Hello and welcome back every one! I'm delighted to kick off this year's knowledge pool with a fun little scenario for you!

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/?p=968

Aaron and Nadine are playing in a Legacy Grand Prix. Aaron has a Griselbrand and a Tidespout Tyrant in his graveyard. He announces, “I'm going to Exhume my Tyrant.” Nadine says, "OK, Exhume resolves. I choose my Shriekmaw“.

Aarons says "Oh, I didn't realize you had that… then on resolution I'm going to pick my Griselbrand instead." Nadine calls you over.

What is your ruling?

It would appear that either Aaron failed to read his card and thought he had to choose upon casting rather than upon resolution, or he assumed that Nadine had no response. It doesn't really matter what he thought he was doing, because (as a Grand Prix is a Competitive REL event), the Tournament Rules tell us that “If a player casts a spell…and announces choices for it that are not normally made until resolution, the player must adhere to those choices unless an opponent responds to that ability.” (Section 4.2, Tournament Shortcuts) Therefore, Aaron's choice is binding upon Nadine's acknowledgement that the spell resolves. As part of the resolution, each player is required to make a choice. These choices are made in APNAP order. (CR 101.4) Upon resolution, first, Aaron makes his choice (already done), then Nadine makes her choice (Shriekmaw). Aaron attempts to “back up” his choice, however there is no rule giving him the opportunity to do so. Both actions are taken simultaneously. Shriekmaw's ETB ability triggers, Exhume finishes resolving and is put in the graveyard, and Nadine puts Shriekmaw's ETB ability on the stack. Tidespout Tyrant is a legal target for this ability.

We should ask Aaron how he thinks Exhume's choices are made to ensure that he simply made an honest mistake and was not attempting to cheat.

Aaron will be advised that Exhume does not require choices to be made until it resolves, Aaron will also be advised that Exhume requires that he make his choice first, and then that all other players make their choice in turn order. This is not a GRV (as no illegal action was actually taken, it sounds like Nadine called before Exhume finished resolving). FtMGS and CPV do not apply. No infraction has been committed.

Edit - having reread the definition of GRV, I'm talking myself into issuing a penalty here. While Aaron hasn't harmed the game state, he has attempted to make a decision at a point where the game rules do not allow him to do so, and (while this isn't an element of GRV) in doing so had the opportunity to gain advantage. Assuming that we're confident that it was an honest mistake, Aaron will be receiving a GRV - Warning. Nadine has committed no infraction. If we have reason to believe that Aaron was aware that he was not permitted to change his choice after Nadine declared hers, we need to have a chat with the Head Judge because this may have become an investigation.

Edited Dan Collins (Jan. 8, 2014 05:27:43 PM)

Per CR 601.2h I would say that the spell Exhume has been 100% cast and all choices for that spell have already been made and that Aaron may not change his choice.

I'm inclined to go with a GPE-GRV Warning for Aaron here. I'm pretty sure I'd have a difficult time finding UC-Cheating since he pretty clearly thinks he's allowed to change his choice at this point. He is very clearly “Failing to follow a game procedure correctly” (2.5, IPG) in trying to change a previously made choice upon resolution of a spell after an opponent makes their choice.

Aaron will probably need to be informed that if he makes a choice prior to resolution on his spells that he is required to keep with the same choice unless his opponent responds to the spell. Since the spell resolved he had essentially short cut to the resolution by already declaring his choice. He will also probably need to be informed that in spells like this APNAP order will require him to make his choice first, followed by his opponent. Because he chose Tyrant and the spell resolved, it was then Nadine's turn to pick her creature.

No fix is necessary or appropriate, Tyrant returns, followed by Shreikmaw as both are legal targets for the ability.

I might ask Aaron “Why did you attempt to change your choice?” or “how do you believe that Exhume resolving would work?” but I figure any answer that would lead me to assume cheating is pretty unlikely.

edit: Tried to remove references to targeting since Aaron isn't targeting, he is making a choice.

Edited Marc DeArmond (Jan. 8, 2014 08:35:28 PM)

I'm in agreement with the others that the basis for the ruling is GPE-GRV with Aaron being bound to his decision.

However, I think that the way he said “on resolution” suggests that he very well understands the proper timing of resolving exhume. This is an investigation that I see a higher possibility of going all the way to Dairy Queen than other scenarios that have been presented.

I would want to find out how Aaron thinks he makes decisions and why he thinks he can change his choice based on Nadine's decision.

As for the mechanics. We have Aaron casting a spell and he is assumed to be passing priority to Nadine. Nadine is making her choice which shows that she is also passing priority and joining Aaron in resolving the spell. Aaron already chose first in ANAP order.

Interesting question for higher level judges with GP experience: if this is day 2 (and thus, Professional REL), does the way you approach this call change?

Originally posted by Cameron Bachman:

However, I think that the way he said “on resolution” suggests that he very well understands the proper timing of resolving exhume. This is an investigation that I see a higher possibility of going all the way to Dairy Queen than other scenarios that have been presented.

I'm starting to see some logic into looking more into the UC-Cheating and agree with Cameron that he clearly has some understanding of how the mechanics work. But I can't think of a line of questions line that would do anything but proving he probably wasn't cheating unless he answers by basically saying “I was trying to cheat”. I'd love to hear the exact questions a judge would ask to dig deeper if they suspect cheating here.

With exhume the active player Aaron, the player who cast it, has to choose their card first. Then the non-active player gets to choose. Once all players have chosen theirs, the card continues resolving. As soon as the non-active player has chosen, it is too late for the active player to change their mind.

Upon being called over, I would explain this to both players and (assuming I didn't see any hints of cheating) I would not really do anything. I don't think any penalty would be in order, as Nadine called a judge over immediately. Aaron would be stuck with his pick, and Nadine would have a Shriekmaw.

EDIT:
Reading over some other replies here, others have said they would give Aaron a GRV. I'm still not convinced that I would give him a penalty, as he simply said he was changing his ‘target’. If he were to have actually put the Griselbrand into play after officially declaring the djinn as his choice, I would be inclined to give him a penalty. Nadine would probably still not get a penalty, assuming she calls a judge as soon as he puts the ‘Brand into play.

As for cheating, this would be something you’d have to judge for yourself. Is the player experienced? Does he know what he is talking about, but just trying to pull one over on Nadine? Has he made this mistake already during this tourney? These are the sort of things to ask, if there aren't a lot of other judges, it may be a good idea to discuss it with them to see if they have already talked to him about this.

EDIT 2:
After thinking about this more I think it's important that we realize that Aaron didn't physically do something; he just stated his intention to do so. I think at this point in the game the players are more or less asking a judge for clarification, to which the judge would inform them of the correct way to go about it. They would continue as explained by the judge and then that would be it.

Think about this, if player A announces their intention to draw an extra card (without any real reason) and player N calls a judge and says “JUDGE he said he's gonna draw an extra card!”. The judge would walk up and say “you can't draw extra cards”. Player A would be like “aww, ok…” and the game would continue without any players drawing extra cards. Nobody actually violated any rules, nobody gets any penalties.

Edited Sal Cortez (Jan. 9, 2014 04:07:35 AM)

Originally posted by Sal Cortez:

Think about this, if player A announces their intention to draw an extra card (without any real reason) and player N calls a judge and says “JUDGE he said he's gonna draw an extra card!”. The judge would walk up and say “you can't draw extra cards”. Player A would be like “aww, ok…” and the game would continue without any players drawing extra cards. Nobody actually violated any rules, nobody gets any penalties.

In this situation, since there is no reason and it cannot be an honest mistake, I would be very inclined to think that the player was trying to cheat (trying very badly, but nonetheless trying, and I would call the head judge so he can have a little chat with him.

Back to the actual scenario, it is slightly more plausible that Aaron believes he's allowed to change his choice, but still convoluted. If he can (quickly) convince me of that, then I see no problem giving him a warning for GRV (he did “fail to follow a game procedure correctly”, even if it had no impact on the visual representation of the game because it was caught immediately).
What seems more likely to me in this scenario is that he was attempting a “take back” as is common in casual play because you have just realized that your play was suboptimal because of public information. I'd say it's not unreasonable to ask things like that to your opponent in any setting, but I would always discourage opponent from accepting in a Competitive REL. They're here to win the game, and paying attention to the game is part of the skill necessary. This is similar to how we treat Derived information as something players can ask their opponents but opponents can (and, in many situations, should) decline to provide.
But here he announced it without even asking for Nadine's permission. If Nadine had been a less experienced player, she might have been pressured into accepting. This makes me want to label this Cheating, but obviously this is the Head Judge's call.

Aaron knows he's proposing a shortcut, but he's playing as if he can back up and change it after it's been accepted. Because the associated rule about shortcuts is being violated, it's a Game Rule Violation infraction with a Warning as a penalty.

Though an investigation could be launched about whether or not Aaron already knew that a player can't back out of an accepted shortcut, I'm doubtful that the question could be sufficiently answered, and the information presented in the scenario doesn't throw any particular flags for me to consider Cheating as a possibility.

No penalty. The game state hasn't actually changed (the Exhume spell has not resolved), so there is nothing to penalize here. The only penalty we could actually give is a CPV (since only communication has actually occurred here), and there are no grounds to do so.

Regarding the game state after Exhume resolves, I would mention to AP that in cases where both players have to make a choice simultaneously, AP has to choose first. He gets to change his choice if and only if NAP takes an action in-between the announcement of the spell and its resolution, which is not what happened here, and he should be more careful in future. I would ask the players to put the Shriekmaw and the Tyrant into play, and then allow NAP to remember their own Shriekmaw trigger but not remind them of it (because lol trigger rules).

Regarding investigating for Cheating, I would not do this. In short, I don't see any potential for abuse here. AP tried to run the old “takesies-backsies”, and had NAP not called a judge, NAP probably would have realized that “takesies-backsies” were in effect and would have done the same thing themselves. Of course, this is not strictly allowed at Competitive, but it is also not a situation that AP can really hope to use to gain advantage in any real, tangible way as far as I can tell. I don't think it's worth investigating for Cheating here.

A case more interesting than the one presented (just my opinion, not trying to change the topic, I just think this might be interesting for a future KP or something) would be the opposite case: AP casts Exhume, NAP snap-resolves it and takes their own Tidespout Tyrant, then AP takes a Shriekmaw. This situation sounds a lot more interesting, and might make for a good future KP scenario =D

The only question for me was whether tournament shortcuts cover this. Since his opponent made a choice, does that mean he's not held to his choice? no

>If a player casts a spell or activates an ability and announces choices for it that are not normally made until resolution, the player must adhere to those choices unless an opponent responds to that spell or ability…

The opponent explicitly said “resolves”, so no response was made. So he's held to his choice.

He did say “Then I choose”, not “Can I change my choice?”. So I'm less likely to treat it as asking for a takeback.

Cheating? Definitely worth a quick investigation. Confirm what was said, confirm it was a question. Then ask something like “Why did you change your choice?” … “OK, but you already chose, you realize you can't just change your mind, right?” And keep an ear out for “Oh I know, but I was hoping she'd take it anyway” or other things like that.

Assuming it's not cheating, I'd consider announcing his new choice a game action that was illegal. So I'm seeing GPE-GRV, with no FtMGS for his opponent.

Originally posted by Sal Cortez:

After thinking about this more I think it's important that we realize that Aaron didn't physically do something; he just stated his intention to do so. I think at this point in the game the players are more or less asking a judge for clarification, to which the judge would inform them of the correct way to go about it. They would continue as explained by the judge and then that would be it.

Targeting a black creature with doom blade is also not a physical action, but warrants a GRV.

Edited Chris Nowak (Jan. 9, 2014 11:27:04 AM)

Originally posted by Sal Cortez:

Reading over some other replies here, others have said they would give Aaron a GRV. I'm still not convinced that I would give him a penalty, as he simply said he was changing his ‘target’. If he were to have actually put the Griselbrand into play after officially declaring the djinn as his choice, I would be inclined to give him a penalty. Nadine would probably still not get a penalty, assuming she calls a judge as soon as he puts the ‘Brand into play.

I'm not sure that I can agree with this logic. I don't see anywhere in the IPG that requires that there be a disruption in the board state in order to cause a GRV. The fact that there hasn't been a FtMGS shouldn't nullify the GRV. In a case such as Aaron casting Lightning Strike on Nadine's Master of Waves (prot. red) Aaron still earns a GRV even if Nadine called a judge before it resolved because Aaron made an illegal choice. In the original example Aaron is trying to make an illegal choice by changing his choice after it has been declared and he's made the shortcut. Regardless of if the effect of the choice has been resolved on the board Aaron still has failed “to follow a game procedure correctly” (2.5, IPG) by changing a choice after he is permitted to do so.

Has anybody mentioned MTR 4.2 yet?

Originally posted by MTR 4.2:

If a player casts a spell or activates an ability and announces choices for it that are not normally made until resolution, the player must adhere to those choices unless an opponent responds to that spell or ability. If an opponent inquires about choices made during resolution, that player is assumed to be passing priority and allowing that spell or ability to resolve.

Nadine didn't respond to Aaron's casting, so Aaron is stuck with the Tyrant. I don't see that he made a GRV, though. They haven't resolved the “put the creature onto the battlefield” portion, so he hasn't actually broken any game rules. I guess you could say he broke MTR 4.2, but breaking tournament rules aren't covered under MIPG 2.5.

Assuming no cheating (because I'm generally trusting/gullible), no infractions, no penalties, but put Aaron's blue guy onto the battlefield and kill it with Nadine's 'Maw.

Originally posted by Marc DeArmond:

I'm not sure that I can agree with this logic. I don't see anywhere in the IPG that requires that there be a disruption in the board state in order to cause a GRV. The fact that there hasn't been a FtMGS shouldn't nullify the GRV. In a case such as Aaron casting Lightning Strike on Nadine's Master of Waves (prot. red) Aaron still earns a GRV even if Nadine called a judge before it resolved because Aaron made an illegal choice. In the original example Aaron is trying to make an illegal choice by changing his choice after it has been declared and he's made the shortcut. Regardless of if the effect of the choice has been resolved on the board Aaron still has failed “to follow a game procedure correctly” (2.5, IPG) by changing a choice after he is permitted to do so.

That makes sense :)

Originally posted by Marc DeArmond:

I'm not sure that I can agree with this logic. I don't see anywhere in the IPG that requires that there be a disruption in the board state in order to cause a GRV. The fact that there hasn't been a FtMGS shouldn't nullify the GRV. In a case such as Aaron casting Lightning Strike on Nadine's Master of Waves (prot. red) Aaron still earns a GRV even if Nadine called a judge before it resolved because Aaron made an illegal choice. In the original example Aaron is trying to make an illegal choice by changing his choice after it has been declared and he's made the shortcut. Regardless of if the effect of the choice has been resolved on the board Aaron still has failed “to follow a game procedure correctly” (2.5, IPG) by changing a choice after he is permitted to do so.

Don't let the word “illegal” misguide you. If you issue a GPE-GRV it means that you've found out that a player broke a rule in CR. What is the rule?
In our scenario, CR 101.4 and 608.2d are applied. Technically speaking, neither of these rules forbids a player to change his or her choice. Furthermore, technically speaking, a player did announce his choice at an inappropriate moment. So, did the player break any of these rules? Are there other rules that were broken?
In your proposed example, we have a rule CR 601.2c for choosing targets during spellcasting that was broken as CR 702.16b (Protection) explicitly states that an object with protection cannot be targeted by certain spells.