Welcome to a new Knowledge Pool, brought to you by Niels Viaene (posting on his behalf). This one requires a bit more thought, so we're posting it as a Gold question. Feel free to share your thoughts on what the answer is, why it is, and how you think policy supports that answer.

The blog post can be found here: http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/?p=733

Abe and Norman are playing a game during a Standard GPT. Norman is at 2 life and has Thalia, Guardian of Thraben in play, when Abe taps 3 mountains and casts Devil's Play targeting Norman.

Norman takes his pen and says, “So I go to one?” to which Abe replies, “No, you're dead.” Norman just points at his Thalia and repeats, “So I go to one?” Abe calls a judge.

What do you do?

Does Abe have a 4th mana source available?

The question doesn't specify, so feel free to answer both ways, and explain whether that changes your ruling in any way.

Since Abe did not specify a value for X when casting Devil’s Play it is assumed to be the maximum of what he had in his pool, in this case with a Thalia on the table X=1. Even though Abe meant to have X=2 he never specified what X was when casting, and therefore upon resolution it was a legal play with X being 1. The spell resolves and Norman is at 1. No infractions committed. Thalia’s ability increasing a spells cost is derived information.

For further discussion: Had Norman announced “casting Devil’s Play, targeting you, X=2.” And taps 3 mountains. At this point he has committed GRV for not taking into account the Thalia. The appropriate fix would be to back up to the point of infraction and issue the warning. By not announcing the value of X Abe, he is (unknowingly) committing an established shortcut in determining the value of X.

I am a bit surprised this is really less than clear. It is obvious what play Abe was trying to make and equally obvious that he was not able to pay the CC of the spell he was announcing. I do not, and I believe policy supports this, like to make players be overly explicit about what they are trying to do. Just as if he had said, “X is 2.”

The fact that he did not say something obvious to the both of them should be encouraged, not discouraged. Yes, there is an established shortcut for X spells, but I don't think the shortcut applies in the case of additional costs such as Thalia. The established shortcuts are to help players play quickly and NOT have to declare X every time they cast a spell.

Devil's Play goes back to Abe's hand and his lands untap. Continue play.

The only time I would even consider saying Devil's Play resolves for 1 is at Pro REL where we are more strict on precise play.

Originally posted by Nicholas Brown:

Since Abe did not specify a value for X when casting Devil’s Play it is assumed to be the maximum of what he had in his pool, in this case with a Thalia on the table X=1.

Why? What rule or policy says that X=1 in this case?

–David

My argument for not backing up is that if a player casts a shock targeting a grizzly bear when there is a glorious anthem on the board, we wouldn't back it up because the player didn't realize that they needed to play their lightning bolt instead.
If this were a FNM I would definitely back up and allow the player to specify a value for X and then proceed.

In the MTR, there is a shortcut that states that if a player does not state
a value for X when casting a spell or activating an ability with X in it's
cost, it is assumed that they are choosing the highest possible value of X
for the mana in their mana pool.

With this shortcut in mind, that would mean that Abe had cast Devil's Play
with a value of X = 1. Because this shortcut is here and the exchange that
the two have, it is clear that we have finished casting the spell and are
resolving it. Even if Abe has a 4th Mana source, I would not allow him to
go back and change the value of X to 2 and pay 3{R} for the spell. My
ruling would be that X = 1 and Devil's Play is resolving to deal 1 damage.
There has been no game play error committed and thus I do not see a reason
to back-up the game state. We must allow for strategic errors to occur,
especially at Competitive REL, and that is what has occurred here.

-George FitzGerald
L2, Sarasota, FL

Looking at the documents, the tournament shortcut about X spells obviously seems relevant. The full wording of that is:

Originally posted by MTR 4.2:

If a player casts a spell or activates an ability with X in its mana cost without specifying the value of X, it is assumed to be for all mana currently available in his or her pool.

However, I don't believe that the tournament shortcut is fully relevant here, as we have both an X spell and a cost-increasing effect. I think the philosophy that the MTR provides is more important than strictly parsing the shortcut so that it conforms to this situation. The most relevant bit of that philosophy is:

Originally posted by MTR 4.2:

A tournament shortcut is an action taken by players to skip parts of the technical play sequence without explicitly announcing them.

In this case, it's clear that Abe intended to cast Devil's Play with X=2 to kill Norman, and paid 2R to do so. Rather than follow the technical casting process from Rule 601, he just tapped some lands and showed Norman the spell. As a result, he was not explicit about his choice of X, but the shortcut philosophy allows this ambiguity.

With Thalia on the board, what Abe attempted is an illegal play. I would rule this a GRV and backup the spell (with the Head Judge's permission).

Actually, if we're applying the MTR shortcut strictly to the letter, we still end up with him trying to cast a spell with X=2 and not paying the Thalia mana.

601.2b in the Comp rules is the step in “Casting a Spell” which covers the choice of X.
601.2e is the step whereby additional costs (like Thalia) are taken into account.

So Abe has gone through step (b) without declaring X. The MTR shortcut says it's all the spare mana in his pool (which is 2 red after he pays for the single red mana). Then we get (eventually) to step (e) and tack on the 1. So he tried to cast a spell with a total cost of 3R using only 3 mana. It's a simple case of GRV and a warning for Abe.

Norman isn't penalised for trying to get away with X=1. We can't really fault a player for trying to clarify an unclear play in a manner which suits him like this.

Plus, at the end of the day you have to ask yourself, did Abe try to cast the spell with X=2 or not? It's clear that he did based on his “you're dead” line.

Total cost for a spell is determined before any costs are actually paid.
Just because you add cost increases later in 602e, it doesn't mean you
actually pay them later.

If see this situation as Abe declaring the value of X for Devil's Play as 2 but failing to pay the total cost of the spell before he casts it targeting Norman. I would give Abe a Warning for GPE-GRV and ask the head judge if the game can be backed up to before Abe put Devil's Play on the stack.

Even though this is at a GPT I would apply this ruling at any REL because Devil's Play was obviously cast for lethal damage (X=2) hence his statement “you are dead” and Norman is trying to rules lawyer Abe who is shortcutting through the play in the interest of saving time.

Edited Eric Paré (June 5, 2013 09:23:07 PM)

Does the fact that he said “No, you are dead” not mean x=2 by intent? I think this is often a struggle as a player because the only logical reason for me casting the spell like I did was to kill you. Unfortunately we can't legislate intent normally no matter how logical it is.

If I were Norman and the judge allowed him to take back his spell and cast it again I would be quite disappointed. Part of playing Magic is being more perceptive than your opponent and having a better grip on the game. He clearly paid a cost, cast the spell, and gave his opponent priority.

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

Total cost for a spell is determined before any costs are actually paid.
Just because you add cost increases later in 602e, it doesn't mean you
actually pay them later.

Yes, but at the time that Abe was supposed to say what the value of X was, he didn't, so the MTR shortcut tells us X=2 as at that stage that's the mana left in pool.

It is obvious that the scenario is not covered by official documents.
One can interpret both the shortcut rule and rule 601 one way or another just because they are written in English and not in Prolog.

Opinion changed.
I would rather focus on which solution would make sense, as in, what kind of game we want to see.
And from this perspective, I think it is clear that the player has made a strategic mistake and should live with the consequences.
Especially, given ruling by intent is no longer a thing.

Edited Denis Sokolov (June 6, 2013 02:57:34 PM)