Hi everyone! Wecome back to our first scenario in the reboot of Knowledge Pool.  As a reminder L3+ please wait until Wednesday to join in with answers.  Good luck and happy discussion.


Alex and Nancy are playing a game of Modern during a Regional Championship Qualifier. Alex controls a  [[ Renegade Freighter ]] and Nancy controls an [[ Affectionate Indrik ]]. Alex casts a [[Roaming Throne]] naming Vehicle, crews the Freighter with the Roaming Throne, and attacks Nancy with the Freighter. Nancy blocks with her Indrik and explains that they will both lethal damage to each other. Alex explains that the Freighter triggers twice because of Roaming Throne so it has 5 toughness. Nancy calls for a judge. What should you do?

Edited Matt Muckle (July 28, 2025 10:47:41 AM)

Bob made a Game Play Error - Game Rule Violation, as Vehicle is not a Creature Type, so it is not a legal choice for Roaming Throne.  I would require him to make a legal choice and issue him a warning.

Nancy has commited a Game Play Error - Failure to Maintain Game State and should also be given a warning.

In this scenario, Bob has also failed to properly call attention to his triggers when they were placed on the stack, though given that Nancy clearly intended to block the 5/4 Renegade Freighter, I would declare that the Renegade Freighter has only triggered once, being a 5/4, and that it is currently the Declare Blockers Step with Bob having Priority.

So the base of the problem is a GRV, as vehicle is not a legal choice for roaming throne. The fix is simply have the player make a legal choice. This part seems easy. 

I would have to ask Nancy some questions though. It seems like they knew it wouldn't work based on their combat math. Potentially cheating, Potentially they thought it was just a missed trigger so they let it go. Likely they just don't know vehicle is not a creature type.

In conclusion, GRV for Bob, they choose a creature type. I don't think I back up either. 

Nancy gets a failure to maintain, GRV, or cheating based on their answers.

Again, thanks for doing this!

Potentially cheating

As a gentle, general reminder: Knowledge Pool scenarios always assume no cheating unless the question says otherwise. 

Fair enough! This is my first time here xD

We can start by clarifying that a player made a mistake - Roaming Throne can't name vehicle (it's an artifact type, not a creature type) and thus this is a Gameplay Error. This doesn't match any specific category, so goes into the general GRV bucket. 

 

This clearly can't be a simple backup and doesn't match any of the partial fixes, so we are given the choices of making a full backup to the point of the error (when Alex resolved Roaming Throne), or leaving the board state as is. In this case, I feel that there is very little information leaked from the interactions and would perform a full backup to the point of the error and ask Alex to choose a different type. I would assign a GPE-GRV warning to Alex and a FTMGS to Nancy.

 

I think something to keep track of is what Nancy is communicating with the judge - the way that she handles this situation could range from no warning to a GRV to a possible cheating DQ/stern warning.

• The most likely scenario is that she is simply confused about missed trigger policy and there should be no (punishing) warning, simply a reminder that this board state is illegal and that she needs to try to maintain the board state. 
• If she communicates to the judge that she understood that Roaming Throne can't name Vehicle and was simply attempting to get a favorable trade since she thought that a player could fail to name a creature type or similar, both players should receive a GRV warning, Nancy isn't allowed to allow Alex to take an illegal action in order to receive a benefit. If we fall into this camp, we should have a quick talk with Nancy informing her that knowingly letting your opponent break the rules to your benefit (outside of specifically missed triggers) would be considered cheating

Edited Luke Brandes (July 28, 2025 01:35:48 PM)

Originally posted by Blake Fain:

Bob made a Game Play Error - Game Rule Violation, as Vehicle is not a Creature Type, so it is not a legal choice for Roaming Throne.  I would require him to make a legal choice and issue him a warning.

Nancy has commited a Game Play Error - Failure to Maintain Game State and should also be given a warning.

In this scenario, Bob has also failed to properly call attention to his triggers when they were placed on the stack, though given that Nancy clearly intended to block the 5/4 Renegade Freighter, I would declare that the Renegade Freighter has only triggered once, being a 5/4, and that it is currently the Declare Blockers Step with Bob having Priority.

If Roaming Throne could name Vehicles and had actually caused the Renegade Freighter's attack trigger to trigger an additional time, when would Bob be required to acknowledge the trigger in order for it not to be missed? Keep in mind that this an example of a triggered ability doesn't have a visible change on the board state.

Originally posted by Luke Brandes:

"This clearly can't be a simple backup and doesn't match any of the partial fixes..."

One of the partial fixes for GRV is "If a player made an illegal choice (including no choice where required) for a static ability generating a continuous effect still on the battlefield, that player makes a legal choice."

Would that apply here?

Originally posted by Dennis Bradford:

Originally posted by Blake Fain:

Bob made a Game Play Error - Game Rule Violation, as Vehicle is not a Creature Type, so it is not a legal choice for Roaming Throne.  I would require him to make a legal choice and issue him a warning.

Nancy has commited a Game Play Error - Failure to Maintain Game State and should also be given a warning.

In this scenario, Bob has also failed to properly call attention to his triggers when they were placed on the stack, though given that Nancy clearly intended to block the 5/4 Renegade Freighter, I would declare that the Renegade Freighter has only triggered once, being a 5/4, and that it is currently the Declare Blockers Step with Bob having Priority.

If Roaming Throne could name Vehicles and had actually caused the Renegade Freighter's attack trigger to trigger an additional time, when would Bob be required to acknowledge the trigger in order for it not to be missed? Keep in mind that this an example of a triggered ability doesn't have a visible change on the board state.

For the sake of keeping things less muddled lets not add new hyoptheticals.  But I do encouage everyone to chat hypotheticals etc in discord etc. 

After some reconsideration, here is my updated ruling.

Bob made a Game Play Error - Game Rule Violation, as Vehicle is not a Creature Type, so it is not a legal choice for Roaming Throne.

Nancy has commited a Game Play Error - Failure to Maintain Game State.

I cannot seem to shake the idea that Nancy may have cheated in this scenario.  I haven't found an explanation for her judge call aside from the idea that she knew Vehicle was not a creature type, and thus an illegal choice for Roaming Throne, and permitted Bob to choose it anyway with the hope that he may attack with the Renegade Freighter believing it couldn't die in combat, so she could make a judge call reversing the decision in her favor.  While this isn't definitive, and I don't think she should be punished for this hunch, I also believe that my previous decision may have over-punished Bob by forcing him to stick with this decision with the possibility that he may have been misled by Nancy.

As such, I would give both Bob and Nancy a warning, make Bob choose a legal Creature type and back the game up to the Beginning of Combat step, given that neither player has received any additional information, permitting Bob to redeclare attackers.

"Vehicle" is not a creature type and can't be chosen for Walking Throne.

If Nancy was aware of this and didn't say anything when Alex made his choice so that she could make a more favorable block AND knows that she's supposed to point out game rule errors the moment they happen, then that would be cheating. But there are certainly scenarios here where it wouldn't be cheating: the most likely, I think, being that Nancy knew that Vehicles wasn't a creature type but didn't realize that choosing something that isn't a creature type is an illegal game action on Alex's part. Alternatively, she might have thought that Vehicle was a legal choice for Walking Throne but also that the ability that gives Renegade Freighter +1/+1 and trample isn't a triggered ability; maybe she thought it was templated like, "As long as Renegade Freighter is attacking, it gets +1/+1 and has trample." Because this is a Knowledge Pool question, we assume it's a scenario where Nancy isn't cheating.

This game rule violation falls under one of our partial fixes: "If a player made an illegal choice (including no choice where required) for a static ability generating a continuous effect still on the battlefield, that player makes a legal choice." After asking Nancy a sufficient number of questions to rule out cheating, I'd issue Alex a Warning for Game Rule Violation and Nancy a Warning for Failure to Maintain Board State. I'd have Alex choose a creature type for Roaming Throne and continue the game where it was, in the combat damage step, clarifying that the Renegade Freighter's triggered ability has only triggered once.

Simple backup to before declaring blockers for smoothness as it was the last completed action, then partial fix so Alex can make a valid choice. Depending on the details of the call I would rule GRV for Alex and FtMGS for Nancy in most of the cases. GRV for both if Nancy was aware vehicle was not a valid choice, but didn't know that she was supposed to point out the mistake, as I would say she has the same level of responsibility for letting the ilegal state progress.

Hi friends!  Thanks everyone who answered our first weeks scenario.  Most everyone was very close if not spot on good job!  I'll note that the question was a bit more of a doozy than initially intended. The entire interaction raises some major alarm bells but im glad everyone was on the same page and could suspend cheating disbelief for the sake of Knowledge Pool.

On to the answer!

The first error that occurred was AP not making a legal choice as their Roaming Throne entered. This is a Game Rules Violation. We can consider backing up to the point of the error, but should first consider if any partial fixes apply.

“If a player made an illegal choice (including no choice where required) for a static ability generating a continuous effect still on the battlefield, that player makes a legal choice”

This partial fix applies, so we should have AP make a legal choice now. The partial fix resolved the entire error, so there is no additional remedy.  A simple backup is not required as it does not make applying the fix easier.

There is some argument to say there are multiple errors since Alex put and resolved a trigger that didn't exist.  That would make the error not fit only in the partial fix and require a full backup to immediately after attackers are declared.  However, while the triggers aren't missed, Nancy told Alex the first time they reasonably could that the trigger didn't actually happen.  We're considering it as if the trigger never happened and the only error is partial fixable.  

 

NAP didn’t point out the Roaming Throne error when it occurred, so they also receive a Warning for FtMGS

 

AP receives a Warning for Game Rules Violation. NAP receives a Warning for Failure to Maintain Game State. Have AP make a valid choice for Roaming Throne now. The game continues in the Declare Blockers step with Alex having priority; Renegade Freighter is a 5/4.

Edited Matt Muckle (Yesterday 09:56:07 AM)