Originally posted by Julio Sosa:

Sorry for casting an Animate Dead here.

If you feel a need to apologize for reviving an old thread, that's a fairly good indication that you shouldn't…

Originally posted by Julio Sosa:

Scott's response here stated that there should be no infraction

No, I simply confirmed what Jeremie said, and explained some of the why. Still, you weren't wrong in taking my endorsement of Jeremie's post and article as saying “no infraction, just undo the damage from the misunderstanding”.

Having said that, yes, there is a difference between the scenarios; I've added to that other thread, for clarity (it is an infraction, and Dustin explains why it's HCE).

d:^D

Originally posted by Julio Sosa:

However, Scott's response here stated that there should be no infraction, and to back up the game to the point both players agreed on the game state (which I have done, too, at times). I'm inclined to agree with Dustin on the other post and rule HCE, but please correct me if I'm missing something. Also, is there any difference I'm not seeing between this scenario and the closed one that would make the ruling different?

Yes, there is a huge difference between those two scenarios! In the scenario in this thread, AP makes a statement (maybe he said go, maybe he didn't) and NAP acts on the other player's statement by untapping and drawing a card. In the other thread, AP confuses himself, NAP is not involved at all, there is no miscommunication whatsoever, just a single player making a mistake.

EDIT: I just want to clarify that I was typing this response at the same time that Scott was typing his, I had no intention to be pedantic. I just happen to be a slow typer ^^

Edited Dustin De Leeuw (Sept. 14, 2017 11:39:07 AM)