I would ask the players what happened.
Player A could say many things:
“I cast Harnessed Lightning to deal 3 damage, but Spirit made it not die”
“I cast Harnessed Lightning, gained 3 energy, then didn't use any since it
was Indestructible….oh, I should have 3 energy marked”
“I cast Harnessed Lightning, but he made it Indestructible for the spell
fizzled.”
etc

The player may have assumed that he had to spend 3 energy no matter what.
If so, the game state is fine. He may have not use any energy, but forgot
to visually mark it. He may have thought he never got the energy because
of the Selfless Spirit. All of these situations look the same. However,
we shouldn't always just look at what physically happened and assume the
set of actions that led to that game state. Take a second and ask players
what they believe happened. You'll often find that what appears to have
happened is not what the player(s) believed happened.

Originally posted by Shawn Doherty:

I would ask the players what happened.

To clarify: you would stop the match and step in? I definitely agree with your response when the judge is called over by a player or a spectator. However, the ultimate outcome (AP's energy total doesn't change) is a legal game state; I'm not sure whether it's appropriate for an observing judge to intervene unsolicited.

If I was watching the match, I may stop them and ask a brief question or
two to clarify what happened.

What's unclear though? A player cast what is more or less a lightning bolt and a creature was made indestructible. The fact that energy is involved is a red herring as far as I'm concerned.

Well, it's the “more or less” part actually. They generated some amount of
energy and spent some amount of energy, without making clear how much of
each. And since the latter amount is a choice made by the player, I think
it worth clarifying.

Shawn: I'm curious, would you ask the same question if the Spirit wasn't
involved and the creature died? How about if someone cast it on a 2/2, it
dies and both players continue playing with no energy written down?

Den 8 nov 2016 20:33 skrev “Shawn Doherty” <

If it wasn't clear how much damage was dealt to the creature, then yes, I
would ask. If it would require all of the available energy to kill the
creature, then it is clear how much was used. I'm not sure why judges just
want to make assumptions about the game and seem hesitant to ask the
players any questions. I'd rather step in when this occurs than wait until
later and have to deal with a situation later in the game where the players
disagree about how much energy one player has.

My hesitancy is because I don't want to be coaching players on how to better play the game while they're in the middle of a tournament. In the described scenario, the player has made a strategic error - if they knew how to play optimally, they would know that spending the energy is a waste, and it's better to save it. My job as a judge is to fix errors. And there has been no error. The game is currently fine. If I interrupt, I could very conceivably teach the player how to better play the game. There is no upside and plenty of downside. Hence I would leave it be.

I agree that judges could interrupt a match and provide information that
could be strategically valuable to a player. As judges we need to be
careful in how we word our interactions. Saying “So, you know that you
don't have to use any energy when it resolves” is going to be a problem.
Asking them to walk through what just happened doesn't provide any new
information to the players and provides clearer communication between the
players.

You said that they spent the energy. Why do you believe that? Why do you
believe that instead of the situation of them never gaining the energy? Is
it that one was a legal play and one was illegal? I'm willing to consider
that there are multiple possibilities in this situation.
Yes, spending the 3 energy that they gained is a strategically bad play,
but we do not know that they did that.

However, if you don't think you can intervene in the situation without
coaching the players, it is probably best not to get involved.

I too think “more or less lightning bolt” is the problem here. The fact that the first thing that happens on resolution is a gain of energy and this energy gaining is not adressed in this case would let me investigate a bit further. The big question is: Does Andrew resolve the spell improper by not showing awareness of the energy gain (I do not say here that Andrew was not aware that he got energy. I say he did not show awareness to the opponent or anyone else.)

Originally posted by Shawn Doherty:

You said that they spent the energy. Why do you believe that? Why do you believe that instead of the situation of them never gaining the energy? Is it that one was a legal play and one was illegal? I'm willing to consider that there are multiple possibilities in this situation. Yes, spending the 3 energy that they gained is a strategically bad play, but we do not know that they did that.

If I'm watching a game and I see an block of actions that could have been legal or illegal depending what exactly happened, can I not assume that it was legal? For example, a player activates an Isochron Scepter and never casts the copy. Is it safe for me to assume that he simply chose not to? Or do I have to step in and make sure that the ability wasn't forgotten and in fact resolved correctly?

This scenario reminds of me a common trample-related discussion.
AP attacks with a 5/5 trampler.
NAP blocks with a 2/2. NAP bins the creature.
AP: “go” (neither player records any life total change).
3 turns later
AP: “Oh wait, you were supposed to have taken 3”.

I thought the general consensus with the removal of the MTR trample-shortcut was that this is all legal and we shouldn't interfere if we see it, no damage trampled-through. But, I'm having a hard time finding any of the old threads discussing this.

My thoughts for that are the same as for the energy case (or for the case of Harnessed Lightning your 2/2, and record no change). No problems, I don't intervene, legal game state (although AP: “Go” + (starts to pick up pen to write change) = that's fine).

I personally do not think asking questions is the right thing. If I walked up to players and said: “After the match call me to clarify something” then players rightfully assume something isn't right. When I as a judge step in players start thinking about something that they've done and this might or might not be OA. Educate after matches if possible. Do not assume players know what they are doing.

Would it be acceptable for a player to ask these questions? I personally do not think so. When choices are involved and a legal state is reached we are treading on dangerous territory for the integrity of the match.

I've been mulling this over for a while, and I've come to the conclusion that I agree with Shawn that I would step in to ask what happened. Here's my thought: we're getting distracted by the fact that the target has 3 toughness.

Imagine the exact same sequence of play, only targeting an X/2 or X/4 creature. It's technically possible in either of those cases that a player decided to deal 3 damage to those creature, but it's extremely unlikely since that play would make no sense whatsoever. In those situations, I would almost certainly assume a rule has been broken and step in to ascertain that the game was being played correctly.

With Harnessed Lightning targeting a 3-toughness creature, it's much more likely that the player thought he had to deal 3 damage to the creature, making it a genuine play error as opposed to a bookkeeping error. But I'm not sure how much that should matter; if I would investigate this potential error some of the time, I feel like I shouldn't fail to investigate just because of the particular creature chosen as a target.

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

we're getting distracted by the fact that the target has 3 toughness

I don't think it's a distraction - I think it's the whole reason the question came up in the first place. It's a whole other scenario if the toughness differs from the normal amount of damage this spell can deal.