I would rule this as a gpe-grv, assuming no cheating.

For something to be CPV, it must be an infraction against MTR 4.1.

Originally posted by IPG:

Refer to section 4.1 of the Magic Tournament Rules for a full explanation of the policy. It can be summarized as:
Players must answer all questions asked of them by a judge completely and honestly, regardless of the type of information requested. Players may request to do so away from the match.
Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly.
Players must answer completely and honestly any specific questions pertaining to free information.

I think it is a bit of a stretch to fit this example within the CPV policy. It fits much more nicely as a GRV.

Why is this a CPV and not a GRV for resolving the trigger at the wrong time?

As Floris explained above, CPV is only for violations of the communication policy described in section 4.1 of the MTR.

This situation would be a GRV + FtMGS, for resolving a trigger that didn't exist. A backup is probably going to be acceptable here, but it would of course depend on the exact game state.

To quote a lot of people: it's never CPV (except when it really is). :)

Nope, this is not CPV, it's a simple GRV for reading the card incorrectly; I'm not sure this is even worth anything more than a “read more carefully, OK?”, as nothing happened that couldn't have happened - i.e., it's almost the same philosophy as Out of Order Sequencing (it's not that, either, any more than CPV).

However, it is technically a GRV, and recording it means we can detect a pattern of abuse (in the unlikely event that Alie is doing this a lot, for benefit).

d:^D

I'm confused about two things:

Originally posted by Gediminas Usevičius:

Alie casts Gilded Cerodon and says your ‘Can’t block' while tapping Neon's Hollow One.

Does “tapping” here mean “touching with a finger” rather than “turning sideways”? And should “your ‘Can’t block'” read “'your creature can't block'”?

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

nothing happened that couldn't have happened - i.e., it's almost the same philosophy as Out of Order Sequencing

As far as I can tell from reading the scenario, Gilded Cerodon was just cast and cannot attack, so it would not be possible to resolve its trigger this turn. Am I missing something?

Originally posted by Jake Eakle:

I'm confused about two things:

Originally posted by Gediminas Usevičius:

Alie casts Gilded Cerodon and says your ‘Can’t block' while tapping Neon's Hollow One.

Does “tapping” here mean “touching with a finger” rather than “turning sideways”? And should “your ‘Can’t block'” read “'your creature can't block'”?

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

nothing happened that couldn't have happened - i.e., it's almost the same philosophy as Out of Order Sequencing

As far as I can tell from reading the scenario, Gilded Cerodon was just cast and cannot attack, so it would not be possible to resolve its trigger this turn. Am I missing something?

The player thinks it is an Enter the Battlefield trigger as has incorrectly resolved that trigger when it entered the battlefield (when it instead triggers on attacks). I didn't read tapping to mean the usual game-term tapping, but as you suggested to touch it with a finger; with the “can't block” I would take it to mean they are saying the creature they are tapping their finger on cannot block.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

The Cerodon's ability is part of Oracle text, which is implied by the card, and is considered Derived info:

By that logic, can't pretty much any error be framed as a CPV? “Judge, I accidentally put my creature that was Path to Exiled into the graveyard- Well, the text of Path to Exile is derived info, so that's a CPV.”

uhhh… No.

Ariel communicated and incorrectly represented derived info.

d:^D

Originally posted by Isaac King:

By that logic, can't pretty much any error be framed as a CPV? “Judge, I accidentally put my creature that was Path to Exiled into the graveyard- Well, the text of Path to Exile is derived info, so that's a CPV.”

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

uhhh… No.

Ariel communicated and incorrectly represented derived info.

What if AP casts Path to Exile and tells her opponent “please put that creature in your graveyard”?
Would this be PCV?

Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:

What if AP casts Path to Exile and tells her opponent “please put that creature in your graveyard”?
Would this be PCV?

Under what was outlined above by Scott, the action of AP telling NAP what to do with the creature, which would lead to improperly resolving the effect of Path to Exile, is incorrectly represented derived information (Oracle text). As such, yes, this should be considered CPV.

I could see this happening. Round 8 or 9 of a modern GP, player has foreign copies of Path to Exile, casts targeting an opposing creature; NAP asks what the card does (instead of calling for a judge), AP says ‘destroys the creature, and you can search for a basic’, forgetting it's an exile effect. While NAP resolves it incorrectly, they are doing so because of information directly communicated by their opponent, so the root cause of the infraction would be CPV with consideration for a backup to the point of resolving PtE.

And yet, if AP says ‘it exiles the creature’ and omits the part about searching for a basic, there is no infraction, as oracle text is derived info, and the statement that Path to Exile exiles the creature is factually correct.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

uhhh… No.

Ariel communicated and incorrectly represented derived info.

Ok, I chose a bad analogy. Let me try again- AP casts Doom Blade on a creature with protection from black. NAP puts the card into the graveyard. Is this CPV? In my eyes, this is pretty much the same situation as the original question- pointing at a creature and saying “that can't block” is choosing a target for the ability, which he wasn't supposed to do.

Originally posted by Isaac King:

Ok, I chose a bad analogy. Let me try again- AP casts Doom Blade on a creature with protection from black. NAP puts the card into the graveyard. Is this CPV? In my eyes, this is pretty much the same situation as the original question- pointing at a creature and saying “that can't block” is choosing a target for the ability, which he wasn't supposed to do.

No, as in the first scenario, you claim something that isn't true (the creature not being able to block) while in your example you are targetting an illegal target which is a GRV.

Edited Olivier Wattel (Sept. 7, 2017 11:10:57 PM)

I think the line here looks kind of like the line between (double) GRV and FtMGS. It's kind of a hazy line, but in general taking an incorrect action like casting a spell that alters the gamestate in some way shpould fall on the GRV side of things, while simply representing something untrue about the game (in this case “this ability has triggered”) falls more on the CPV side. As others have pointed out, you also can't CPV with yourself, that's just making a mistake.