So the preferred wording is something like “I have no responses until Spell Queller resolves”? This seems rules-lawyery. We already allow players to require their opponents to demonstrate a loop step by step, this appears to be remarkably similar. If I'm Player B and I want to walk through this interaction so I understand what's going on I should be allowed to, and be given the opportunity to interrupt the sequence when I have priority or when I see an infraction. If I do this a lot sure call it slow play (or stalling) but it's not “Gotcha” to allow a player to take a legal walk into a forced out. I see this like attempting to Disenchant a Standstill- they can cast the spell, but it's not going to work the way they think it will.

Edited Ben Quasnitschka (Nov. 30, 2016 05:23:39 PM)

Originally posted by Ben Quasnitschka:

So the preferred wording is something like “I have no responses until Spell Queller resolves”? This seems rules-lawyery. We already allow players to require their opponents to demonstrate a loop step by step, this appears to be remarkably similar. If I'm Player B and I want to walk through this interaction so I understand what's going on I should be allowed to, and be given the opportunity to interrupt the sequence when I have priority or when I see an infraction. If I do this a lot sure call it slow play (or stalling) but it's not “Gotcha” to allow a player to take a legal walk into a forced out. I see this like attempting to Disenchant a Standstill- they can cast the spell, but it's not going to work the way they think it will.

I think that goes to the intent behind Player B's actions. And while I certainly think it reasonable for Player B to make certain they understand Player A's proposed shortcut, whether it be a response in the middle of the proposed shortcut or relate to a potential GRV, the situation as presented by Eli suggested that Player B's intent was a bit too competitive and potential approaching a bit of less-than-sporting behavior.

Hence why I suggested “shenanigans” here. Because the way Player B conducted themselves did not seem very above board. Legal? Perhaps. But unsavory and meriting some questions from a judge rather than a pass. At a minimum, it can make Player B aware that they might be in more of a grey area than they realize, and they could inadvertently cross a line.

Competitive behavior is generally okay, but players need to be careful about how far they go with it.

In any event, I view some of this much the same as situations recently discussed on this forum involving AP trying to angle shoot the “Combat” shortcut to get an extra priority pass. This situation is a bit harder given that current policy doesn't allow for a full backup, but I also don't want to see this becoming an area for players to exploit. Hence why I suggested that a too liberal application of what is in MTR 4.1 to what is in MTR 4.2 is undesirable in my opinion. Primarily because we want players to feel comfortable using shortcuts when reasonable.

I counter with this. If player A doesn't understand a purposed shortcut, he is allowed to request the play be made in the correct order, step by step by player B. If that step by step contains a rules violation or an unexpected unfavorable outcome for player B, would you allow a back up so that player B can make the strategically correct play?

Originally posted by Ben Quasnitschka:

So the preferred wording is something like “I have no responses until Spell Queller resolves”? This seems rules-lawyery. We already allow players to require their opponents to demonstrate a loop step by step, this appears to be remarkably similar. If I'm Player B and I want to walk through this interaction so I understand what's going on I should be allowed to, and be given the opportunity to interrupt the sequence when I have priority or when I see an infraction. If I do this a lot sure call it slow play (or stalling) but it's not “Gotcha” to allow a player to take a legal walk into a forced out. I see this like attempting to Disenchant a Standstill- they can cast the spell, but it's not going to work the way they think it will.

Ideally I'd want the wording to be “Spell Queller can't target condescend.”

I'm amenable to reasoning that it's okay to allow a player to box themselves into a bad play through not understanding how their own cards work. Just to pick your brain a little, what about this sort of situation:

Player A: I propose to cast Spell Queller and target Condescend with the trigger.
Player B: Spell Queller can't target Condescend
Player A: Oh… Then I'll let condescend resolve instead.
Player B: Hang on, I still want you to have cast Spell Queller. Judge!

How would you handle this?

Edited Andrew Keeler (Nov. 30, 2016 10:25:40 PM)

This is Competitive REL. I don't care if Player B makes strategically correct plays. I care that he doesn't break rules.

The original scenario had both players breaking a rule- Player A for illegal target, and Player B for allowing it.

Eli's scenario only had one player breaking a game rule, and we only GRV penalize a player when he/she does not point out something illegal. Player B wants A to commit to a line that doesn't work, and A's proposed shortcut does this by breaking a rule. B gets A to commit to the steps that lead towards A's perceived tactical victory, and then stops the play when it becomes incorrect.

I think I might see what you're getting at, though- B's speech at this point is gloating, and I'd argue it's USC. That doesn't mean, to me, that the play should be negated, only that the player should be counseled to behave respectfully, and put the play at the point where A chooses targets for Queller's trigger.

And now that I think about it, if B's intent was for A to lose the trigger entirely, and B didn't call a judge, then we'd be considering this an investigation for cheating.

Thanks everyone, this is a great discussion. “Cheating will often appear on the surface as a Game Play Error or Tournament Error, and must be investigated by the judge to make a determination of intent and awareness.” This is something I'm not good at, and this is invaluable.

Player B had an option to say “Do it”, and interrupt the shortcut at the relevant point.

From 4.2: “ A player may interrupt a tournament shortcut by explaining how he or she is deviating from it or at which point in the middle he or she wishes to take an action. A player may interrupt his or her own shortcut in this manner. ”

Player B instead gave A information before agreeing to the proposal, meaning A can now decide not to cast the spell. A sportsmanlike move, at least until the insistence on A casting the spell. What would I do? Well we don't force players to pay for things, so I'd let it stand with Queller in the hand.

Originally posted by Andrew Keeler:

Player A: I propose to cast Spell Queller and target Condescend with the trigger.
Player B: Spell Queller can't target Condescend
Player A: Oh… Then I'll let condescend resolve instead.
Player B: Hang on, I still want you to have cast Spell Queller. Judge!

Player A hasn't cast anything. This differs in that in the other scenario, player b is letting Queller resolve and we're holding him to casting a spell. In this, no spell has been cast.

Player A: I propose to cast Spell Queller and target Condescend with the trigger.
Player B: Spell Queller resolves, announce targets.
Player A: Condesend
Player B: Spell Queller can't target Condesend
Player A: Oh… Then I'll let condescend resolve instead.
Player B: Hang on, I still want you to have cast Spell Queller. Judge!

I'm holding Player A to casting the Queller

Are we treating Spell Queller differently because it's essentially used as a counter spell rather than a creature with an ETB trigger, especially one that has flash and targets something?

Would we treat any other creature with flash and an ETB trigger the same way - if the player was trying to end up with a specific end result from the ETB trigger only to find they had miscalculated and they now had to target something else with the trigger?

What about a player casting a Spellstutter Sprite thinking they had 5 Fairies but only had 4 and therefore couldn't target the Condescend?

I understand the player wouldn't have cast these creatures if they had realised they couldn't target what they were intending to, but the IPG requires that any rewind to go back to the error that was made, which in any of these ETB triggers would be the point of the trigger going onto the stack and targeting something illegal.

I think we need analysis almost “infraction-less” scenario:

AP: “Cast Serum Visions”
NAP: “Counter with Condescend x=4”
AP: “Spell Queller your Condescend”
NAP: “Ok, Spell Queller resolves, select legal target for ETB trigger”
AP: “Uh… Judge?”

Would anyone back Spell Queller up in this situation? If so, why?

I would not. As NAP I would feel cheated by the Judge if he would back up SQ there. NAP used his advanced kolagenowe of the game (by that I mean, he just know what SQ do), AP failed to read his own card properly and went with “less optimal” line of play.

Edited Bartłomiej Wieszok (Dec. 1, 2016 06:36:16 AM)

Originally posted by Frankie Hughes:

Andrew Keeler
Player A: I propose to cast Spell Queller and target Condescend with the trigger.
Player B: Spell Queller can't target Condescend
Player A: Oh… Then I'll let condescend resolve instead.
Player B: Hang on, I still want you to have cast Spell Queller. Judge!

Player A hasn't cast anything. This differs in that in the other scenario, player b is letting Queller resolve and we're holding him to casting a spell. In this, no spell has been cast.

Player A: I propose to cast Spell Queller and target Condescend with the trigger.
Player B: Spell Queller resolves, announce targets.
Player A: Condesend
Player B: Spell Queller can't target Condesend
Player A: Oh… Then I'll let condescend resolve instead.
Player B: Hang on, I still want you to have cast Spell Queller. Judge!

I'm holding Player A to casting the Queller

My chief concern in this scenario is that we're getting dangerously close to a “magic words” situation, where we'll allow Player A to keep their Spell Queller in hand so long as Player B doesn't say the word “resolves.”

Consider:
Player A: I propose to cast Spell Queller and target Condescend with the trigger.
Player B: Sure, but Spell Queller can't target Condescend.
Player A: Oh… Then I'll let condescend resolve instead.
Player B: Hang on, I still want you to have cast Spell Queller. Judge!

It sounds like in this situation you'd be inclined to hold player A to casting Spell Queller where before you wouldn't, but only one word has changed between the two interactions. It makes for a very hazy line, risks seeming arbitrary to the players, and worst of all, can make our lives more difficult if players A and B know how this debate has gone and each claim different things about how their interaction happened. Perhaps A claims they had the first interaction, but B insists that they said “sure” to indicate the resolution of Spell Queller. I as a judge don't want to have to base my ruling on the results of an investigation into whether one player said “sure” somewhere in a block of dialogue. (and I'll note that cheating may well not provide an out here. It's possible that A didn't hear or doesn't remember hearing B say something for “resolves”)

Originally posted by Andrew Keeler:

Snip

In that situation, I would base my decision on whether Spell Queller left Player A's hand and he tapped mana to cast it. If the spell had been placed on the stack, its too late to put queller back into hand, since casting queller is a legal play.

There are two ways to play Spell Queller
1) the technically correct way: play it, let it resolve and then name a target
or 2) the shortcut: play it saying “Queller the target”

Now the problem with a shortcut, it needs to be legal to be executed, we can't just say well do as much as you can and then stop if the end is illegal mainly because that isn't consistent with how we handle these things previously for example we don't hold a player to targeting themselves when they try to deal damage to their own Planeswalker we'd rewind to before the source was announced. I also wouldn't hold a player to playing Oblivion Ring (or similar) and choosing a new target if their proposed shortcut so I'm not going to hold them to it here either.

Originally posted by Gareth Tanner:

how we handle these things previously for example we don't hold a player to targeting themselves when they try to deal damage to their own Planeswalker we'd rewind to before the source was announced.

Previously (at least 3 years ago, so not sure how dated) we handled this without backing up up the spell: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/3453/
In the case of planeswalker redirection, yes we would back up the spell.

Edited Toby Hazes (Dec. 1, 2016 10:48:20 AM)

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

Previously (at least 3 years ago, so not sure how dated) we handled this without backing up up the spell: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/3453/
In the case of planeswalker redirection, yes we would back up the spell.

So, what is the reason we do back-up the spell when the “planeswalker shortcut” is used but not when a custom shortcut is used? Can this be found in any specific rule, why the planeswalker shortcut is treated differently?

I believe because in that case the shortcut is not used.
“Bolt my Jace” is simply casting something with a wrong target. “Bolt your Jace” is technically also casting something with a wrong target, but in that case the shortcut is used to make it legal.
http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/7347/