Assume we are at comp. rel and we are spectating some games.
Andrew cast Harnessed Lightning targeting Nicoles Reflector Mage. She in response sacrifice Selfless Spirit giving Indestructible to Mage. While resolving Harnessed Lightning Andrew just put it into graveyard, he don't verbally announce gaining 3 energy nor spending any of them for Lightning. What do you do as a Judge that is spectating this match?

I do nothing - just as I would do nothing if there was no selfless spirit and he said nothing as the Mage was put in the graveyard. The game state is fine, it's clear that 3 energy was spent on dealing damage to the mage, even though strategically it's better to keep the energy for something else. Nothing illegal has happened.

Just ask AP how much energy he spent, and probably find him after his match is over to educate him about how his spell actually works ^^

Originally posted by Dustin De Leeuw:

Just ask AP how much energy he spent, and probably find him after his match is over to educate him about how his spell actually works ^^

If no changes were made in the amount of energy recorded, why would you ask how much energy was spent? Are players required to write down the addition of the three energy, then scratch it out and write back down the original number if he intended on using the energy to try to kill the Reflector Mage (or change whatever method of counting, such as a die on an energy counter card)?

As Mark laid out, nothing ‘illegal’ has happened here. The players seem to understand what was intended. I could see if the AP then went to add three to his energy total and NAP was interested in an explanation, then yes, but as laid out, I don't see a reason to get involved at that point.

Originally posted by Dustin De Leeuw:

Just ask AP how much energy he spent, and probably find him after his match is over to educate him about how his spell actually works ^^

I'm also cautious about approaching the player after the match. Sure - at Regular I'll happily approach and explain. But at Competitive I tend to avoid anything that could be seen as strategic advice while I'm wearing the Judge shirt, and the player is still active in the event. If I'm seen to be helping someone during an event it can colour players' view on my impartiality - especially if they don't know me. So I stay clear until the player is finished in the event.

@Bernie: I agree that what happens is legal and I don't expect players to write down a number just to cross it out. However, on resolution of the spell, the AP has to tell how much energy he pays, and I'm not 100% convinced he understands that. I'd liek clarification, ut I can see why you would not want to ask questions here.

@Mark: That's a matter of style. I will not tell a player how to sideboard, but explaining how the rules work should IMHO not be seen as Outside Assistance from a Judge. I can see a judge choose to clarify or choose not to, but I personally feel that you are overly cautious here.

I'm not seeing what rule is being explained though - we're looking at whether or not we tell the player that if the target is made indestructible, you can choose not to spend the 3 energy and instead keep it for use later. That sounds strategic to me.

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

I'm not seeing what rule is being explained though

You decide on resolution, not on announcement of the spell, how much energy you spend. This is different from say Fireball, where you announce mana payment on casting, not on resolution.

Originally posted by Dustin De Leeuw:

Mark Mc Govern
I'm not seeing what rule is being explained though

You decide on resolution, not on announcement of the spell, how much energy you spend. This is different from say Fireball, where you announce mana payment on casting, not on resolution.

If you don't have to make the choice until resolution, then realistically AP could have said ‘Harnessed Lightning, spend three energy on Reflector Mage’ and when NAP sacrificed Selfless Spirit, AP could hypothetically say ‘okay, as Harnessed Lightning resolves I choose to spend zero energy’ since it doesn't resolve until after NAP sac's Selfless Spirit… right? Isn't that kind of like choosing whether or not to use Kozilek's Return until resolution of the trigger and after anyone else could respond?

Bernie - yes, that's correct.

d:^D

Originally posted by Bernie Hoelschen:

If you don't have to make the choice until resolution, then realistically AP could have said ‘Harnessed Lightning, spend three energy on Reflector Mage’ and when NAP sacrificed Selfless Spirit, AP could hypothetically say ‘okay, as Harnessed Lightning resolves I choose to spend zero energy’ since it doesn't resolve until after NAP sac's Selfless Spirit… right?

But sacrificing Selfless Spirit is an action that “reset” prematurely made choices.

MTR 4.2
If a player casts a spell or activates an ability and announces choices for it that are not normally made until resolution, the player must adhere to those choices unless an opponent responds to that spell or ability.

I think you're saying the same thing — that AP can change his declaration on resolution because there was a response.

How I would handle the situation:

If Andrew followed the instructions on the card correctly we could argue that he already gained 3 energy (first half of the second sentence) and by choosing to put it into the graveyard and not reducing his energy total he chooses to fully resolve the spell without paying energy (otherwise he would have reduced his energycounters). But as Bartłomiej described it, it seems that Andrew did not give himself the 3 energy in the first place. In this case Andew would have resolved the spell wrong (if no shortcuts were established during the match). If Nicole does not point this out immediatly this will resolve in GPE-GRV for Andrew and GPE-FtmGS for Nicole. Then I would ask my HJ if a backup is ok. The backup I would suggest is to go to the point of resolution where Selfless Spirit is already sacrificed and Andrew gets the 3 energy.

Not sure I buy this line of reasoning here.

If you saw the two players do the exact same thing, minus the Spirit, would
you also check if there was a shortcut established and if not, give a
penalty?

In both cases we end up with a legal gamestate where no player disagrees on
anything.

Den 8 nov 2016 11:46 skrev “Stefan Keil” <

Honestly, I do not know if I would check this in a live event. But with time to think about it I came up with this possibility as a solution, even without the spirit. Why? As the spell resolves Andrew has to resolve it correctly. The first thing Harnessed Lightning says on resultion is: "You get 3 energy, “. Andrew has to follow this and has two options to do so: 1. physically by using counters, dice or write it down; 2. virtually by implementing a shortcut like ”I will use all 3 energy counters I will get." If he does nothing from the two he is (in my opinion) resolving the spell false. You are absolutely right that both game states after resolving are legal. But shouldn't we intervene if the way to a legal game state is false?
The big problem I see here is that there is only a thin border to giving a play advice and as a judge in the situation you need to be really carefull what you do or say.