Originally posted by Michel Degenhardt:

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).

It sounds like you are pushing the burden of communicating how combat damage is assigned from AP to NAP. AP has only communicated that they want to deal damage, not how they want damage to be dealt. AP has an affirmative obligation in combat to assign damage, either explicitly or implicitly (CR 510.1).

AP has clearly failed to do so (FWIW, AP also failed to specify which blocker was first in the damage assignment order until NAP asked). NAP is taking this opportunity to represent a legal game state that can result from this combat.

It's not sporting, sure. But this isn't a question of whether or not we like it - it's a question of whether or not this is a legal sequence and a legal “bluff”. If it's legal, then it doesn't really matter what NAP thinks.

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”.

Communication doesn't need to be verbal. NAP is performing the results of a legal damage assignment, and AP is able to work backwards as to where they are and what's going on. AP's call is “why is that 1/1 alive?” not “why is that 3/3 being put into the graveyard?”.

It's a similar case to “I attack with Grizzly Bears, cross out the 20 on your column on my lifepad, and write in 18” or “I discard Snapcaster and reveal my other card in hand (Lightning Bolt) when you Inquisition me”.

You also reiterated my point earlier - AP hasn't communicated any choices on this. NAP isn't doing something that isn't possible based on AP's communication about choices.

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?

That's a great question - where are we if you intervene as soon as you see the 1/1 stay on the table and the other two hit the yard? AP can go “obviously, we're waiting on NAP to bin the 1/1”, and can take advantage of the new information they may have gained to change their mind about both their decision and where we are in the game.

As far as revealing derived info, stepping in generally does, but that's an inescapable end. If AP has Glorious Anthem, attacks with a Grizzly Bear, NAP blocks with a Grizzly Bear, and both players put their Bear into the grave, we should step in. This is clearly an illegal action.

Edited Jason Riendeau (Aug. 14, 2017 12:07:01 PM)

Michel, there were a number of links posted earlier, about this same philosophy in other situations. Some of them might be able to explain it better then we're doing here, you might want to check them out:


https://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2012/11/20/trample/

https://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/24500/

https://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/31297/

http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/discussing-cavern-souls-2012-05-25

While the burden of communicating the decision is on AP, that doesn't mean that NAP can intentionally misunderstand what AP is communicating.

Consider the following two scenario's. In both cases AP calls you after passing the turn, when AP notices that NAP didn't put the 1/1 in the graveyard:

Scenario 1: AP: “I clearly stated that I wanted to kill both creatures”. NAP: “I heard that, but didn't put the 1/1 in the graveyard hoping that AP wouldn't notice.” (verbal communication)

Scenario 2: AP: “I didn't say anything because it was obvious that I wanted to kill both creatures”. NAP: “It was obvious that AP wanted to kill both creatures, but I didn't put the 1/1 in the graveyard hoping that AP wouldn't notice.” (nonverbal communication)

In both scenario's NAP understood AP's intention, yet decided to ignore that. To me, these scenario's should be treated the same.

—
The situation where NAP believes that AP isn't aware of the choice to be made is less clear cut. However, the fact that AP didn't communicate a choice doesn't give NAP carte blanche to make that choice in AP's stead. Since it's ultimately AP making the choice, I feel that AP has to acknowledge the choice made in some way.

Note that in both the examples Jason lists, as well as in the threads Isaac quotes, the player making the decision always either takes an action themselves, or is in a situation where they are communicating with their opponent about what's happening.

If simply missing that your opponent didn't do something implies agreement, you require players to be hyper vigilant, because all of a sudden a player becomes responsible for the opponents actions.

—

Originally posted by Jason Riendeau:

That's a great question - where are we if you intervene as soon as you see the 1/1 stay on the table and the other two hit the yard? AP can go “obviously, we're waiting on NAP to bin the 1/1”, and can take advantage of the new information they may have gained to change their mind about both their decision and where we are in the game.

As far as revealing derived info, stepping in generally does, but that's an inescapable end. If AP has Glorious Anthem, attacks with a Grizzly Bear, NAP blocks with a Grizzly Bear, and both players put their Bear into the grave, we should step in. This is clearly an illegal action.

Note that the OP specifies that AP passed the turn. If we step in at that point, it is clear that we aren't waiting for NAP to bin the 1/1 anymore.

Furthermore, we immediately ask AP which creatures died last combat. If AP immediately tells me that both the 3/3 and the 1/1 should have died, it seems unlikely to me that they didn't realize they had a choice but became aware of it because I intervened. If they tell me that just the 3/3 died, then that is apparently the choice they wanted to make, and they won't be able to change their mind later.

—
For an intervention to be bad, there need to be a situation where there was no infraction, yet my intervention reveals information the players shouldn't have. If I'm wrong regarding a decision by AP requiring at least some kind of acknowledgement by AP, I can imagine such a situation.

However, if I'm correct about that, the only situation where no infraction takes places seems to be the situation where AP intentionally left the 1/1 alive, and NAP understood that to be AP's intention. In that situation, I don't know what information my intervention could reveal that they don't already have. Both the possibility of killing the 1/1 and the P/T of the 4/4 where already known to them in that case.

Originally posted by Michel Degenhardt:

If simply missing that your opponent didn't do something implies agreement, you require players to be hyper vigilant, because all of a sudden a player becomes responsible for the opponents actions.

I thought they already were. Isn't this the whole point of FtMGS?

Just want to drop by this piece of philosophy from the IPG, tho

Originally posted by IPG General Philosophy:

If the players are playing in a way that is clear to both players, but might cause confusion to an external observer, judges are encouraged to request that the players make the situation clear, but not assess an infraction or issue any penalty.

Does this situation fit the description?

I think I've made myself fairly clear here, and others have elaborated on that position effectively and sufficiently. Some choose to disagree, but I hope they'll all continue to apply policy as written and explained.

It's been pointed out to me that much of what's been posted recently is effectively just spinning our wheels - arguing in circles, in other words - so I'm closing this thread.

d:^D