I get called to the table at an FNM draft. Situation is described to me as follows:

• AP cast Mark of the Vampire and put it under his Vicious Conquistador.
  
• AP asks NAP "How big is your Tishana, Voice of Thunder?" NAP says it's 4/4.
  
• AP says “Oh, in that case I want to attach it to my other creature” (I forgot what) and moved it over.
  
• NAP calls judge.
  

I ask what sort of delay was involved. AP says it was negligible, NAP disagrees.

Thoughts?

Would it affect your ruling if…

• NAP is usually very sportsmanlike and “not-competitive”, but I could tell this was something he felt strongly about.
  
• AP is a bit of an odd case and, though I would say we have don't have any problem players at our LGS… if I had to make a list, he'd be at the top.
  

What I did: I explained that I would accept a “this one-oh, hold on… no, that one” change of heart if was more or less a fluid process where AP did not have an opportunity to test the water/fish for a reaction. NAP clearly felt that this line had been crossed, so I ruled that the aura stayed on the Vicious Conquistador and asked AP to play more carefully in the future.

This is a classic “had to be there” situation. It's clear that the opponent does not want to let this player make a new choice (otherwise, he or she wouldn't have called you over), so you really need to determine how to proceed based on how competitive or casual the culture at your event is.

Not letting the player make the change is likely to cause him or her to think more carefully about choices in the future, but it'll also likely slow down his or her pace of play. This isn't a “misclick” situation where a player says one thing and places the aura on another, but a case where a player didn't fully consider his or her choice before making it, and made a (presumably) better one with more information. So just make sure you're consistent with this kind of ruling in the future, and talk with your TO about what kind of culture he or she wants to promote at FNM.

While I agree with John Brian that this sort of thing benefits from actually being there, I also think Jochem has provided enough detail from actually having been there, for me to agree with his resolution.

My philosophy on this: Judges don't do “take-backs”, only opponents can allow those. Judges can rewind when a rule has been broken - i.e., Game Play Error - but the only error here is strategic, and AP had a chance to avoid that by asking for that info before choosing a target for the aura.

Now, in situations where AP says something like “I'll play an Islan… No! Wait! a Swamp”, then - as noted above, and actually being there to get a sense for the length of any pause - I'll probably decide that AP didn't have a chance to gain any info that might influence their change.

In situations where NAP objects to even the smallest changes like this, I might allow AP to complete their action as intended; I might judge that AP did have a chance to see a reaction from NAP, and disallow the change. That's the “had to be there” part.

In this case, AP not only had time to fish for a reaction, they even solicited one with their “how big…?” question. Since many “take-backs” aren't even brought to the attention of a judge, when NAP does object it's often because that particular take-back shouldn't be allowed.

d:^D

I won't maintain posts that call out specific individuals by name; some things have been deleted (and best not return).

d:^D