Hey all first post here and hopefully it's not overly simplistic. (Policy is my weakest point so far and I'm looking to improve!)

It's player Dee's turn and he casts Meddling Mage.

Opponent asks “What are you naming?”

Dee then answers. (I don't remember what the named card was.)

Opponent did not realize that by asking what he's naming he's implicitly acknowledging the resolution of the Meddling Mage since the way Meddling Mage works is a replacement effect for how he enters the battlefield.

Opponent then has the “Whoa hey whoa whoa hey” moment and Dee, being the more experienced player, graciously agrees to backup if his opponent wishes but also calls me over.

What do? My decision was to allow the backup due to the feel-bad nature and the blurry communication that happened but is that correct? If this was competitive I don't think any kind of backup is necessary since asking what the opponent is naming without asking about how the ability functions could be construed as fishing for information with a misleading line of questioning.

Thanks for any and all help on this folks!

I'm gonna toss out ‘O’pinions here, nothing ‘O’fficial…

Dee is quite gracious in allowing that backup, and - esp. at Competitive REL - that's often my barometer; if the opponent allows it, judges often won't even be aware of it. If the opponent doesn't want it to happen, then judges shouldn't force a “take-back” - we rewind illegal actions, not poor choices.

At Regular REL, however, I might be inclined to ask Dee - assuming they weren't as quick to forgive this - if maybe they agreed that the opponent clearly didn't understand how this worked, and just maybe it wasn't fair to “gotcha!” a newer player, in a more casual event, by forcing tricky rules down their throat? and maybe Dee would agree that it's better to let the opponent respond when they want to, not when they mistakenly tried to? hmm???

d:^D

I hope that i understand your situation right!

_______________________________________________________


From personal experience I can say that at REL Regular I would let the rewind happen without any trouble.
Inform the players on how the effect correctly takes place and tell them to try give out clearer communication for the future.

Here our priorities are to educate players and help them understand the game better, so if one is clearly a beginner don't hesitate to take some time to educate how things work properly (and give appropriate extra time)
However, don't give them strategic information or help them with the board state.

In this situation telling Dees Opponent how Replacement effects work and letting that rewind happen seems to be the appropriate “fix” and then watch them a little as they play on.

see in the JAR: “Our solutions should focus on educating the players and keeping the game going rather than worrying about the impact on the game.”
__________________________________________________________

At REL Competive I would honestly do the same (I am no L2 but I have judged a few pptq so far).
There is probably no infraction we need to handle if players agree to handle a situation a certain way by themself ( just as Scott mentioned) (however, if you walk by you can still ask what happened)

If Dee explains the Situation and that he does not want this to happen since they stepped over to the next action in the game, i tell his opponent that we can't do anything here. but Dees opponent being all confused, since he is clearly visible a new player, I would still take my time to eplain him how replacement effects work and give appropriate extra time
Example: “Replacement Effect like this happen when the card is resolving and don't use the stack, not while on the stack, and then do what is stated. So we can't do anything in this particular situation since whith asking ”What are you naming“ you allowed to spell to resolve. If you want to react to a spell being cast you should try for a clear communication with your opponent that make sure they understand what you want to do. You get 2 minutes extra time for this ruling.”

I am happy when players help each other understand the game better and allow these kinds of play mistakes to be fixed. Shows great Sportsmanship so if a player wishes to do so I will happily allow them to work their stuff out to how it could have been

(please remember that is just me as an L1 judge, I don't know if that is the correct way to handle this)

Originally posted by Zachary Ryl:

If this was competitive I don't think any kind of backup is necessary since asking what the opponent is naming without asking about how the ability functions could be construed as fishing for information with a misleading line of questioning.

I am having trouble understanding that setence, could you please explain what you mean with it?


___________________________________________________________________________

When working a situation out like this it is much easier for others to understand several things with the names you give the players.
Give both players names, the player who is currently the active player a name that starts with A and the non active Player a name that starts with N to make their role within the situation more clear. :)

Edited Eser Unger (Aug. 22, 2018 07:44:59 PM)

In general if the players both agree on how to fix a minor issue, it's fine to let them do it. (This is true at both Regular and Comp REL.) If we start stepping in and doing things to the game against both player's wishes, they're less likely to call us over in the future.

To Eser Unger,

What I meant was if a player were to ask “What are you going to name” with the Mage on the stack with the intent of finding out what it is without it resolving versus the words “What are you naming” with the intent of finding out what it is AS it resolves. I feel like there's the potential for someone to think they could game the system this way.

Originally posted by Zachary Ryl:

To Eser Unger,

What I meant was if a player were to ask “What are you going to name” with the Mage on the stack with the intent of finding out what it is without it resolving versus the words “What are you naming” with the intent of finding out what it is AS it resolves. I feel like there's the potential for someone to think they could game the system this way.

I am not sure that I get it.

Rules level: there is no way to know which card is named, before it is actually named, and forbidden.

Policy level:
I think that's exactly what we mean when we say that Magic isn't a ‘gotcha!’ game.
I would handle these phrases exactly the same.
Policy doesn't encourage at all such word tricks.

Fully agree with Francesco here: Magic is not a game of word play and jedi mind tricks. Please also remember that not everyone is a native English speaker, so the subtle differences between these two wordings might not be clear to everyone. Asking, in any way or with any kind of words or wordplay, what is named for Meddling Mage is teechnically allowing it to resolve at Competitive REL, unless the opponent is fine with taking it back. And at Regular REL, I believe we already agree that this is a perfect moment for education. I, personally, am very happy when the opponent agrees to take back because Dee didn't fully understand the rules of our (admittedly complicated) game. And if the opponent doesn't agree, well, at Regular REL I'll allow the take back on their behalf, then :)

Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:

Originally posted by Zachary Ryl:

To Eser Unger,

What I meant was if a player were to ask “What are you going to name” with the Mage on the stack with the intent of finding out what it is without it resolving versus the words “What are you naming” with the intent of finding out what it is AS it resolves. I feel like there's the potential for someone to think they could game the system this way.

I am not sure that I get it.

Rules level: there is no way to know which card is named, before it is actually named, and forbidden.

Policy level:
I think that's exactly what we mean when we say that Magic isn't a ‘gotcha!’ game.
I would handle these phrases exactly the same.
Policy doesn't encourage at all such word tricks.

Yeah, this “Gotcha” situation is all hypothetical which I suppose I could have been more clear about, and Dee was quick to understand his opponent's understanding and confusion as well as provide an easy fix for it. I was just clarifying that there was no situation in which one could attempt to tease out the information, there is a shortcut that prevents this. (Shortcut? Implicit understanding in competitive magic?)

Edited Zachary Ryl (Aug. 23, 2018 01:14:27 PM)

Well, before we're too quick to eliminate any form of “Gotcha!”, consider a similar scenario, but one in which both players are fully aware of how the rules work.

AP knows that NAP is down to Mana Leak and Essence Scatter (based on what's been cast, etc).
AP: Meddling Mage, naming Essence Scatter
NAP: I'll respond, and Essence Scatter the Mage
AP: I'll Negate your Essence Scatter
NAP: OK, Mage resolves, naming Essen…
AP: nope, you responded, so I'll name Mana Leak
NAP: JUDGE!!!

This is perfectly legal, and fully supported by the MTR section on Shortcuts. Mage is now in play, and Mana Leak has been named.

AP: Gotcha!
NAP: <sulks>

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Well, before we're too quick to eliminate any form of “Gotcha!”, consider a similar scenario, but one in which both players are fully aware of how the rules work.

Thanks Scott! I don't think that's quite the same kind of Gotcha I was thinking of but you are totally right and the experience gained on this and my investigation of tournament shortcuts has really helped me out.

My opinion: It's not a judge issue until a judge is involved. Even if I am looking directly at the match when this happens, if the players work it out themselves, then it's not my business. However, when a judge is called, then it becomes a judge issue, and when it becomes a judge issue, then the judge should enforce the rules as they are written and not deviate (allowing this would be a deviation as far as I'm concerned). I would not allow the “do-over” (I hesitate to call it a “backup”, even though technically it is a backup) here; I would explain to the opponent how Meddling Mage works for their own education but then leave the game state as is.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

My opinion: It's not a judge issue until a judge is involved. Even if I am looking directly at the match when this happens, if the players work it out themselves, then it's not my business. However, when a judge is called, then it becomes a judge issue, and when it becomes a judge issue, then the judge should enforce the rules as they are written and not deviate (allowing this would be a deviation as far as I'm concerned). I would not allow the “do-over” (I hesitate to call it a “backup”, even though technically it is a backup) here; I would explain to the opponent how Meddling Mage works for their own education but then leave the game state as is.

I would stress that we are talking about Regular REL here.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

My opinion: It's not a judge issue until a judge is involved. Even if I am looking directly at the match when this happens, if the players work it out themselves, then it's not my business. However, when a judge is called, then it becomes a judge issue, and when it becomes a judge issue, then the judge should enforce the rules as they are written and not deviate (allowing this would be a deviation as far as I'm concerned). I would not allow the “do-over” (I hesitate to call it a “backup”, even though technically it is a backup) here; I would explain to the opponent how Meddling Mage works for their own education but then leave the game state as is.

Thing here is, what about misplaying a land, fatal pushing a creature with CMC 5 or something else similarly low impact. Many players would allow a small rewind without a judge intervening. At competitive this would be an issue but if the opponent wants to allow a tiny rewind or “take back” do we allow that at Regular REL.

With the Meddling Mage question, the crux of the issue is a shortcut that exists within the tournament rules which many beginner players would not be aware of. (And some advanced players.)

So, illegal actions versus ignorance of tournament procedure versus strategic mistakes. Players might handle all 3 themselves or call on us. Technically the first is the only one we have an easy fix for enforcing but, two is a little more middle ground and the third is totally out of the question… in theory. But it's a learning environment, so… I like asking the opponent since that's the main barometer for the competitiveness of the match. If someone has called me over for something that is… nit picky I might be less likely to take their side but, we'd see.

I'm not fond of asking the opponent for a take back, even at Regular REL, as this put pressure on them.
I prefer making a statement such as “Take backs for strategical errors are not something judges do, it's only something players decide between themselves”, and leave it that way. You clarified the rules about take backs, and what happen next is not something you influenced.

- Emilien

MTR shortcuts apply at every REL. If I am asked, I will rule based on the MTR shortcut even if it feels bad even at regular REL. That is only if there is an argument though. In the OP, the owner of meddling mage offered this solution, and I would let that happen.