You're judging at a competitive REL event when a player calls for a judge and asks to speak with you away from the table. The player asks you, “My opponent cast Lightning Bolt, then cast a Fork targeting it. If I counter the bolt, what happens with the Fork?”

How do you respond to this question? If you wouldn't answer it, can you provide a way that the player could ask this question that you would feel comfortable answering?

Edited David Elden (Aug. 18, 2014 09:11:31 PM)

If the player counters the Bolt, the Fork is countered on resolution for lack of legal target. Seems simple enough. Why would I be afraid of explaining this to the player, in exactly this way?

I think most players will understand that it only works if you counter Bolt before Fork resolves. Therefor, I would not feel bad giving the exact same answer as Lyle.

I would keep a close eye on that table though. If a player at a Comp REL lacks such basic understanding of the rules, issues are very likely to occur there. I might even consider targeting the player for a deck-check, as I often encounter cards from older/special products (Heroes vs Monsters for example) in standard decks with players like that.

Originally posted by Mart Leuvering:

I would keep a close eye on that table though. If a player at a Comp REL lacks such basic understanding of the rules, issues are very likely to occur there. I might even consider targeting the player for a deck-check, as I often encounter cards from older/special products (Heroes vs Monsters for example) in standard decks with players like that.

Maybe. That seems a little like unnecessary profiling. A targeted deck check feels less in line with policy than “Hey, it looks like you were playing one of the Heroes vs. Monsters decks. Might I take a look?” and solving it ASAP.

My personal preference, if I feel compelled to try to “preempt” issues: “Hey, it seems like you're a little uncertain with some of the rules. If you have any questions, feel free to call for a judge. We can't give you strategy advice, but if you're uncertain on the rules of the game or the tournament, we'd love to help.”

The player may end up asking for more judge questions or have more errors/issues than any other player, but that's completely ok!

Originally posted by Mart Leuvering:

If a player at a Comp REL lacks such basic understanding of the rules, issues are very likely to occur there.

I find that all sorts of players get confused about how copy effects interact. Even if they're mostly sure, they will often seek confirmation from a Judge. I wouldn't consider them lacking in basic understanding of the rules at all.

On topic though, I'd give the same answer as previously as, based on the question (and the current game state) the Fork hasn't resolved. In fact, for the player to get screwed over by any interaction they would have to explicitly state “Fork resolves. In response to the copy it created I will counter the original bolt” or something along those lines.

Originally posted by Evan Cherry:

Maybe. That seems a little like unnecessary profiling. A targeted deck check feels less in line with policy than “Hey, it looks like you were playing one of the Heroes vs. Monsters decks. Might I take a look?” and solving it ASAP.

My personal preference, if I feel compelled to try to “preempt” issues: “Hey, it seems like you're a little uncertain with some of the rules. If you have any questions, feel free to call for a judge. We can't give you strategy advice, but if you're uncertain on the rules of the game or the tournament, we'd love to help.”

The player may end up asking for more judge questions or have more errors/issues than any other player, but that's completely ok!

+1 this. Our primary role as judges is as customer service representatives, not cops.

I would ask the player a clarification question before I answered, like “when are you casting the counter?” Based on his answer, I'll provide the response. I'm not going to make assumptions about when he wants to cast it, since he's asking about a future gamestate.

Shawn

Originally posted by Shawn Doherty:

I would ask the player a clarification question before I answered, like “when are you casting the counter?” Based on his answer, I'll provide the response. I'm not going to make assumptions about when he wants to cast it, since he's asking about a future gamestate.

Shawn

If the player were to say “Counter the Bolt” in the current gamestate, it would be assumed to be prior to Fork resolving.

I think it's fair to make the same assumption about the player's question.

There's a good chance that if you ask that question, the player will have no idea that what you're even getting at. That wouldn't be the biggest problem in the world, but it might be creating an awkward situation when there was no need for one.

The rules state that you explicitly have to retain priority, if you want to do two things at the “same” time. Otherwise priority is automatically passed to the opponent, and if he again passes the spell/ability resolves. Thus, per the rules I'd say that Fork has resolved, and he's countering the original spell as he receives priority after his Fork has resolved.

Of course, I'd probably ask if the player had retained priority or not, then make the final ruling.

Actually Rule 116.3c says that “If a player has priority when he or she casts a spell, activates an ability,
or takes a special action, that player receives priority afterward.”

So the default is they retain priority. Regardless, in this scenario the player hasn't passed any priority. His opponent has cast two spells and he's called a judge to ask a question. No priority passes there.

Mark is correct, that the Comp Rules (116.3c) talks about retaining priority - that just means that the other player(s) can't “steal” priority from you, once you have it.

However, the MTR establishes shortcuts that apply to tournament Magic, including:

Whenever a player adds an object to the stack, he or she is assumed to be passing priority unless he or she explicitly announces that he or she intends to retain it. If he or she adds a group of objects to the stack without explicitly retaining priority and a player wishes to take an action at a point in the middle, the actions should be reversed up to that point.

which is what Christian referred to.

But I don't think any of that matters. I think Glenn's point is pretty much spot on; again, an MTR-defined shortcut:

A player who casts a spell or activates an ability that targets an object on the stack is assumed to target the legal target closest to the top of the stack unless the player specifies otherwise.

And, in the OP, the question included “what happens to the Fork” - clearly, the player knows that the Fork is still on the stack, and just isn't doing a very good job of asking “will the Fork still make a copy?”

Why not just answer as Lyle said, way back near the beginning of this thread? It's correct, it's not coaching, it matches the question being asked… seems fine to me.

d:^D

Ah, damn… Shouldn't be reading stuff at this late hour. Read it as the player asking about the counterspell had played the Fork. >< Sorry about that.
Please ignore my previous reply.

Scott: You're completely correct, that was indeed what I was referring to. :)

Edited Christian Fagerheim (Aug. 19, 2014 03:09:12 PM)