm not inclined to start investigating a player who says “I'll Browbeat and draw 3” - he hasn't committed CPV, he hasn't committed a GRV, the only way this ends in a (correct) disqualification is if he starts lying to me because he's trying to cover something up, and it seems awfully silly to Reid him into a lie over something that isn't even illegal in the first place.

Consider Veteran Explorer. If it dies, and I search my library, and my opponent does not, am I allowed to “assume” that they're choosing not to search, or am I required to explicitly offer the search? If my opponent fails to search, is this an example of me taking advantage of superior rules knowledge, or misrepresenting the game state?

I will tell you that the consensus on the Veteran Explorer case is that it is not Cheating, although it may not be very Sporting. I'm not required to Call attention to an Error until I see my opponent make one. “Didn't decide to search” isn't an Error.

I don't believe that's correct. As the IPG says:

Even if an opponent is involved in the announcement or resolution of the ability, the controller is still responsible for ensuring the opponents make the appropriate choices and take the appropriate actions.

This would seem to imply that the choice must be offered.


I have run into this situation with Heartwood Storyteller many times. Players assume that it only affect its controller, and don't draw when the controller casts a noncreature spell. Should this be allowed?

Edited Isaac King (Feb. 20, 2016 02:42:25 PM)

Originally posted by Isaac King:

I have run into this situation with Heartwood Storyteller many times. Players assume that it only affect its controller, and don't draw when the controller casts a noncreature spell. Should this be allowed?

Be careful here! Heartwood Storyteller is a triggered ability, which means its using a completely different section of policy to govern its effects.

As for the IPG quote:

Is the opponent choosing not to search their library not “an appropriate choice?” It's a legal choice they could make, after all!

Edited Eli Meyer (Feb. 20, 2016 03:38:05 PM)

Well, Veteran Explorer is a triggered ability too.

Isaac - you raise an interesting point, and I agree that the IPG says that Heartwood Storyteller triggers must be pointed out by their controller. That's the whole trigger, though, and triggers have their own baggage, both in policy and in philosophy. They are easily missed, which is why we explicitly require the controller to call attention to them. The veteran explorer case can't be a missed trigger - AP has demonstrated awareness of the trigger by taking the actions called for by the trigger. The trigger can't be “half-missed”, and it's a long walk from “I thought he didn't want to search” to “notices an error in his own match and fails to call attention to it”.

Originally posted by Grant Fowler:

So by this same token it would be legal to say: “I'll cast Browbeat and you will take 5 damage.“. Wait for some sign of affirmation and just do it?

Or ”I'll cast Browbeat and draw three cards.”. Wait for some sign of affirmation and just do it?

Assuming that the opponent doesn't know and doesn't check to see what your card does (some don't) you can just make the choice for them?

I am very apprehensive about a player being able to implicitly represent one legal outcome as the only outcome.

I feel like this is a very well placed parallel example to the Kalitas/Anafenza situation, and I'd like to hear a ruling on the Browbeat interaction from someone who says the Kalitas/Anafenza interaction described by OP is 100% above board.

Something about these interactions feels wrong, and I don't feel as though judges can claim ignorance to the fact that this (gurmang?) angling behavior is unwelcome in the community at large.

After all, this isn't Yu-gi-oh.

Edited Russell Deutsch (Feb. 24, 2016 11:08:16 PM)

If I cast Browbeat why is it wrong for me to make a suggestion on what will happen?

If my opponent is on 5 life or less, would I not assume that my opponent won't take the damage so I can say “I cast Browbeat, so I'll draw 3?”

If my opponent is on 10 life or less, I may make an assessment that my opponent will choose not to take the damage, again, suggesting to my opponent that I'll draw 3. If my opponent is on 20 life, I'm likely to make the opposite assumption and suggest that my opponent is going to take the damage.

So given these are likely scenarios, if you allow these “assumptions” then why can I not make different “assumptions”, when my opponent is on 5 life, why can't I suggest that they take 5?

If you don't allow either of these, again why? Taken on face value, if I'm making the “correct” or “sensible” suggestions, what I'm really doing is shortcutting the choice, making an educated guess based on how I'd probably respond, and chances are I've made that assessment already playing the Browbeat. I'm going to have a reasonable idea what i think my opponent is going to do, if I'm making the “correct” suggestion, all I'm doing is vocalising that thought. I see players doing this all the time.