Hi,

I've had an interesting situation come up at the PPTQ today that I'd like to share with you! It sparked quite a lively discussion in our local regional (thanks Flippi) Discord channel, so I'm interested in broadening the audience a bit to get some more feedback. Here's what happened:

You're judging a PPTQ at REL Competitive and it's the first round. After answering the third call about combat shortcuts, you get called to a table where 2 players describe their problem. Albert attacks in his combat phase with a 3/1 creature, which Nathan (currently at 2 Energy counters) tries to kill with a Harnessed Lightning. His exact words are: “Harnessed Lightning your 3/1 dude!” In response, Albert casts Archangel Avacyn and gives his creatures indestructible. Nathan puts Harnessed Lightning (wordlessly) into his graveyard and then just says “Okay then, combat damage?”. Both mark down the damage and Albert passes his turn to Nathan, who draws for the turn. At this point, both players realize that Nathan didn't adjust his energy counters throughout the whole situation and call you to ask how they should handle the problem and how much Energy Nathan has now.

You do a basic investigation and find out that it's the first game, neither player has established any shortcuts concerning Harnessed Lightning (or other Energy-related cards) and no noncombat-damage has been announced by either player. Both players seem to be genuinely confused and neither of them knows how many Energy counters Nathan actually spent on Harnessed Lightning. (3? 1? 0?)

What would be your ruling? What (if anything) would you do differently if you go as much “by the book” (versus relying on personal experience / the current metagame) as possible, especially in regard to default shortcuts and player communication?

Thanks for reading. :)

Edited Steffen Baumgart (Feb. 19, 2017 10:10:33 AM)

Based on what was said, my inclination is that he gained three energy and declined to spend any of it, seeing as doing so would have been pointless. The fact that he didn't say he was spending energy (a choice not made until resolution anyway) is the deciding factor for me.

Of course, that's just me.

This is very similar to a previous discussion, which was (finally!) answered in the most recent Magic Judge Monthly. While this scenario is slightly different, it's close enough that my previous answer still works.

(Yes, I'm going to make you click that link and read MJM - it's good for you!)

d:^D

Which scenario are you talking about in the MJM? I went through a dozen or
so links, but couldn't find it.

Nick Short
Pastimes Incorporated
nick@pastimes.net
www.pastimes.net

Find us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/pastimes
Follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/pastimesonline

Scroll down to Answers, the last paragraph (begins with “Bonus”).

d:^D

The energy counters for harnesses lightning are chosen on resolution. Did the player add 3 energy to there energy pool after resolution of the spell?

Sent from my iPhone

On 19 Feb 2017, at 00:36, Steffen Baumgart <forum-33613-3a1f@apps.magicjudges.org<mailto:forum-33613-3a1f@apps.magicjudges.org>> wrote:


Hi,

I've had an interesting situation come up at the PPTQ today that I'd like to share with you! It sparked quite a lively discussion in our local Discord channel, so I'm interested in broadening the audience a bit to get some more feedback. Here's what happened:

You're judging a PPTQ at REL Competitive and it's the first round. After answering the third call about combat shortcuts, you get called to a table where 2 players describe their problem. Albert attacks in his combat phase with a 3/1 creature, which Nathan (currently with 2 Energy counters) tries to kill with a Harnessed Lightning</api/autocard/?card=Harnessed+Lightning>. His exact words are “Harnessed Lightning your 3/1 dude!”. In response, Albert casts Archangel Avacyn</api/autocard/?card=Archangel+Avacyn> and gives his creatures indestructible. Nathan puts Harnessed Lightning (wordless) into his graveyard and just says “Okay then, combat damage?”. Both mark down the damage and Albert passes his turn to Nathan, who draws for the turn. At this point, both players realize that Nathan didn't adjust his energy counters throughout the whole situation and call you to ask how they should handle the problem now.

You do a basic investigation and find out that it's the first game, neither player has established any shortcuts concerning Harnessed Lightning (or other Energy-related cards) and no noncombat-damage has been announced by either player. Both players seem to be genuinely confused and neither of them knows how many Energy counters Nathan actually spent on Harnessed Lightning. (3? 1? 0?)

What would be your ruling? What (if anything) would you do differently if you go as much “by the book” (versus relying on personal experience / the current metagame) as possible, especially in regard to default shortcuts and player communication?

Thanks for reading. :)

——————————————————————————–
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/212664/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/33613/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/33613/?onsite=yes

You can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/

No He did not

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

This is very similar to a previous discussion, which was (finally!) answered in the most recent Magic Judge Monthly. While this scenario is slightly different, it's close enough that my previous answer still works.

Thanks Scott for that input. For me, the key difference for me is that in this scenario, they don't seem both satisfied by the game state. There was a decision to make, and it wasn't made, and now players ask us what they should do about it. There is no default (like the Scry shortcut) to cover that situation, so I'm not comfortable with applying the same solution.

- Emilien

Thank you for the link, Scott, I didn't know that there was a similar scenario in the last MJM. I can see the parallels between the two, but I'm also strongly behind Emilien's interpretation, that the suggested shortcut would reflect neither players understanding of the events in this situation.

So what should I do as a judge in this situation? I'm strongly agree with Emilien that players are not satisfied with game state as they're asking for help.
I don't really understand what should I do with situation like this on Competitive REL since I've just become L1 Judge.

The player gained three energy during the resolution of the spell and chose not to adjust his energy total after the spell resolved. I feel in this case, I can comfortably rule three energy was spent on the Harnessed Lightning to deal three damage, even though the creature has indestructible and has less toughness than the amount of energy Harnessed Lightning provides.

Considering we're dealing with a competitive event here, I'd hope my players are more mindful of the spells they're playing and how they apply to common situations. I know a lot happened between the announcement of the spell being put on the stack and its actual resolution, but that shouldn't deter you from reading or knowing the cards you're playing.

Originally posted by Ievgen Starodiedov:

So what should I do as a judge in this situation? I'm strongly agree with Emilien that players are not satisfied with game state as they're asking for help.
I don't really understand what should I do with situation like this on Competitive REL since I've just become L1 Judge.

The way I see it, there are 3 possible rulings you could make here:

• Nathan didn't adjust his Energy counter while resolving Harnessed Lightning, so we're going to assume that he spent all 3 Energy he would've gained to deal 3 damage to the indestructible 3/1 attacker. No infraction, no penalty, no fix. Scott seems to be in favor of this.
  
• Nathan committed a GRV by not adjusting his Energy counter (and not announcing any damage). You give him a Warning and roll back the game state to the point where Harnessed Lightning is resolving and let Nathan resolve it correctly. (he'll most likely gain 3 Energy and not deal any damage)
  
• Nathan committed a GRV by not adjusting his Energy counter. Backing up would cause too much disruption, so you only give him a Warning and leave the game state as it is. (no Energy is gained)
  

In the end, it's up to you and what you think would fit the actual situation the best.

Edited Steffen Baumgart (Feb. 21, 2017 11:29:30 PM)

Originally posted by Steffen Baumgart:

Originally posted by Ievgen Starodiedov:

So what should I do as a judge in this situation? I'm strongly agree with Emilien that players are not satisfied with game state as they're asking for help.
I don't really understand what should I do with situation like this on Competitive REL since I've just become L1 Judge.

The way I see it, there are 3 possible rulings you could make here:

• Nathan didn't adjust his Energy counter while resolving Harnessed Lightning, so we're going to assume that he spent all 3 Energy he would've gained to deal 3 damage to the indestructible 3/1 attacker. No infraction, no penalty, no fix. Scott seems to be in favor of this.
  
• Nathan committed a GRV by not adjusting his Energy counter (and not announcing any damage). You give him a Warning and roll back the game state to the point where Harnessed Lightning is resolving and let Nathan resolve it correctly. (he'll most likely gain 3 Energy and not deal any damage)
  
• Nathan committed a GRV by not adjusting his Energy counter. Backing up would cause too much disruption, so you only give him a Warning and leave the game state as it is. (no Energy is gained)
  

In the end, it's up to you and what you think would fit the actual situation the best.

I'd rather incline to the first ruling since it's Competitive REL and players should be more careful and attentful.
Thank you

I think Nathan meant when he said “okay then…” and how he perceived the game state at the time matters. As I read the story, I imagined two players playing and read “okay then…” in the same way I would say it, as in “well, that changes things” or something along those lines. The way I read this, I see Nathan as understanding he can't kill the 3/1. But that is just my reading of it, I would want know know.

So, during the course of my investigation, I would ask Nathan “how much damage did you do with the Harnessed Lightning?” and use his answer to steer things. There are a plethora of ways he could respond and that would respond help my investigation and ruling. When targeting a creature with power less than 3, I am not excited about assuming he chose to use 3 energy to do 3 damage.

Without an Official stance, I would handle this similarly to how I'd handle a player casting a Glimmer of Genius and not making the energy gain at the right time.

This situation make me think than AP's Avacyn cut the resolution (premature resolution) of the NAP's Lightining. At the moment than Avacyn enters, the spell becomes useless… and forgot it… until the moment when They remember about energy.

Infractions/santions apart… NAP plays a spell and make a choose prematurely. Since the rules talk about this… I will fix this way: NAP choose now how many energy was used durning the lightning resolution, without adhesion of any premature decision; This allow him/her to choose spend 0 and get 5 energy remainds (2+3).

Copypaste fo the MTR: 4.2 Tournament shortcuts
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.