Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Originally posted by Dominik Chłobowski:

a player should never make assumptions regarding the game state

I'm afraid that wasn't my quote, fwiw. =(

Originally posted by Michel Degenhardt:

I have. That post clearly explains why we don't intervene to prevent a rules violation from occuring. We only intervene if we believe a rules violation occurred in the past.

In this case, the 1/1 didn't die, and then AP passed the turn. As the potential rules violation already occurred, we're free to intervene to make sure that the gamestate is correct.

However, I'm beginning to be convinced by this logic. I don't think it's harmful to step in to clarify if the 1/1 died if you think there was a likely infraction, since that is what we do when we notice more obvious infractions anyway (even if we fail to notice that it hadn't been one after all). That being said, I welcome someone to provide an example where it would be harmful to step in for a past potential infraction.

Originally posted by Dominik Chłobowski:

I'm afraid that wasn't my quote, fwiw.

Yeah, that's bizarre - I used the “Quote” link after highlighting Michel's words about assumptions, but somehow it was attributed to you?!? Weird.

Michel, you're arguing that players shouldn't make assumptions, yet you want judges to assume that a rules violation occurred - when there isn't any absolute evidence of that.

d:^D

Uncle Scott, if your previous post was meant as an ‘O’fficial answer, could you expand on it a bit? I'm not quite sure what you're saying should be done here.

What I would like is for the judge to identify that a rules violation may have occurred, and for them to investigate if that's actually the case.

Michel, there is no rules violation; what's happened (so far) is a legal, albeit unexpected, outcome.

The players are probably operating on a different understanding of reality, and once that's noticed, we may have to sort things out. However, it's also possible that everything is exactly as both players expect it to be, and nothing is wrong.

And if you step in and tell AP that they can kill both blockers, you've violated the basic principles that guide us, re: not intervening unless … a rules violation has occurred.

d:^D

May I ask for further clarification? I'm trying to figure out to what extend my understanding regarding intervening is wrong.

As far as I can see, there are three possibilities:
1. AP is aware that he has to distribute 4 damage, and intended to distribute damage 3 and 1.
2. AP is aware that he has to distribute 4 damage, and intended to distribute damage 4 and 0.
3. AP is unaware that he has to distribute 4 damage.

Are you saying that we shouldn't intervene because if we are in situation 3, we may be giving outside assistance?

Or are you going a bit further and are saying that intervening in situation 2 should be avoided at all costs, even if it means not catching the potential mistake of situation 1?

Michel,

all your examples are situation-dependant. As I have written above there are cases where things are touchy.
I am NOT ok with assuming that the NAP is wrong for poor communication from AP's part.

Seriously, the end state is legal, so I would be very upset as a player that you consider I have cheated because my opponent did not bother to be specific.
I have no issue with how you want ti fix the sitation. Sure, if the player calls then just kill the 1/1 and tell the players to be more explicit with communication but in the absence of existing shortcut about default damage distribution, I am sure it is very wrong to call the action of NAP cheating.

Originally posted by Dominik Chłobowski:

I don't think it's harmful to step in to clarify if the 1/1 died if you think there was a likely infraction

The only reason you believe that there has been a likely infraction is strategic. If you step in to clarify what happened, you highlight the fact that AP had another, likely superior, line of play.

You can use strategic considerations when you try to decide what is most likely to have happened, but it should not be the sole basis for intervening in a possibly correct game.

Michel, if you intervene, you do so based on your assumption that AP intended what YOU would have done, in that same scenario. That's a strategy-based decision, and you can't know that they're aware of a (probably) superior line of play - and thus, can't step in to tell them what that would be. Let them make mistakes, as long as they aren't an infraction.

If we see something odd, it's a red flag that maybe we should look a bit closer, or at least watch to see what develops. However, if nothing is illegal, we don't intervene.

d:^D

I guess the mental problem I'm running into is that if they aren't aware a different damage distribution is possible, they didn't actually choose how to distribute the damage. Instead, that choice was made for them by NAP's assumption.

I'm finding it virtually impossible imagining a situation where they are aware that they choose how to distribute the damage, but aren't aware that killing both of your opponents' creatures is usually the more logical choice.

I'm having a difficult time seeing “are you aware that the rules require you to distribute the damage” as a strategic choice.

Originally posted by Michel Degenhardt:

I'm having a difficult time seeing “are you aware that the rules require you to distribute the damage” as a strategic choice.

Michel, what makes you think AP didn't distribute damage?
Now, let's say the 1/1 is a Adorned Pouncer, and AP had Anger of the Gods in hand. Would you intervene? If so, what's so different in both scenarios?

Players are only required to know the rules insofar as they need to in order to play legally. If a player has a misunderstanding of the rules that isn't causing an illegal action to take place, we don't step in to inform them. In fact this would be Outside Assistance if a spectator did. (You're welcome to educate them after the match.)

MTR:
A player should have an advantage due to better understanding of the options provided by the rules of the game,
greater awareness of the interactions in the current game state, and superior tactical planning.

I've seen several questions asking if I would step in given a different but similar scenario. The answer in those cases depends on if I believe NAP might be intentionally ignoring the implied damage distribution. To understand the differences, it's good to look at why I want to step in in this particular case. This will also help as a summary of my understanding thus far.

Why I want to intervene
The reason I want to intervene is one particular scenario. If NAP believes that it is obvious that AP wants to kill both creatures, but decides to use the lack of explicit communication to only bin the 3/3 in the hope that AP won't notice, I feel NAP is cheating. Just as NAP can't ignore an explicit “kill both” from AP, NAP also can't ignore an implicit “kill both”. I would like to investigate what NAP believes is happening, as I'm unlikely to discover NAP's beliefs by just observing.

This same risk exists in the scenario Yurick proposed, so I would be inclined intervene there. It doesn't exist in the scenario I received through the mail, so in that scenario, I wouldn't intervene. I am aware that I'm using my strategic judgement of the situation in deciding whether or not that risk exists.

Why others say I shouldn't intervene
The argument against intervening seems to be that by doing so, I risk revealing strategic information to AP. From what has been said thus far, it is my understanding that the strategic information that we risk revealing is the rules knowledge that AP decides how to distribute the damage.

What I'm still unsure about
I was unsure how revealing that rules knowledge was revealing strategic information. Isaac's reply partially addresses that question:

Originally posted by Isaac King:

Players are only required to know the rules insofar as they need to in order to play legally. If a player has a misunderstanding of the rules that isn't causing an illegal action to take place, we don't step in to inform them. In fact this would be Outside Assistance if a spectator did. (You're welcome to educate them after the match.)

If AP is unaware of the fact that AP gets to decide how to distribute the damage, then effectively NAP has made the choice. Doesn't that mean that inherently a rule has been broken?

Edited Michel Degenhardt (Aug. 14, 2017 04:55:51 AM)

Originally posted by Michel Degenhardt:

I've seen several questions asking if I would step in given a different but similar scenario. The answer in those cases depends on if I believe NAP might be intentionally ignoring the implied damage distribution. To understand the differences, it's good to look at why I want to step in in this particular case. This will also help as a summary of my understanding thus far.

The implied damage distribution in the proposed scenario is “4 damage to a 3/3”, which is a legal play. The first time that AP mentions how they are distributing damage is a turn later going “why isn't that dead?”

There's a damage assignment order, but that's ordering which creature gets damage, not how much damage is being dealt.

Why I want to intervene
The reason I want to intervene is one particular scenario. If NAP believes that it is obvious that AP wants to kill both creatures, but decides to use the lack of explicit communication to only bin the 3/3 in the hope that AP won't notice, I feel NAP is cheating. Just as NAP can't ignore an explicit “kill both” from AP, NAP also can't ignore an implicit “kill both”. I would like to investigate what NAP believes is happening, as I'm unlikely to discover NAP's beliefs by just observing.

This same risk exists in the scenario Yurick proposed, so I would be inclined intervene there. It doesn't exist in the scenario I received through the mail, so in that scenario, I wouldn't intervene. I am aware that I'm using my strategic judgement of the situation in deciding whether or not that risk exists.

That's the trap - “obvious”. There's no mention about an explicit “kill both” in the presented scenario. What in this scenario or the rules makes the “kill both” implicit and obvious?

As far as NAP's affirmative obligations in combat, they need to make sure that attackers are legal, their own blocks are legal, there's a damage assignment order (if it will matter), combat damage is legally assigned, and that the results are correctly handled, such as their life total going down or their creatures dying.

In this scenario, the attacks and blocks are legal (no mention of either being illegal was given), there's a damage assignment order (they asked when there wasn't one), there's a legal combat damage assignment (all of it to first blocker is legal), and the results are correctly handled (they put their dead creature in the graveyard).

Why others say I shouldn't intervene
The argument against intervening seems to be that by doing so, I risk revealing strategic information to AP. From what has been said thus far, it is my understanding that the strategic information that we risk revealing is the rules knowledge that AP decides how to distribute the damage.

You also reveal that their creature is a 4/4 (derived info - relevant for Tarmogoyf), and that there's another strategic option available - they can also kill the 1/1. They may be aware of killing the 1/1 at the time, or they might not. Given that the first time that they mention killing the 1/1 was after the fact…

What I'm still unsure about
I was unsure how revealing that rules knowledge was revealing strategic information. Isaac's reply partially addresses that question:

Originally posted by Isaac King:

Players are only required to know the rules insofar as they need to in order to play legally. If a player has a misunderstanding of the rules that isn't causing an illegal action to take place, we don't step in to inform them. In fact this would be Outside Assistance if a spectator did. (You're welcome to educate them after the match.)

If AP is unaware of the fact that AP gets to decide how to distribute the damage, then effectively NAP has made the choice. Doesn't that mean that inherently a rule has been broken?

NAP is proposing a damage assignment. AP is agreeing to it, so they are implicitly choosing that damage assignment. If NAP explicitly went “I get to choose how damage is assigned”, they are actively misrepresenting the rule, and that's a problem. Suggesting a choice isn't misrepresentation.

Let's say AP plays Thoughtseize, NAP reveals Lightning Bolt, Snapcaster Mage, Tasigur, and Flooded Strand. NAP goes “get rid of Lightning Bolt?”, AP thinks about it, and says “okay”, followed by NAP putting Bolt into the graveyard. Are you stepping in because AP explicitly didn't say “I choose Lightning Bolt” and instead agreed with picking Lightning Bolt?

Originally posted by Jason Riendeau:

The implied damage distribution in the proposed scenario is “4 damage to a 3/3”, which is a legal play. The first time that AP mentions how they are distributing damage is a turn later going “why isn't that dead?”

There's a damage assignment order, but that's ordering which creature gets damage, not how much damage is being dealt.

Originally posted by Jason Riendeau:

That's the trap - “obvious”. There's no mention about an explicit “kill both” in the presented scenario. What in this scenario or the rules makes the “kill both” implicit and obvious?

As far as NAP's affirmative obligations in combat, they need to make sure that attackers are legal, their own blocks are legal, there's a damage assignment order (if it will matter), combat damage is legally assigned, and that the results are correctly handled, such as their life total going down or their creatures dying.

In this scenario, the attacks and blocks are legal (no mention of either being illegal was given), there's a damage assignment order (they asked when there wasn't one), there's a legal combat damage assignment (all of it to first blocker is legal), and the results are correctly handled (they put their dead creature in the graveyard).

NAP puts just the 3/3 in the graveyard, without saying anything. That is perfectly fine, if NAP believes that to be the choice that AP is communicating.

However, my personal experience playing magic tells me that this is a strange belief for NAP to have. Generally speaking, I would expect my opponent to want to kill both creatures in such a situation. Therefore, I would like to talk to NAP away from the table, to discover what NAP believed AP wanted to do, and why NAP believed that.

It is very well possible that NAP explains to me why AP wanted to kill just the 3/3, in which case there was no infraction.

It is also possible that NAP tells me that AP likely didn't know about the choice of damage resolution, so NAP assumed the choice was the one that was most advantageous to NAP. In this situation, I will educate NAP that NAP doesn't get to make that decision. At the very least, confirmation from AP is needed in such a situation. (Aside: the reason for this is that otherwise, NAP can do whatever they want whenever there is no explicit communication. Which requires AP to either always explicitly communicate, or to be constantly vigilant that NAP is assuming the obvious choices, both of which make playing Magic far more burdensome then it should be)

The final possibility is that NAP tells me that NAP believed AP wanted to kill both creatures. If NAP holds this belief, then “kill both” was both implicit and obvious by definition (after all, that's how NAP understood the situation).

I feel like I'm repeating myself on this point though. I assume that the point of difference between us is the following paragraph:

Originally posted by Jason Riendeau:

NAP is proposing a damage assignment. AP is agreeing to it, so they are implicitly choosing that damage assignment. If NAP explicitly went “I get to choose how damage is assigned”, they are actively misrepresenting the rule, and that's a problem. Suggesting a choice isn't misrepresentation.

If NAP had asked “so your creature and my 3/3 die?” and AP had confirmed, I would agree with you. However, the situation we're discussing is one where NAP puts his 3/3 into the graveyard without saying anything. AP didn't do anything whatsoever to indicate any choice, as evidenced by the fact that it's easy to imagine AP going “why isn't that dead?”. NAP putting 1 card in the graveyard is not “suggesting a choice”.

Originally posted by Jason Riendeau:

You also reveal that their creature is a 4/4 (derived info - relevant for Tarmogoyf), and that there's another strategic option available - they can also kill the 1/1. They may be aware of killing the 1/1 at the time, or they might not. Given that the first time that they mention killing the 1/1 was after the fact…

This, for me, is the most relevant part of your post: an explanation of the information that we risk revealing by intervening, and therefore an explanation of why intervening may be a bad decision.

It seems to me that this is derived info of a past game state, though. By the time we're intervening, the 4/4 has died, and the choice has been made (or, more accurately, my first question in the intervention would be “AP, could you tell me what creatures died last combat?”, which locks AP into an explicit choice). Besides, don't we always risk revealing derived information when we intervene?