In a GP Trial in Limited, I observed the following interactions between two players :

Archimedes cast Prey Upon, targeting his Eternal Scourge and Newton's Brazen Wolves.

Newton asks what the card does, and Archimedes explains that they fight, so that the Scourge deal 3 damages to the Wolves and the Wolves deal two damages to the Scourge, leaving the Wolves dead and the Scourge alive.

Newton says "Oh, okay. I cast Galvanic Bombardment to deal 2 more damage to the Scourge, so it dies too.“

Archimedes, after a brief pause, says ”So, your creature dies, but mine goes to exile because of its triggered ability?" and Newton agrees.

At this moment, both spells are in the middle of the table, and neither creature has moved from the battlefield. The exact time at which Galvanic Bombardment has been cast is ambiguous.

In the Competitive GP Trials of the olden times, I would let things stand: Archimedes is allowed to profit from his better understanding of the interactions between the cards and the sequence he implicitely proposes is legal. In FNM, I would probably intervene, at least to ask Newton when he cast the Bombardment.

What would you do at a Regular GP Trial?

I don't think there should be any difference in our behavior between a
Regulan FNM and a Regular GPT
MTR 1.12 defines Regular as events that are “focused on fun and social
aspects, not enforcement”.
The way I see it, the REL is what defines our approach, not the specific
tournament


2016-08-16 21:34 GMT-03:00 Florian Horn <

It seems to me that it would not be appropriate to intervene. Everything is legal and Newtons wording implies very strongly that the bombardment is happening after the fight “2 more damage”

Archimedes has outlined clearly what is happening and why and Newton has had the chance to adjust when his bombardment is being cast once the eternal scourge trigger is being pointed out to him and he agrees to the sequence.

If Newton agrees to the sequence, that should be the end. If we step in here we are using our strategic understanding to judge Newton's actions, we know newton really should bombardment first, but he has done nothing which indicates he has even thought about that line of play.

I gotta agree with Frederico, here.
From the JAR:

“You should intervene if you see something illegal happen in a match, but beyond this you can exercise your discretion. For example, whether you step in when you see a player miss a trigger should be determined by the tone you want to strike for your event – it may be appropriate to provide this extra help in a more causal environment, but less so if your play group is more competitive.”

So, for a prerelease, I'm totally going to point it out.

If I'm at a GPT, I'd have to see where it was going. If this was the bottom table of 30 players in 5 rounds of Swiss in round 4, I'm probably going to point it out.

If I'm a t a GPT and this is the finals in the top 8, I might not intervene.

I guess you'd have to be there. And … make a judgement call.

I'm not sure I intervene, I don't think it's ambiguous, “deal 2 more damage” indicates it's after resolving the fight. Not knowing that casting it in response means the fight won't happen would come from a better understanding of the rules and I don't feel that a judge should be giving a player that information during a game.

Quoting the first paragraph of the JAR -

Most Magic™ players play for fun and see a tournament as a social event. Regular REL (Rules Enforcement Level) encourages a welcoming atmosphere and friendly competition. Our demeanor should reflect this, whether we are playing, judging or both. Players and judges are encouraged to help one another at appropriate times, such as during deck construction or between matches. Judges are the last word when a dispute or question arises, and we should be as impartial and diplomatic as possible.

The emphasis is helping during deck construction and between matches. A welcoming atmosphere and friendly competition. Yes the way of resolving problems is more about learning from them than punishing them, but if a player has chosen to make a sub-optimal play because they don't know the rules as well as they could, does not mean we should step in and point out the better way of playing. Sure educate the player between rounds but let them learn from their mistakes if the situation is “legal”

As most things in Regular, you have a lot of room to tailor your behaviour to your local players and their own expectations.
If they are here for social interactions or as a learning opportunity, then educating the players on what is going on may be appropriate.
If they are here as a training ground or to measure themselves against each other, then keeping quiet until the match is over may be appropriate.
If both players have a different expectation, then you can default to what is the general mood that the TO wants to give to his or her venue.

- Emilien

I would not intervene. Nothing illegal has happened here, and Archimedes is gaining advantage here based on his superior knowledge of rules and interactions, which is part of the skills that Magic tests.

If you really really feel as though you should say something though, if it's Regular REL (and even then, probably not even at all Regular events), what you might consider doing is, after the match, explaining what happened to Newton so he can learn from the experience, not as a judge in an official capacity, but rather as a player trying to help other players get better at the game. Of course, you would have to judge whether or not Newton is a new player trying to get better, or is an experienced player who just had a brain fart, or is not receptive to becoming better and instead just “wants to have fun”, or so on, so it's really case by case. But if you really feel as though something should be said, that's how I would do it.

EDIT: Oops, I just noticed you said it was a GPT. Yeah, at a GPT I would absolutely not say anything, not even after the match. Maybe after the tournament, if you still think it's appropriate.

Edited Lyle Waldman (Aug. 17, 2016 03:22:41 PM)

Be wary about this line of thoughts: the “superior knowledge of rules and interactions” we are testing is about seeing paths of play that others may not. It's not about knowing how to keep your opponent in the dark about the state of the game state in order to trick him or her into making suboptimal plays.

What Archimedes demonstrated is a lack of sportsmanship, and how far he or she could push that without crossing a line. That's legal, but not praiseworthy, and that's a skill that we recommend players to refrain to test.

- Emilien

I don't like to call this superior knowledge but I would also step in with a “What just happened?” or “When was Bombardment cast?” either Newton cast it in response to the Prey Upon or he cast it after but Archimedes shouldn't be the one who dictates when that was.

Originally posted by Gareth Tanner:

but Archimedes shouldn't be the one who dictates when that was

Indeed, he's not. Newton does.

Florian Horn
Newton says "Oh, okay. I cast Galvanic Bombardment to deal 2 more damage to the Scourge, so it dies too.“

I see no ambiguity here (not putting things in graveyards, like instants and creatures, is OoOS, not a game rule violation). “More damage” can only be done after other damage has been done, and the only way here is letting Prey Upon resolve. No reason to step in, IMHO :)

Originally posted by Joaquín Pérez:

Gareth Tanner
but Archimedes shouldn't be the one who dictates when that was

Indeed, he's not. Newton does.

Florian Horn
Newton says "Oh, okay. I cast Galvanic Bombardment to deal 2 more damage to the Scourge, so it dies too.“

I see no ambiguity here (not putting things in graveyards, like instants and creatures, is OoOS, not a game rule violation). “More damage” can only be done after other damage has been done, and the only way here is letting Prey Upon resolve. No reason to step in, IMHO :)

Be careful not to overanalyse the specific wording, especially in situations like this. Players are not deliberately choosing between various phrases to find the most appropriate - they're just saying the first thing that comes into their head. “2 more damage” can just as easily be interpreted as "2 more damage, on top of what is about to be done by the Prey Upon.

I find it very unlikely that we would be in an ambiguous situation in the first place if Newton was being that precise with his language.

Originally posted by Emilien Wild:

Be wary about this line of thoughts: the “superior knowledge of rules and interactions” we are testing is about seeing paths of play that others may not. It's not about knowing how to keep your opponent in the dark about the state of the game state in order to trick him or her into making suboptimal plays.

Sure, except I would argue the double-negative, because it makes more sense in this situation: “The ‘superior knowledge of rules and interactions’ we are testing is about not missing lines of play that others may see”. In this case, by agreeing to Archimedes' game state, Newton missed the game state which would have allowed his creature to live. This fails the above test, hence Newton is being acceptably punished by the game for his lack of knowledge.

The issue I would have is concerning keeping the opponent in the dark; I see nothing in the OP regarding Archimedes attempting in any way to conceal information from Newton. Archimedes is not required to give all possible options to Newton regarding ambiguities in the game state; it is Newton's responsibility to see alternatives to Archimedes' suggestions and raise them as appropriate.

Furthermore, as raised by Joaquin above, I'm unsure this is even an ambiguity at all. In addition to Joaquin's point about the use of the word “more”, Newton also said “Oh, okay”. While “okay” can mean literally anything (and I am 100% guilty of saying “okay” when I don't mean it so I am absolutely sympathetic here), combined with the use of the word “more” and the use of the phrase "it dies too" (referring to the Eternal Scourge, emphasis mine), I honestly believe Newton intended the game state as Archimedes described it. While I would agree with Mark above regarding overanalyzing wording, in this case, while it is not the main factor in my decision, these factors lead me to believe that Newton was honestly unaware of an alternative to Archimedes' suggestion, which is, again, a failure of the rules and interaction knowledge test.

Edited Lyle Waldman (Aug. 18, 2016 03:43:33 PM)

My initial assumption would be that Newton's unaware of how Eternal Scourge works and is simply trying to finish it off after the fight. However, I don't see why I wouldn't just wait to see his reaction. There's about a thousand things he could say that make it clear one way or the other.