Hello fellow judges !

I've had quite an interesting discussions with friend judges today, about a case that happen rather often, but on which we not fully agree.

Here is the situation : April has a Honor's Reward and cast it. November asks her ‘so, do you bolster ?’ and April answers, 'yes, on my Bear Cub." So November says ‘ok, in answer to your Honor’s Reward, I will Shock your bear'.
April calls a judge who explains that the bolster choice is made on resolution and not when casting the spell, so she cannot Shock the Bear. Judge issues a GRV…

… but does he issue a Warning ? GRV-Warning ? Or nothing ?

That is where my friends and I disagree. Some of us tend to think that this a Game Error and a Warning has to be issued, but some of us say that as it is due to a comprehension error, no Warning has to be issued.

That's why I'm asking your advice - so our rulings can be more consistent :)

Nice day !
Emmanuel

Edited Emmanuel Gutierrez (Jan. 6, 2017 03:44:32 AM)

I don't see any GPE or GRV here. The only problem seems to determine if Honor's Reward as resolved or not.

Anyway, if you “issue” an infraction, there should always be a penalty.

If you are issuing a Game Rule Violation then you need to issue a Warning, there is no option to issue a GRV without a warning. If you think this is a simple error that is fixed by simply explaining to November they don't have priority to cast shock before the Bear is Bolstered but not a GRV then you don't issue an infraction or penalty

I've had a very similiar situation come up during GP Rotterdam.

A player tried to cast a buff spell between hearing the amount of energy chosen for Harnessed Lightning and dealing the damage.

The appeals judge ruled in the end that this was a GRV as the player tried to play a spell when he had no priority.
Ruling was GRV warning, as you cannot give a GRV without a warning.
The fix was to perform a simple backup to the point where Harnessed lightning is resolving and the buff spell in hand.

Yes actually, GRV means Warning. My sentence “he issues a GRV… but does he issue a Warning” is indeed not correct but should be “he issues… either GRV-W or nothing” :)

/go grab coffee

I'm actually in favor of issuing a GRV for the exact reason Alex says : because the player tries to play a spell while not having priority. But some tend to think that as it is a comprehension and communication problem no penalty should be issued :). I also understand that, but i'm not feeling well with the idea that we have 2 different “policies” on the same case inside the program. Because of consistency.

I believe it may very well be a “comprehension and communication problem”, but that doesn't really matter: November tried to do something that Violates the Game Rules, and that needs to be fixed. You educate November about why this is illegal and how bolster/priority works. And yes, obviously this needs to be accompanied by a Warning, as is speled out in MIPG 1.1 Definition of Penalties: “The purpose of a Warning is to alert judges and players involved that a problem has occurred and to keep a permanent record of the infraction in the DCI Penalty Database.”

Please also pay attention to that very last part of the sentence: we want to keep track of it. Now November has been educated, I would strongly dislike her to make the same error again and again, claiming ignorance… So please, follow the full procedure: somethign went wrong and needed fixing and educating, what went wrong classifies as a GRV and we always give a Warning for that.

I want to add some thoughts on this…

November asks “do you bolster?” and April answers “yes, on my bear cub”

November didn't ask what the target was, November just asked the question “do you bolster?”

November can respond to the Honor's Reward once it is cast and shock the Bear Cub which currently sits at 2/2

April may have done better to say “Yes, I will bolster” and not mention targets.

April also can target something else with bolster if November responds in this way.

November is cheeky and is obviously asking this to try and gain and advantage, but is doing so in a way where I can't see it. If November asked something like “what are you chosing to Bolster” and once April responds “my Bear Cub” then it is illegal for November to then target the Bear Cub as November has communicated a sentence which shows understanding that the spell has resolved.

Despite November being cheeky, I feel that Novembers question isn't actually breaking any communication policies.


I'd like to hear more on this, because I'm possibly misunderstood here on my Communications knowledge or in how I define wording in sentences.

I honestly have no clue what “do you bolster” means. It's not a choice, the spell doesn't say “you may bolster”. So what other interpretation can be given to that statement than “which creature do you bolster”? I could go for “does that spell have bolster?” if the card is in a foreign language, but that's where I draw the line.

I don't really care about the exact words that were used; communication can be hard enough between palyers, especially if they don't share a native tongue.

Originally posted by Luke May:

November didn't ask what the target was,

perhaps because Bolster doesn't target?

As Dustin said, it's a very weird question - and, for me, November is allowing Honor's Reward to resolve; too late to respond. If the Bear Cub is the only legal choice (i.e., the only creature April controls, or all others have 3+ toughness), then November might be able to argue that the question was “does that spell Bolster?” and not asking for the choice made on resolution.

I've said it many times, and it remains valid: players need to ask better questions.

d:^D

Emmanuel, I would like to clarify one thing about the scenario. Have November started casting Shock? (i.e. was the card shown at least?) Or was it just a conversation that has taken place before the judge got involved?

She already started the casting, like having pointed the bear Cub with her Shock and tapped (or not ?) her mana

I have encountered this kind of situation several times now, and the error is due most of the time to the fact that players do not know that choices are made at the resolution and targetting as we cast a spell and often cannot see the differencs. In this case I fully agree with Alex and Dustin here.

By the way, if it is not an issue of rules understanding, it can fall into the shortcuts about choices of a spell depending on how the communication went between players

I agree with Scott. Asking about the bolster is like asking me what I'm naming with Pithing needle. It means you've allowed the spell to resolve. Now, if the spell has resolved, there's no problem shocking the bear cub who is now a 4/4 …bolster doesn't make the cub have hexproof.

So I see no rule violation. But there is a “penalty” of having lost a shock. Am I wrong on this? I seem in the minority here.

In the scenario, November explicitly said “ok, in answer to your Honor’s
Reward”. This is why we GRV instead of assuming he's used the Shock after
the spell has resolved.

2017-01-09 19:32 GMT-05:00 Mark Mason <forum-32565-d698@apps.magicjudges.org

Originally posted by Mark Mason:

I agree with Scott. Asking about the bolster is like asking me what I'm naming with Pithing needle. It means you've allowed the spell to resolve. Now, if the spell has resolved, there's no problem shocking the bear cub who is now a 4/4 …bolster doesn't make the cub have hexproof.

So I see no rule violation. But there is a “penalty” of having lost a shock. Am I wrong on this? I seem in the minority here.

We take into consideration player intent. Some plays can be interpreted in two ways, an illegal one that AP wanted and a legal one. We often interpret it as the first then.

A similar scenario is:
AP: “attacks?”
NAP: “sure”
AP: "crew my copter skiff“
NAP: ”judge!"

We could say that AP crewed when he had priority in Declare Attackers so he skipped his chance to declare attackers, but instead we'll say that he tried to crew at a time he couldn't and is now still able to declare non-skiff attackers.

Edited Toby Hazes (Jan. 9, 2017 11:57:12 PM)