Just curios if there is any opportunity for a takeback in a situation like…

Aaeron: I cast Council's Judgment.. I'll vote for your Grizzly Bear.

Naomi: Hmm, whats this card.. *reads quickly* ahh ok guess it doesn't matter what I vote for I'll just pick this craw wurm.

Aaeron: Uhmm.. ok both get exiled..

Naomi: Huh?? Oh that's how it works. Oh I didnt read that right.. I just vote the Grizzly Bear obviously

—

Anything that can be done in this situation? I'm guessing not.. but should you suggest to Aaeron that allowing a takeback might be a nice thing to do here?

Edited Scott Marshall (Aug. 20, 2014 02:07:28 AM)

As a player (at regular or casual), I'd allow my opponent that takeback.

As a judge, however, I wouldn't enforce, encourage, or even mention a take-back. If the Aaeron didn't offer it on their own, it would be unfair to pressure him into doing so.

Voting for Craw Wurm isn't illegal, it's just a poor choice. It's a player's responsibility to read the cards and form their strategy. This is a good learning opportunity for Naomi.

Maybe it can be taken back if Aaeron is generous. It's not really something the judge should suggest.

We allow opponents to choose triggers and takebacksies when there's no penalty because we shouldn't impose a solution that neither player wants without a policy in place.

Even at Regular REL, the expectation of the judge is to keep things fun and fair. While it may be more “fun” for Naomi if her mistake doesn't cost her 2 creatures, it's not “fair” to Aaeron that we pressure him to not capitalize on his opponent's mistake.

RT(blank)C. Naomi had the opportunity to ask her opponent how the card works, who is under only moderate expectation to explain the card (i.e. not lie about it and explain it as it resolves). Either way, Naomi had the chance to ask a judge how it worked rather than assume she understood it.

She chose…. poorly. Learning experience!

I agree with the two people above me, as a judge I would simply say “Sorry, but you made your choice. I recommend reading a bit more carefully the next time, or asking a judge if you're uncertain about a card; We're here to help, after all.”

If her opponent allowed a take-back, I would state that since her opponent was really nice to her and said it was OK, she can do it if she likes. However, normally once you've made a choice it sticks. Then I'd end with the same spiel above with reading and asking for help. :)

Edited Christian Fagerheim (Aug. 20, 2014 05:57:19 AM)

Naomi could have read the card or asked a judge for its Oracle text, even ask directly about how it works (without giving strategic advice). She chose to not do that, loses one more creature, and lesson learned. It's perfectly fine at all RELs. You probably expect Aaron to allow a rollback at Regular REL, but he's not forced to and, as judges, we shouldn't suggest to do that.

Edited Joaquín Pérez (Aug. 20, 2014 07:23:12 PM)

Originally posted by Evan Cherry:

Naomi had the opportunity to ask her opponent how the card works, who is under only moderate expectation to explain the card (i.e. not lie about it and explain it as it resolves). Either way, Naomi had the chance to ask a judge how it worked rather than assume she understood it.

I was under the impression that this was free information at Regular REL. It was my impression that:
Free information is information to which all players are entitled access without contamination or omissions made
by their opponents. If a player is ever unable or unwilling to provide free information to an opponent that has
requested it, he or she should call a judge and explain the situation.

If Naomi asked, “What does that card do?” Why wouldn't we expect AP to read the card text or ask AP to read the card?

If NAP omitted free information (which is not the case here) when he was required to either answer or call a judge over, could a judge make arguments for a short rewind?

Originally posted by William Anderson:

I was under the impression that this was free information at Regular REL. It was my impression that:
Free information is information to which all players are entitled access without contamination or omissions made
by their opponents. If a player is ever unable or unwilling to provide free information to an opponent that has
requested it, he or she should call a judge and explain the situation.

If Naomi asked, “What does that card do?” Why wouldn't we expect AP to read the card text or ask AP to read the card?

If NAP omitted free information (which is not the case here) when he was required to either answer or call a judge over, could a judge make arguments for a short rewind?

Isn't giving Naomi the card a complete and true answer to the question for its oracle text? Where is the difference between reading the card text out loud and giving the card with exactly that text printed on it to Naomi so she can read (in her own speed and re-read as often as she wants) it herself?

Hey!

This kind of happened to me at Regular REL a couple of times.
The point is that players should carefully read the cards they are playing, and also those their opponents are playing.
In this way the game will run more smoothly and everybody will be happy.
In the scenario presented, I believed that is up to the player to allow the opponent to take-back and vote for another card.
Forcing the player to take-back just for a reading error of the opponent seems unfair.

All the best!

Originally posted by William Anderson:

I was under the impression that this was free information at Regular REL. It was my impression that:
Free information is information to which all players are entitled access without contamination or omissions made
by their opponents. If a player is ever unable or unwilling to provide free information to an opponent that has
requested it, he or she should call a judge and explain the situation.

If Naomi asked, “What does that card do?” Why wouldn't we expect AP to read the card text or ask AP to read the card?

If NAP omitted free information (which is not the case here) when he was required to either answer or call a judge over, could a judge make arguments for a short rewind?

You're right, and my initial answer was unclear- it seems to indicate that “what the card says” is derived, and that we don't expect derived info to be free at Regular (I missed the REL of the question. Sorry!).

Text of cards in play and stack/etc is free information, and it is entirely reasonable to expect that Aaeron read the card and/or provide it to Naomi. If Naomi asked “what would happen” if Aaeron chose X and she chose Y, I would expect Aaeron to explain how the card works (without omission) or call a judge.

tl;dr Naomi didn't ask for clarification or how the card works from a judge OR her opponent, who would be expected to read the card or clarify how it works if requested. No takebacksies.

Originally posted by Evan Cherry:

We allow opponents to choose triggers and takebacksies when there's no penalty because we shouldn't impose a solution that neither player wants without a policy in place.

I recently became a judge and your second segment is something I need to read up on, the allowing opponents to choose triggers section. Where should I look for more information about this? Thanks in advanced.

Edited Cole Smith (Oct. 2, 2014 02:36:40 AM)

The JAR is the go-to for how to handle issues at Regular REL :)