So, I was judging a Super IQ this weekend. Near the end of one of the mid/later rounds, was sitting on a match of players in the top 10 tables. I had the following scenario unfold. I'm not going to slow roll you, and bait your answer one way or another. I'd just like to have a discussion about if I did the right thing and, if not, what I should have done, or how you think you would have approached it. I will likely actually add my response after we've went with a discussion for a bit.

I am sitting next to player N. Player A is across from me, and is generating tokens from Young Pyromancers like it's his job. The other cards he has are largely irrelevant. He is facing down a Deceiver Exarch, equipped with Batterskull. The Batterskull has been in play and equipped for several turns (at least 3 that I can remember). It has attacked and blocked in all cases. The lifetotals are roughly A-23 B-12.

Player A attacks with a lot of things (tokens, Swiftspears). Player N blocks a token with the Exarch/Batterskull. He then counts up the damage and says, “So I take 19 and go to 4?” At this point, I'm immediately realizing that the lifelink wasn't being taken into account, and I shift my gaze to Player A to watch him. What I see (and this is the best way I can describe it) is him glance very quickly in the general direction of the Batterskull and then just as quickly at me before looking back at the board and saying, “OK,” as both players move to write down life totals.

So, I'll stop there, and ask you. How would you handle this description. One question that came up with the person I talked to one on one after the event was “Did he look at the Batterskull?” If I was forced to give an answer, I would have to say, “I don't know.” That is why I said that he looked in the general direction of it. However, immediately following that, he absolutely did make eye contact with me for a fraction of a second, as I was looking directly at him.

There is no doubt that Player A has allowed a GRV to happen and they would gain an advantage from it. The big question “do they know it's illegal”, personally I'd stop the game by asking A to step away from the table at this point I'm looking for them to convince me they are “just an idiot”, my first question would be “can you explain to me what just happened in combat?” where we go depends on that answer but my follow ups will likely include at least one question about the eye contact.

I would definitely talk to the player aside from the table. Best case, he simply took his opponent's word for it. Worst, he deliberately ‘forgot’ and was cheating. Either way, the game state needs to be fixed.

One other possibility: The player thinks that Lifelink is a trigger or
“works like a trigger” and therefore allowed to miss it. The player's look
at the judge may have been to see if the judge was going to point out the
“trigger” or not. He may think that if the judge allows it to happen then
he's not responsible for pointing it out either. It is a challenge to show
that they knew that something illegal was happening.

Shawn

Originally posted by Shawn Doherty:

The player's look at the judge may have been to see if the judge was going to point out the “trigger” or not. He may think that if the judge allows it to happen then he's not responsible for pointing it out either.

This is what the person that I discussed it with was bringing up. Maybe the glance was a “What am I supposed to do here?” But, he knows that if he waffles too long, he risks the opponent noticing.

I'll jump in at this point and note that ultimately I fixed the error without an investigation by saying, “Actually the Exarch has lifelink.” I've been running around in my head since then and can't shake the idea that whether it was cheating or not, I absolutely should have stopped the game and started an investigation.

Edited Dustin Jones (Dec. 11, 2014 07:09:26 AM)

Shawn's right - a lot of players are, or act (!), confused about Lifelink and what Missed Trigger allows. The trick in investigating is determining if they knew that Lifelink was something they had to fix, if it's missed. Sometimes, you can just ask the player directly: “Did you know he was missing Lifelink? Why didn't you correct that?” and then you have to decide if you believe them, or if they're being evasive.

d:^D

I'd assume from context that the player was fairly experienced, and players at that stage tend to know the rules pretty comprehensively. I doubt he was confused over whether lifelink was a trigger (it does happen, though, even at the highest levels of play). I still think you acted appropriately, though, since even if he was “cheating” there it's next to impossible to prove. Short of him actually picking up the Batterskull, reading it, and putting it back down, I don't think you could establish conclusively that he knew his opponent should have had Lifelink. Even in games where both players are experts and can recite the full rules of each card on the battlefield, complicated board states (like, say, a creature with equipment versus an army of tokens and a creature with a token-generating triggered ability) cause small pieces of information to be forgotten, and the addition of a combat keyword via equipment is exactly the kind of information that gets missed.

I think you made the right call. I'd also caution against reading too much into player body language in things like eye contact– I know I get nervous and twitchy when I'm X-0 in the later rounds of a big event, and making eye contact with someone who is already looking at me doesn't necessarily mean anything. It's all so personal.

If I understand correctly, the Batteskull-equipped Exarch has dealt combat damage, and gained its controller life, several times already. So, lifelink shoul, in theory, be fresh on A and N's minds. N forgot about lifelink, almost certainly by accident. Given that the situation was complicated enough to make N forget, I don't think it's improbable that A honestly forgot.

I think the difference, which certainly would require being there, is how long A took before saying “OK”. You describe both his looks as ‘quick’. If A accepts what N says at face value (and thus makes an honest mistake), he only has to quickly reaffirm what he believes, then state “OK”. On the other hand, if A has not forgotten lifelink (and was expecting N to go to a different life total), he first is a bit surprised at the announced total, has to ascertain why it's different, and choose whether to fix the mistake or take advantage of the situation, considering the probability of getting caught by the judge, all before saying “OK”.

If there had been any time for A to think, I would be more suspicious. If A just reassessed the battlefield, I'm not as worried. Players (myself included) often look at a card for several seconds, even re-read it, and not realize something obvious about it.

I'll start with a nitpick: think you gave use the wrong life totals while explaining the scenario.

1) After investigating and deciding there is not enough for Cheating, shouldn't we award GRV to player N and FTMGS to player A? If the situation was detected a turn or two later, how would you fix it?

2) Any article or tips/tricks from more experienced investigators on how to “lead” a player into admiting he knew something was illegal?

Well the word “Trigger” gets over used non stop by players, and judges alike. Things like “scry trigger from magma jet” are spoken every time I see standard played. While I do correct these statements from time to time, I also let them go more often than not. I would however stop the game and ask what life totals were before damage, and then ask them to show me the math, letting them then find the mistake themselves, which would give you a decent chance to see which player(s) are legitimately missing the lifelink effect and which players are intentionally pretending to miss it.

Originally posted by William Barlen:

Well the word “Trigger” gets over used non stop by players, and judges alike. Things like “scry trigger from magma jet” are spoken every time I see standard played. While I do correct these statements from time to time, I also let them go more often than not. I would however stop the game and ask what life totals were before damage, and then ask them to show me the math, letting them then find the mistake themselves, which would give you a decent chance to see which player(s) are legitimately missing the lifelink effect and which players are intentionally pretending to miss it.

Agreed…judges are far more precise about game rule language than players, and it leads to a natural misunderstanding about what can be missed and what must be pointed out. I know some players who seem to think “trigger” is synonymous with “ability” when it comes to what they have an obligation to point out vs. what they can allow their opponent to kiss. This is why we investigate!