Hello!

Florian Horn and I are going to prepare a document covering frequent policy doubts/unclear situations with their official resolution. Similar to this one https://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/46404/

With new mechanics and new cards, it's normal finding situations that are not crystal clearly covered by the rules. This is not a flaw on the documents; it's caused because we judge a game with almost infinite possibilities. We would like to analyze such situations (together with the Policy Sphere and GPHJs), in order to allow all judges (at the premier tournaments and at store tournaments) applying consistent rulings and fixes.

I would like to ask help from the community to identify other situation that may be added to this document. Feel free to also suggest generic policy questions not specifically attached to this set, but currently not clearly answered in the documents.

Please, feel free to translate and share this request in your local judge communication channels.

Thank you!

Riot - If the player doesn't actively acknowledge a choice on the resolution of the creature spell, do we assume they chose Haste as it doesn't put a +1/+1 counter on it?

Sphinx of Foresight :
A player reveals 2 copies of the Sphinx in his opening hand, then proceeds to scry 6 instead of doing scry 3 twice on his first Upkeep. What is the best way to remedy this ?

Coin flips:
Reminder on alternative ways to an actual coin flip that are acceptable for use at any REL in case neither player has a coin on them. (CR 705.3)

Addendum: if an addendum on a player's turn is missed and the phase it was cast in was not explicitly specified, do we treat it as a GRV or do we assume it was cast in Draw/Combat/EoT?

Edited Eli Meyer (Jan. 10, 2019 10:15:05 PM)

Please use this thread only to post questions. After the release of the set, and with the most current version of the IPGs, we’ll provide official answers.
I’m deleting the answer provided because is not supported by the IPG and may cause confusion.

With the coming back of Scry in RNA and gone with Surveil in GRN. What if player unconsciously confused both actions, let's say AP play a Precognitive Perception in their main phase, scry 3, but unconsciously put 2 cards they didn't want to draw in their graveyard (because they are so used to surveil for the last couple of months). 3 turns later, one of the players somehow realize the error and call for a judge.

My question : Are we treating this as AP has decided the 2 cards to go to the bottom of their library but doing it wrong, thus “an object is in an incorrect zone due to being put into the wrong zone during a zone change” GRV and apply the partial fix, Or AP has made a mistake of taking an illegal choice (not a wrongly zone change) and treat it as a non-partial-fixable normal GRV then either rewind or leave it?

I have a question about Captive Audience. If the trigger at the beginning of the upkeep is missed, does the player controlling it get a Warning for Missed Trigger (detrimental), or do we not say anything as the owner of the card need to point it out (not detrimental)?

Last chance to add questions. We'll start working on the document really soon and lock this thread.

Hello, the article is now published: https://blogs.magicjudges.org/whatsupdocs/2019/02/26/ravnica-allegiance-rulings-clarifications/

If there is no way of knowing whether the spell was cast in the main phase (which, for Code of Constraint, also assumes that the targeted creature was already tapped), the opponent is allowed to play as if the spell was cast in another phase; their play either succeeds, confirming that the spell was cast in another phase, or is rewound, with no penalty associated).

This is a really weird ruling. Is this a one-time ruling for Addendum corner cases, or is this precedent for a general philosophy for similar instances where a player isn't explicit and the opponent doesn't ask for clarification?

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

This is a really weird ruling. Is this a one-time ruling for Addendum corner cases, or is this precedent for a general philosophy for similar instances where a player isn't explicit and the opponent doesn't ask for clarification?

This appears to be the same philosophy we apply for triggers which change the rules of the game, such as Writ of Passage. If the trigger is not announced, the non controlling player is allowed to act as though it was missed (and declare blocks for example), but if the controlling player stops them from taking the action immediately, then we retrospectively consider the trigger not to have been missed, but still assign no penalty.

I agree that it is odd to apply the same philosophy outside of the context of triggers, because triggers are explicitly missable while ordinarily the effects of resolving spells are not.

Hello, yes, this is correct. The Addendum ruling mirrors the triggers philosophy.

We have considered all potential options and there's no perfect fit for Addendum template. This one balances well the principles of:
-Not forcing players into coaching their opponents (if the play could have been legal, you don't need to tell your opponent how to do it better).
-Consistency in fixing Game Play Error (at the moment we realise there's an error, even by AP saying “I forgot to resolve Addendum”, we apply the standard fix for GPE-GRV).

However: yes, I agree this is weird, but it's the best solution we can provide in the curren work frame.

I realize I'm bringing a thread back after over a month, but going through this article again, I got confused.

Note that if the creature must attack (e.g. Rubblebelt Recluse and Rhythm of the Wild), NAP must point it out; failing to do so is either Failure to Maintain Game State (and Game Rules Violation to AP) or Cheating.

An observing Judge should not intervene until the attack (Sphinx’s Insight could have been legally cast during the combat phase and Spirit of the Spire in the second main phase).

I want to clarify: the ruling on creatures that must attack assumes there are other creatures attacking that combat, correct? If Rubblebelt Recluse is the only creature on the board, then the same logic permitting NAP to ignore the Sphinx's Insight lifegain should allow NAP to ignore the Recluse, since there is no physical in-game evidence that a rule has been broken–does that make sense?

This is correct.
Obligation to maintain the game state starts when there is an evidence of a broken game state.