NAP controls Phantasmal Image, copying whatever.

AP casts Cryptic Command, declaring “bounce Phantasmal Image, draw a card”.
NAP: “ehr … ok”, and puts Phantasmal Image in their graveyard.
AP draws a card.
NAP: juuuudge!

What do you do?

Francesco, it might be helpful to posit what you would do and why, as you start the discussion.

Originally posted by John Brian McCarthy:

Francesco, it might be helpful to posit what you would do and why, as you start the discussion.

I think there are several options/opinions here. I will try and list some.

1) One might argue "same as when NAP control Narset, Parter of Veils, and AP draws“.
Now, we have two subcases.
1a) AP gets a GRV, NAP doesn't - NAP has no obligation to prevent their opponent from committing an infraction.
1b) both AP and NAP get a GRV - AP committed an infraction, NAP should try and prevent their opponent from committing an infraction when they control the source.

2) Or, one might argue ”not the same as Narset - it's not an effect changing the rules of the game“.
again, two subcases.
2a) AP gets a GRV for resolving Cryptic the wrong way.
2b) AP gets HCE for drawing out of nowhere.

If GRV, fix would be ”random card on top“
If HCE, fix would be ”Turboseize".

Personally, my vote goes to 1b).
- Same as Narset, maybe not strictly, but at least conceptually
- double GRV, since NAP should try and prevent their opponent from committing an infraction when they control the source.

What do you think?

Hello,

I'm going to use this as a plug for the Annotated IPG. If you look at the section on HCE here you'll find what you are looking for.

First the line from the HCE definition:

It is not a Hidden Card Error if the opponent acknowledges the action or controls the continuous effect modifying the game rule that was violated.

Then the AIPG explanation:

This sentence has two parts that involve the opponent. If the opponent acknowledges the draw, the player has given warning that something is about to go wrong. In a very real sense, this error was correctable with publicly available information. In this case, we do not want to overly penalize the player as the error was ‘visible’ to both players, or incentivize the opponent to “agree” to an action that will get their opponent a harsher penalty. The second part involves continuous effects the opponent controls. This is essentially a clause for Narset, Parter of Veils. Here we want to put a bit more of a burden on the owner of the effect to be proactive in preventing problems. Keeping your mouth shut and then getting a free Thoughtseize is too good, and makes these effects a bit strong by allowing the player to play the IPG instead of Magic: The Gathering.
In both cases, consider a Game Rule Violation instead, and for the second case, double GRV is probably appropriate.

This situation involves the opponent acknowledges the draw, but doesn't involve modifying any game rule. Therefore, it is GRV for player, but not the opponent.

Honestly I don’t think we have enough information to give out a ruling.
This situation should be investigated on mainly to understand what that “ok” means.
Depending on that, I think this could be either an HCE, a GRV o a miscommunication.

J.

Ottieni Outlook per iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
Da: Shawn Doherty <forum-51810-445d@apps.magicjudges.org>
Inviato: Monday, August 5, 2019 7:12:18 PM
A: jacopostrati@hotmail.com <jacopostrati@hotmail.com>
Oggetto: Re: Cryptic Command, bounce Phantasmal Image and draw (Competitive REL)


Hello,

I'm going to use this as a plug for the Annotated IPG. If you look at the section on HCE here<https://blogs.magicjudges.org/rules/ipg2-3/> you'll find what you are looking for.

First the line from the HCE definition:

It is not a Hidden Card Error if the opponent acknowledges the action or controls the continuous effect modifying the game rule that was violated.
Then the AIPG explanation:
This sentence has two parts that involve the opponent. If the opponent acknowledges the draw, the player has given warning that something is about to go wrong. In a very real sense, this error was correctable with publicly available information. In this case, we do not want to overly penalize the player as the error was ‘visible’ to both players, or incentivize the opponent to “agree” to an action that will get their opponent a harsher penalty. The second part involves continuous effects the opponent controls. This is essentially a clause for Narset, Parter of Veils. Here we want to put a bit more of a burden on the owner of the effect to be proactive in preventing problems. Keeping your mouth shut and then getting a free Thoughtseize is too good, and makes these effects a bit strong by allowing the player to play the IPG instead of Magic: The Gathering.
In both cases, consider a Game Rule Violation instead, and for the second case, double GRV is probably appropriate.

This situation involves the opponent acknowledges the draw, but doesn't involve modifying any game rule. Therefore, it is GRV for player, but not the opponent.

——————————————————————————–
Note: This is a JudgeApps Forum post in the Competitive REL Forum. Replying to this message will create a new post on the JudgeApps Forum and will send email notifications to 568 users. Instead, you can click this link to reply directly to the person who sent this message<https://apps.magicjudges.org/contact/?recipient=sdoherty&subject=Re%3A+Cryptic+Command%2C+bounce+Phantasmal+Image+and+draw>.

You can view and respond to this message on the web at https://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/288142/,
or change your email settings at https://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/.

Disable all notifications for this topic: https://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/51810/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: https://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/51810/?onsite=yes

Originally posted by Shawn Doherty:

This situation involves the opponent acknowledges the draw, but doesn't involve modifying any game rule.

I disagree—in the OP description, NAP is acknowledging the spell being cast, not the draw. In fact, by sending Image to the graveyard, NAP is implying the Command won't resolve.

I would rule HCE.

Genuine question hère, when de could rule HCE or GRV which is, I believe thé case hère, shouldn't we apply an HCE ?

It seems to me that it's an obvious HCE here, the opponent demonstrated the knowledge of trigger of the image,though he didn't declare it his opponents if he didn't understand what happened should had ask him, he just commited a mistake sadly for him it involved drawing a card transforming a not-so-punitive GRV in a harsh HCE .

I'm always curious is it possible if both players agree on which is the card drawn to reveal it and threat it as an LEC if player A want it or would it advantage to much this last one ?

Originally posted by Shawn Doherty:

Hello,

I'm going to use this as a plug for the Annotated IPG. If you look at the section on HCE here you'll find what you are looking for.

First the line from the HCE definition:

It is not a Hidden Card Error if the opponent acknowledges the action or controls the continuous effect modifying the game rule that was violated.

Then the AIPG explanation:

This sentence has two parts that involve the opponent. If the opponent acknowledges the draw, the player has given warning that something is about to go wrong. In a very real sense, this error was correctable with publicly available information. In this case, we do not want to overly penalize the player as the error was ‘visible’ to both players, or incentivize the opponent to “agree” to an action that will get their opponent a harsher penalty. The second part involves continuous effects the opponent controls. This is essentially a clause for Narset, Parter of Veils. Here we want to put a bit more of a burden on the owner of the effect to be proactive in preventing problems. Keeping your mouth shut and then getting a free Thoughtseize is too good, and makes these effects a bit strong by allowing the player to play the IPG instead of Magic: The Gathering.
In both cases, consider a Game Rule Violation instead, and for the second case, double GRV is probably appropriate.

This situation involves the opponent acknowledges the draw, but doesn't involve modifying any game rule. Therefore, it is GRV for player, but not the opponent.

Shawn, if I understand correctly, you are telling the proposed scenario is equivalent to
“Cryptic”
“ok”
cryptic resolves
“oh sorry, I did not have three blue mana available”

But in the proposed scenario, Phantasmal Image is on the other side of the table. Wouldn't this mean that NAP is responsible for the error? Wouldn't this justify a double GRV?

I think NAP did nothing wrong and I'd rule HCE.
The acknowledgement to me means that the opponent acknowledged drawing cards not resolving a spell that might draw cards.
In this case we have the situation where AP casts a spell and NAP says, ok, I will not do anything in response, then acknowledges the trigger.
In this situation it doesn't actually matter what the second mode chosen is (if there isn't a spell on the stack), as cryptic won't resolve at all.
With the new policy we have the following exceptions to errors that would be HCE if there wasn't an exception:

It is not a Hidden Card Error if the opponent acknowledges the action or controls the continuous effect modifying the game rule that was violated.

The action means the draw, not the spell or ability allowing the draw. This interpretation is also emphasized by the annotation.

The second part doesn't fit at all as there is no game rule altered at all. In fact 608.2b is the reason Cryptic doesn't resolve. As this is an unaltered game rule, I don't think it matters who controls a permanent that becomes an illegal target. As we are also at comp. REL I think it's reasonable to assume in accordance with the MTR that both players know fundamental rules like “fizzling”.

Personally I prefer slightly more acknowledgement of the action of drawing a card than responding to the modes chosen.

Ultimately it's going to come down to what you investigate as to whether you feel the “Ok” was acknowledging the card draw or just acknowledging that the spell was cast.

In general though “Ok” is not a catch all, it means different things to different people and making assumptions about what “Ok” means is really hard to do without talking to the people involved in the interaction.

Originally posted by Mark Brown:

In general though “Ok” is not a catch all, it means different things to different people and making assumptions about what “Ok” means is really hard to do without talking to the people involved in the interaction.

Exactly.

To illustrate just how unclear “OK” can be, I read the scenario as NAP saying “OK” to acknowledge his Image getting sacrificed - like “OK, that's dead.”

I also agree with those who see this as different from Narset; as Christian mentioned, the rule that's relevant isn't modified, AP just goofed.

Once you investigate just a bit, to confirm that NAP didn't confirm that AP could draw, it's an HCE, no penalty for NAP.

d:^D