Please keep the forum protocol in mind when posting.

Competitive REL » Post: IPG updates - query about unmade choices

IPG updates - query about unmade choices

Sept. 28, 2017 11:56:42 AM

Perry Kraker
Judge (Level 2)

USA - Midatlantic

IPG updates - query about unmade choices

Originally posted by Gediminas Usevičius:

Let's assume player knew about searching and concisely let Player A ‘get a warning’. And both Players played at reasonable pace (no Slow Play). Because now it is not about ‘did opponent knew about the possiblity do search’ but ‘did you remind your opponent about possibility’. And this is definitely relevant at GPs, PTs at both, Standard and Modern.

Excerpt from Toby's blog:

Originally posted by Toby Elliott:

Rrrrrevised communication rules have added text to preempt this. Now, if a spell or ability you play gives an opponent a choice, you must get confirmation from them that they aren’t doing the optional thing. You still don’t have to remind them while they decide if they want to respond, but once it resolves and the time comes, no making assumptions or you’ll be hung from the yardarm for a Communication Policy Violation!

I cannot access the rest of his blog where I am, so I took a look in the MTR and IPG that was published in September but couldn't find where this was changed. I compared the 4.1 MTR and TE-CPV IPG section from the last update to the new one, and didn't see anything different so it must be placed somewhere else inside the new document

As written in the blog, it makes it clear that it is the controller of the Path to Exile that is required to get a choice from their opponent on the searching for the land part. Without attaining the confirmation, this it is a CPV. This is no question.

I, though, would be inclined to not give this violation pending my investigation. If the opponent told me he was trying to play “gotcha” Magic, I don't think I would give it. I have read in several places on here that isn't how we want Magic to be played, folks angle shooting the rules. If the opponent told me he didn't know the card, that is a different to me.

I believe we need an Official answer on this though.

Sept. 29, 2017 03:57:34 PM

Scott Marshall
Forum Moderator
Judge (Level 3), Regional Coordinator (USA - Northwest), Hall of Fame

USA - Northwest

IPG updates - query about unmade choices

First of all, Leonin Arbiter isn't a real card.
Oh, wait - people do actually play that? Dang it … well, I guess Denial didn't work so well for Toby, either, so I can't be too surprised. :p

The thing is, some cards just don't fit well into our otherwise fairly comprehensive policy documents. Leonin Arbiter is one of them. (Sylvan Library used to be, but HCE coincidentally solved that, for the most part.)

Yes, you can remind someone they get to search, then point out they didn't pay 2 for the Arbiter. The only penalty in that case is the damage to their reputation in the local community - and, sadly, we all know that guy who just doesn't care about his reputation.

But that's not the interesting question here, is it?

I do think there's a bit of over-analysis present in this discussion, as is common when judges start pondering the possible and impossible. For the most part, I agree with Mark's post - except the part about Slow Play. To me, that seems like stretching the intent of a rule to prevent an unwanted behavior.

Granted, I can imagine this sequence:
A: Path your ‘goyf.
N: sure {puts ’goyf in Exile}
N: {sits doing nothing, staring at A}
A: {eventually} so, you gonna search, or???
Judge: N, why did you sit there so long?
N: waiting to see if he'd remind me, or if you'd have to give him CPV! {smiling, and obviously proud of his cleverness}
Judge: OK, I'm going to ask you not to waste everyone's time like that again, and I'll record this as Slow Play; if this match goes to time, you'll have two extra turns.

But surely, you see the extreme nature of that - it's just not a likely outcome.

In a similar vein, Example B of UC-Minor (A player inappropriately demands to a judge that her opponent receive a penalty) might be appropriate, in other extreme cases. If a player thinks that every minor omission, or hesitation before the opponent has to “seek confirmation that a choice with no visible impact was taken”, constitutes CPV, then we correct their unfortunate misunderstanding of the purpose of this change.
(I'll acknowledge that some not-insignificant number of us will encounter that guy, over the next few weeks.)

But if a player is belligerent and persistent in their demanding of CPV, because that's how “that other judge ruled it”, I'm going to suggest that their demands are inappropriate, and consider UC-Minor for their enhanced education.

* * *

To explain a bit about the philosophy, and hopefully help y'all understand how I come to these conclusions, consider the actual wording in MTR 4.2:
During the resolution of one of their spells or abilities, a player may not assume their opponent has taken a shortcut. They must seek confirmation that a choice with no visible impact was taken.
Like so many communication issues, problems arise when someone assumes something, esp. when it's to their benefit, and/or the opponent's detriment, to do so. There were enough actual instances of chicanery, esp. with Path to Exile, for this to become (what I like to call) a problem worth solving.

The purpose of this change is to offset that little quirk of Oracle text being Derived, and thus eligible for incomplete statements; when that quirk modifies how players understand certain common card templates, it's worth fixing. Please don't try to extend it well beyond that purpose.