We had a player asking the following in a regional question group, and I thought this would be worth asking on JA.

I had some questions over the new policy regarding spells or abilities which give your opponent options.

Firstly if my opponent says something like, ‘Path your guy then attack with these’ - is this a CPV as they didn't tell me I can search? Is it a CPV if they allow me to go to blocks without telling me I can search?

Secondly if I have a Leonin Arbiter in play and GQ or Path my opponent am I required to tell them they can search due to the GQ/Path even if they can't pay the 2 for Arbiter and if yes when should I inform them they, in fact, cannot search?

Thirdly as Modern contains cards such as Simian Spirit Guide if I Mana Leak my opponent's spell when they have one land untapped but 2 cards in hand am I required to ask them if they intend to pay the 3?

Finally am I correct in thinking that two CPVs will incur a Game Loss?

Thoughts on our expectations, particularly for the Leonin Arbiter case?

A follow up point:

Is a player not searching to force their opponent to remind them (and calling a judge if they are not reminded) breaking any rules in order to gain an advantage?
Is waiting for a reminder Slow Play?
If you knew you could search but have not (without verbally declining), and then are reminded, can you change your mind?

This player has some great questions!

Your first example is the active player proposing a shortcut. All players still have to take the actions listed in the shortcut though. If the active player resolved the Path to Exile , but didn’t inform the non-active player they may search for a land, this would fall under the rules as I read them.

Leonin Arbiter is a game rules change for all players. Paying 2 mana is a special action, not an effect. I do not think I would issue a CPV here necessarily, based on the new rules. If they didn't pay, they cannot search so the option isn't open.

I don’t think, as a player, it is ever a good idea to think you know what the other player can do. I could be overlooking something their cards could do to generate mana or other abilities that would impact the game. Your third example seem to fall into this camp. The player who controls the mana leak should be asking, according to the rules. I don't think this is new though. I think this is just resolving the spell.

IPG, 29 September 2017, states, “A second or subsequent Warning for a Tournament Error offense in the same category is upgraded to a Game Loss.”

CPV is a Tournament Error and would fall under this. I do not see anywhere in the IPG where this is mentioned otherwise. What a time to be alive where this is a legitimate question to be asked!

Edited Perry Kraker (Sept. 26, 2017 02:18:24 PM)

Originally posted by Jon Lipscombe:

A follow up point:

Is a player not searching to force their opponent to remind them (and calling a judge if they are not reminded) breaking any rules in order to gain an advantage?
Is waiting for a reminder Slow Play?
If you knew you could search but have not (without verbally declining), and then are reminded, can you change your mind?

There isn't a chance for “forcing” a reminder here, as far I am understanding. The player who controls the effect giving the opponent the option is already required to remind the opponent. Active player casts path to exile targeting a bear cub. When it goes to resolve the active player says to the opponent, “This card allows you to search your library for a basic land and put into play tapped. Would you like to do that?”

I think you always look at this from a investigative standpoint though. If this isn't the first time in the game this card/ability has been played, I would take this into account. I would have many questions whenever presented with this issue in an event.

Edited Perry Kraker (Sept. 26, 2017 02:21:45 PM)

Jon and I talked a bit on the post in question, and privately, but I figured I'd post my thoughts here as well for discussion purposes

Originally posted by Jon Lipscombe:

if my opponent says something like, ‘Path your guy then attack with these’ - is this a CPV as they didn't tell me I can search?

The MTR says "During the resolution of one of their spells or abilities, a player may not assume their opponent has taken a shortcut. They must seek confirmation that a choice with no visible impact was taken.“ By trying to shortcut from path to attacking, it's probably pretty fair to think that the player is assuming the opponent is going to search. And technically they're not supposed to assume. However I think it's much more logical to think of this as the player proposing a shortcut, consisting of ”Path; no responses; resolve path, you search; priority pass to declare attackers; declare appropriate attackers". I'd be loath to penalise the player with a CPV unless the opponent didn't actually search and the player didn't remind them.

Originally posted by Jon Lipscombe:

Secondly if I have a Leonin Arbiter in play and GQ or Path my opponent am I required to tell them they can search due to the GQ/Path even if they can't pay the 2 for Arbiter and if yes when should I inform them they, in fact, cannot search?

No - you're not required to say anything when you cast Path. Not about the arbiter, and not about the choice to search or not. If they pay 2 in response, and then don't actually search as path resolves, you'll have to remind them. If they don't pay 2, then you don't have to say anything as path resolves, as there is no choice to be made.

Originally posted by Jon Lipscombe:

Thirdly as Modern contains cards such as Simian Spirit Guide if I Mana Leak my opponent's spell when they have one land untapped but 2 cards in hand am I required to ask them if they intend to pay the 3?

As above, you don't have to say anything as Mana Leak is cast. You also don't have to say anything as Mana Leak resolves. Either they pay the 3 mana, or their spell is countered. There's nothing really to forget here.

Originally posted by Jon Lipscombe:

Is it a CPV if they allow me to go to blocks without telling me I can search?

Yes.

Originally posted by Jon Lipscombe:

Is a player not searching to force their opponent to remind them (and calling a judge if they are not reminded) breaking any rules in order to gain an advantage?

I believe so - see below.

Originally posted by Jon Lipscombe:

Is waiting for a reminder Slow Play?

The IPG defines Slow Play as this: "A player takes longer than is reasonably required to complete game actions." I suspect that putting your creature into exile, and then sitting there waiting for a reminder (while your opponent waits for you to make your decision), instead of taking the action that's required of you, constitutes Slow Play. If two players are staring each other out, and no Magic is being played, something is definitely wrong! The caveat of course is when your opponent immediately carries on with the turn and doesn't remind you. At which point, we're back to CPV - congrats (I guess?) you've got your opponent a CPV.

Originally posted by Jon Lipscombe:

If you knew you could search but have not (without verbally declining), and then are reminded, can you change your mind?

I'm not entirely sure how this particular case could arise. But if you haven't either searched, or said that you're not going to, you're not locked into once decision over the other by default.

(Edited as I missed a few points)

Edited Mark Mc Govern (Sept. 26, 2017 01:54:34 PM)

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

Originally posted by Jon Lipscombe:

Secondly if I have a Leonin Arbiter in play and GQ or Path my opponent am I required to tell them they can search due to the GQ/Path even if they can't pay the 2 for Arbiter and if yes when should I inform them they, in fact, cannot search?

No - you're not required to say anything when you cast Path. Not about the arbiter, and not about the choice to search or not. If they pay 2 in response, and then don't actually search as path resolves, you'll have to remind them. If they don't pay 2, then you don't have to say anything as path resolves, as there is no choice to be made.

Originally posted by Jon Lipscombe:

Thirdly as Modern contains cards such as Simian Spirit Guide if I Mana Leak my opponent's spell when they have one land untapped but 2 cards in hand am I required to ask them if they intend to pay the 3?

As above, you don't have to say anything as Mana Leak is cast. You also don't have to say anything as Mana Leak resolves. Either they pay the 3 mana, or their spell is countered. There's nothing really to forget here.

I think you are right when it comes to the arbiter and wrong when it comes to the mana leak.

For the arbiter, to clarify: paying the 2 for the arbiter is a special action and has to have happened before the player allows ghost quarter/path to exile to resolve. If the spell/ability is resolving it is too late to make the payment and searching is not allowed so that part doesn't really do anything.

With mana leak however.. the abilities of simian spirit guide and elvish spirit guide are mana abilities so the opponent can active those abilities during resolution of mana leak.

Edited Harm Tacoma (Sept. 26, 2017 02:24:42 PM)

I believe Mark's point about Mana Leak is that due to the nature of the effect the “required to remind” rule won't ever apply. Either the player puts their spell in their graveyard, in which case they have made a choice already, or they pay 3, in which case there's nothing to remind them about. The question of needing to predict whether or not they can make 3 mana does not arise in the first place.

That said, Chain Lightning could lead to this sort of situation. In that case, I don't think your ability to judge how much mana they can make is relevant – I think you need to remind them that they can pay, even if you are totally certain that there is no way for them to do so. I can see that this could lead to some feel-bad cases, though, so I'm interested to hear if anyone thinks otherwise.

Originally posted by Jake Eakle:

I believe Mark's point about Mana Leak is that due to the nature of the effect the “required to remind” rule won't ever apply. Either the player puts their spell in their graveyard, in which case they have made a choice already, or they pay 3, in which case there's nothing to remind them about. The question of needing to predict whether or not they can make 3 mana does not arise in the first place.

Ah yes that makes sense. The text itself requires for a visible choice and either paying the mana or letting your spell get countered both counts as a visible choice so there indeed is nothing to remind your opponent of.

Originally posted by MTR 4.2:

During the resolution of one of their spells or abilities, a player may not assume their opponent has taken a
shortcut. They must seek confirmation that a choice with no visible impact was taken.

Jep, the way I read everything now this does not apply to cards like mana leak

Originally posted by Jake Eakle:

That said, Chain Lightning could lead to this sort of situation. In that case, I don't think your ability to judge how much mana they can make is relevant – I think you need to remind them that they can pay, even if you are totally certain that there is no way for them to do so.

This is a great point here Jake on the distinction between those two cards.

I agree, its kinda wonky with chain lightning if the opponent isn't playing red. Never make assumptions though I guess.

Few more questions from local players. If Player A casts Path to Exile at the end of his turn. Player B says ‘Sure’ and exiles creature. While Player B knows that he can search, he wants Player A to remind him, so he says ‘Can I go?’ to which Player A nods yes. After untapping Player B calls for a judge and explains everything. Is this legit? No slow playing here but still knowingly missing PtE trigger to make Player A get a warning.

One more. After player GQ my land, I start searching. Is this still CPV because player was not reminded to do so?

Originally posted by Gediminas Usevičius:

Few more questions from local players. If Player A casts Path to Exile at the end of his turn. Player B says ‘Sure’ and exiles creature. While Player B knows that he can search, he wants Player A to remind him, so he says ‘Can I go?’ to which Player A nods yes. After untapping Player B calls for a judge and explains everything. Is this legit? No slow playing here but still knowingly missing PtE trigger to make Player A get a warning.

It feels iffy, doesn't it?
Player A needs to be educated regardless and the warning does help with that, so I do not feel too bad about giving the warning and the lesson to Player A. I cannot find any rule that was broken by Player B so no infraction for him. I do feel very tempted to tell him to stop baiting out infractions for his opponents. That way if he repeats it I can give him UC - minor if he repeats the behavior. I am sure there are judges that will disagree with me on this though,so I would love to hear more opinions on this entire scenario.

One more. After player GQ my land, I start searching. Is this still CPV because player was not reminded to do so?

No. Only if the action is not taken the player is forced to ask for confirmation that this was the other player's intent. If the action is taken then everything is already fine.

One more. After player GQ my land, I start searching. Is this still CPV because player was not reminded to do so?

The IPG clearly states that you have to remind your opponent about option actions. When your opponent is already searching for land, he remembered he could do it so there's nothing to remind him of.

Originally posted by Harm Tacoma:

Originally posted by Gediminas Usevičius:

Player A needs to be educated regardless and the warning does help with that, so I do not feel too bad about giving the warning and the lesson to Player A. I cannot find any rule that was broken by Player B so no infraction for him. I do feel very tempted to tell him to stop baiting out infractions for his opponents. That way if he repeats it I can give him UC - minor if he repeats the behavior. I am sure there are judges that will disagree with me on this though,so I would love to hear more opinions on this entire scenario.

It sure does feel iffy. It makes me feel like a missed trigger situation where you would wait for your opponent and call the judge if he missed a (detrimental) missed trigger so he would get a warning.
On the other hand, in the case of a missed trigger, your opponent has to do stuff, not you. So it's kind of strange that you can bait your opponent by not doing anything yourself.

I just tought about a strange bait scenario.
My opponent plays a path to exile on a creature and I can search for a land. In response I sacrifice a fetch land in order to search for a land myself. Because I'm already searching for a land my opponent could think that I'm searching for the land mentioned by the Path as well. But instead I just search for a land for the fetch land.

When the next action is taken I call a judge because my opponent didn't remind me of the land I could search with Path.

Originally posted by Gediminas Usevičius:

Few more questions from local players. If Player A casts Path to Exile at the end of his turn. Player B says ‘Sure’ and exiles creature. While Player B knows that he can search, he wants Player A to remind him, so he says ‘Can I go?’ to which Player A nods yes. After untapping Player B calls for a judge and explains everything. Is this legit? No slow playing here but still knowingly missing PtE trigger to make Player A get a warning.

The only way to truly know if Player B knew he could search for a land would be if he flat out told you he knew what the card did, path to exile had been played during that match previously or Player B had that card in his deck. I find it interesting that Player B knew to exile their creature, but didn't know the rest. This would all be found out during the investigation we would complete when we were called over.

If Player B was found to have known this about path to exile and was trying to gain an advantage from this, there is no way, personally, I would issue a CPV. I don't think this meets the criteria. This would come out during your investigation. I would want to know how much time is left in the round. I would ask questions about other communication shortfalls during the match, if path had been played already, and what pace are the players playing at. Player B is delaying the event, misusing a judges time, and angle shooting. While I don't believe this fits for USC-Minor or Cheating, this is certainly behavior we need to squash. I would talk to Player B about this. Sometimes players were taught to be this way or think this is how competitive Magic is supposed to be played, I don't think anyone should go in with a hot head.

If Player B was found to NOT know about path to exile I would issue a CPV. Since a backup could be considered, I would consult with the HJ if I wasn't it, and suggest a backup of untapping the lands, and moving back to the end step with path on the stack resolving. I would leave the creature in exile and then let the player search for that basic land.

Originally posted by Gediminas Usevičius:

One more. After player GQ my land, I start searching. Is this still CPV because player was not reminded to do so?

This isn't CPV to me because the game state is as it should be. The player searching their library read the card, understands the card, and acting accordingly. I believe this is the type of magic we want to encourage.

Edited Perry Kraker (Sept. 27, 2017 01:26:56 PM)

Originally posted by Perry Kraker:

If Player B was found to have known this about path to exile and was trying to gain an advantage from this

Let's assume player knew about searching and concisely let Player A ‘get a warning’. And both Players played at reasonable pace (no Slow Play). Because now it is not about ‘did opponent knew about the possiblity do search’ but ‘did you remind your opponent about possibility’. And this is definitely relevant at GPs, PTs at both, Standard and Modern.