Some of you may have heard of an interaction that occurred at GP OKC this weekend. A basic summary of what happened was that a player wanted to use his Beast Within in response to an otherwise lethal stack of Valakut triggers. The player asked a judge if the Valakut triggers would still resolve, to which the judge answered “yes” (as he should have. Of course, when they resolve, they wouldn't do any damage, but the player didn't know this. He cast Beast Within anyway but then conceded with nonlethal damage on the stack.

The reason I'm posting this is because of a comment in the reddit thread (emphasis mine):

From a tableside judge at the tournament:
"The conversation was about the triggers and stacking Beast Within. Nothing untoward or remotely sketchy occurred - it's just as commentary explained it after the fact, he just did not realize that yes, those triggers will resolve, but no they won't do anything. The Valakut player didn't sell him on anything - the player sold himself that those triggers would kill him, so he conceded.
Here's the thing folks. At Professional REL, judges are not there to teach you the game. When you ask a rules question, you'll get a rules answer. Questions that start with “If I do this, will this happen?” are not questions I am going to answer at Competitive REL, let alone Professional REL, because having a stronger knowledge of how cards work and the rules should absolutely give you an advantage when playing. The judge who took his call before making the play (former L5 and PT Head Judge Scott Marshall) did his best to answer the player's questions. But at the end of the day, nothing illegal occurred, and we aren't going to say a word in that situation - and we didn't. IF the player moved to resolve the Valakut triggers, we absolutely would have made sure they didn't do damage.
But he conceded. And that's that."

Is the bolded section a true statement? If a player at Competitive/Professional REL asks us a rules hypothetical, are we supposed to say “I can't answer that question”?

Strictly speaking, the bolded statement represents a particular judge's stance on answering rules questions, so it is by definition a true statement. That said, I've (personally) tried to fight very hard against stances like this, because players do not, and should not, have the same level of rules expertise that we expect from judges.

While providing Outside Assistance is something that we should avoid, many judges err too far in the opposite direction by providing unhelpful answers to questions that are pretty clearly requests for information about how the game works. The quote you provide makes it sound like this may have happened here, where a player describes a line of play that they intend to make and a judge gives an incomplete and potentially misleading account of what the rules dictate would happen next. Strictly speaking, the player's question has been answered, but it has been answer in such a way as to give the impression that the rules work a particular way when in fact they work the opposite way.

I would argue that questions of the form “if I do this, will this happen?” are the best kinds of questions for us to be answering. The player has done all of the strategic considerations for us already, and is asking for clarification that their understand of the rules is accurate. Giving a complete answer to these sorts of questions is much closer to the bare minimum of customer service than it is to inappropriate OA.

Edit: I'm also a firm believer that judges should never just answer “yes” or “no” to a rules question. Players aren't required to know rules nuances, and the risk of obscuring a relevant interaction by not providing a full answer is not worth saving the 10 seconds it takes to give that full answer.

Edited Andrew Keeler (Dec. 12, 2017 01:26:04 PM)

Originally posted by Andrew Keeler:

Strictly speaking, the bolded statement represents a particular judge's stance on answering rules questions, so it is by definition a true statement. That said, I've (personally) tried to fight very hard against stances like this, because players do not, and should not, have the same level of rules expertise that we expect from judges.

While providing Outside Assistance is something that we should avoid, many judges err too far in the opposite direction by providing unhelpful answers to questions that are pretty clearly requests for information about how the game works. The quote you provide makes it sound like this may have happened here, where a player describes a line of play that they intend to make and a judge gives an incomplete and potentially misleading account of what the rules dictate would happen next. Strictly speaking, the player's question has been answered, but it has been answer in such a way as to give the impression that the rules work a particular way when in fact they work the opposite way.

I would argue that questions of the form "if I do , will happen?“ are the best kinds of questions for us to be answering. The player has done all of the strategic considerations for us already, and is asking for clarification that their understand of the rules is accurate. Giving a complete answer to these sorts of questions is much closer to the bare minimum of customer service than it is to inappropriate OA.

Edit: I'm also a firm believer that judges should never just answer ”yes“ or ”no" to a rules question. Players aren't required to know rules nuances, and the risk of obscuring a relevant interaction by not providing a full answer is not worth saving the 10 seconds it takes to give that full answer.

thanks for the response. So there's no “official” mtg judge stance on this issue? That is pretty surprising to me.

The only ‘O’ stance I'm aware of is this line in the MTR:

Originally posted by MTR 4.1:

Judges are encouraged to help players in determining free information, but must avoid assisting players with derived information about the game state.

How you put this guidance into practice is up to you.

OK, time to explain in a bit more detail, what actually happened and what it means to us as judges.

The Titan-Shift player was resolving Scapeshift for 7, getting a Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle and six Mountains. The other player - with a Beast Within in hand - asked me about the interaction, and I could only provide rules-based answers to the question(s) he was trying to ask. He could have asked better questions, but he didn't ask bad questions. He did tell me the player had shifted for 2 Valakut and 5 Mountains; reality is there was already a Valakut in play, and he shifted for 1 Valakut and 6 Mountains, which would be 12 triggers and 36 damage if everything resolved.

I pointed out that there had to be at least five other Mountains for it to trigger, and there has to be at least five other Mountains when it tries to resolve - and it sure seemed at that moment that he understood.

We went back to the table, he tapped for and played the Beast Within, and chose the best possible target (Stomping Grounds); his opponent simply asked “when?” or even “when are you doing that?”; the Beast player seemed a bit confused by that, and said something about it being once the lands were on the board before damage (I don't recall exact wording); the opponent then said “so the triggers are on the stack?” … and then the Beast player tanked for a second, and said “you got me” and stuck out his hand.

Let it be very clear that at no point did any judge give the incorrect answer that has been misquoted elsewhere - those triggers will NOT resolve unless there are at least five other Mountains on the battlefield, on resolution. It's an intervening if, so it has to be true twice. No one told that player that they'd still resolve, then leave out “but not do damage”, because that's simply not true - and the four judges there are all rules experts. (In this specific instance, the Valakut triggers fired by the now-destroyed Stomping Grounds will resolve, as there are still 5 other Mountains for those triggers - so 6 damage would be dealt, but not 36.)

I'm still at a loss as to how the player misunderstood; I did tell him that I really wished I could have answered his question as a friend, but I had to stick to rules answers. As a “friend”, I could've just said “destroy one of the Mountains, you won't take lethal damage”; as a judge, I had to try and explain intervening ifs without him losing consciousness.

As to the original post's key question:

Originally posted by Broc Woodworth:

Questions that start with “If I do this, will this happen?” are not questions I am going to answer at Competitive REL, let alone Professional REL

I can't remember when I first say it - maybe 17, 18 years ago? - but it's long been taught that we don't provide strategic or play advice via our answers, but only rules answers.

That statement is very general - two instances of “this”, which is not at all specific - so we can poke holes in that all day long. However, the philosophy is valid.

“Can I use this (Beast Within) to not lose?” - that's not a good question, all I can do is cite rules.
“How do I use ~this~ to win (or not lost)?” - again, no way we can answer that directly.
In each of those examples, what we can do is provide the rules related to what they're asking about, or even just reply “what rules are you unsure of?”, then answer that.

“If I destroy one of his six Mountains, will I still take damage?” - that would've been a great question; I could have answered it directly (perhaps “two triggers will resolve, dealing 6 damage; the other 10 will not”?).

We've long held that a superior knowledge of the rules should be (must be?) an advantage for that player; this was, sadly, an example where the player's lack of advanced rules knowledge (intervening ifs) cost him the game and match - despite my attempts to explain the rules he needed to understand, without directly advising him in any way.

d:^D

Thank you Scott for the clarification!

I came across a scenario very similar at a SCG event this year. With breach - shift being my deck of choice of for modern, I'm very familiar with the intervening if trigger. A player asked me what does he have to beast within to make the triggers fizzle, to which I told him I can't coach him on his line of play. He then asked me direct yes or no questions. The direct line of questioning was the only way he was able to get the information he needed without me overextending my knowledge into OA.

I would also like to thank Scott for the time spent on his well crafted and very informative answer. I absolutely love the response of “what rule are you unsure of?” in cases like this.