So this happened at FNM last week (Regular REL, Standard format) …

Aardvark is borrowing my sweet Blood Baron deck and is playing against Nairobi (names changed to protect the innocent) playing against Nairobi, who is piloting some permutation of Junk Reanimator. Aardvark thought that Blood Baron of Vizkopa got bigger and flying-er if you're at 30+ life *or* if your opponent is at 10- life (not *and*). So he aims a bunch of burn at Nairobi's face to get him to 10, or maybe a little less, and swings with the Blood Baron, ostensibly for the kill. Nairobi starts scooping up his cards while Aardvark tells me about his sweet play. Then we all realize .. oh wait, that says “or”. Uh ….

Since they both seemed pretty relaxed and not particularly fussy about the situation, I tried to reconstruct the game state as best I could, which both players seemed happy with. Nairobi had scooped up his graveyard and hand and started combining them with his library, but his permanents were still on the battlefield. I asked Nairobi if he knew for sure if any specific cards were in his graveyard, and how many cards he had in his hand. He picked out a few, and Aardvark agreed. He said he had “3 or 4” cards in hand. So I said, fish out those few cards you said were in your graveyard, put them there, shuffle up your library, draw 3 cards, and continue playing . They seemed happy about that fix. It was more of a “lol oops” thing.

How would the rest of y'all have handled this? What if this was at Competitive? (I'd say Nairobi conceded, and give Aardvark a Warning for PCV.)

Were they happy with it? Yes? Then it's fine. At Regular REL, a fix that isn't obviously unfair that both players are ok with is pretty much always good.

At competitive I wouldn't give the CPV warning unless Aardvark specifically stated that the Blood Baron was a 10/10 flying. The current p/t is derived information, so as long as there was no lying then there's no violation, just the concession.

For regular, your fix was great. If the players had disagreed then the concession stands, as much as a feel bad moment as it creates.

I agree with Colleen. You fixed it as best you could, and everyone was happy. It's all good.

At competitive though it's a difference story. From your description it's pretty clear that there was a concession. It sucks that both players misunderstood the card, sure. But unless Aardvark said that the Baron was 10/10 he hasn't committed any infraction. In fact, I would still be ok with it if he said “Burn you down to 10, and attack with my Blood Baron” (although beyond that much we're into a murky grey area where it's a “you have to be there” moment and a judges decision as to whether he crossed any line).

It's perfectly fine to play the game like your opponent doesn't understand the cards, so long as you do so legally.