I feel like this scenario is an example of wheter or not the magic is played.

If we go forth and say players are allowed to “trick” opponents into doing something they wouldn't do in the first place then the mind games are real.

Even if an opponent is involved in the announcement or resolution of the ability, the controller is still responsible for ensuring the opponents make the appropriate choices and take the appropriate actions.

I think because of the paragraph written for abilitys we dont want those kind of mind games.

Sandro, I will note that that quote is from the Philosophy of Missed
Trigger in the IPG. Neither Browbeat nor Anafenza/Kalitas involve Triggered
Abilities.

Yes, im aware of that.

The one who wrote that paragraph (or the team..) was thinking something in the line of what i wrote above is my assumption.

They don't want magic to be a “gotcha!” kind of game.

Even if we extend the missed-trigger philosophy to other abilities, there is a difference between ensuring that opponents make a choice (i.e that something ends up being chosen) and to make sure that the opponents make well-thought-out choices. We only need to ensure that our abilities are correctly resolved, that something ends up being chosen by the correct player for all choices.

Magic is not supposed to be Gotcha!, but we also need to have clear defined borders between cheating and not cheating in these cases. How many players actually ask their opponents at PPTQs if they want to search for a basic land when they cast Path to Exile? The only difference is the additional proposing of an outcome in this case, but we allow that in most other cases (“Make me discard the Loxodon Smiter?” “I assume you will block this.” etc).

Oracle text and rules are derived information, not free, and as long as the player proposes something legal and the opponent has A the opportunity to call judges and ask if this is correct and B the possibility to propose another outcome if they know the rules well enough, then this is definitely not Gotcha! the gathering, just a complex cardgame where knowledge of the rules helps.

An appropriate choice means making sure that the choice is legal, it doesn't mean that you cannot suggest to the opponent that they make a different choice to the one that they perhaps should.

Okay, lets take this scenario one step further.

Allan attacks with Anafenza and Kalitas. Norma quietly double chump blocks and exiles her creatures.

Allan says nothing, and puts two 2/2 zombies on the field.

Norma calls a judge and claims Allan has just attempted to cheat, claiming the cards were exiled to Anafenza's ability and there was no indication or communication about zombies being put on the board.

What's the call? Does Allan get a GRV, a CVP, DQ'd or nothing?

Originally posted by Russell Deutsch:

Okay, lets take this scenario one step further.

Allan attacks with Anafenza and Kalitas. Norma quietly double chump blocks and exiles her creatures.

Allan says nothing, and puts two 2/2 zombies on the field.

Norma calls a judge and claims Allan has just attempted to cheat, claiming the cards were exiled to Anafenza's ability and there was no indication or communication about zombies being put on the board.

What's the call? Does Allan get a GRV, a CVP, DQ'd or nothing?

As described, nothing happens, because there is no problem here. We correct the game state and move on. We do not penalize players for making assumptions about what choices their opponents are making–it's part of the way players naturally play the game–and even though this particular assumption was incorrect, no damage has been done to the game state because the opponent has noticed the error and acted to correct it immediately.

If Norma appears to want or need rules help, we will of course ask if she has any rules questions, and answer any she has. If Norma simply defers to Allan's assumption, that's fine too, because Allan's assumption was a perfectly legal choice for her to make–by deferring to that assumption, she has made it correct. And if Norma already has enough rules knowledge to know she's the one who gets to choose whether or not Allan gets zombies, she will act to correct any incorrect assumptions on Allan's part, so again there's no problem.