Hello judges, and welcome to another Knowledge Pool! This Knowledge Pool scenario is ranked SILVER, which requires a strong knowledge of policy.

We'd like to encourage L2s and experienced L1s to discuss these scenarios, but everyone should feel free to chime in!

Scenario: Read the blog post here!

Austin is playing a very long game against Nora at a GPT, and has no cards in hand. He draws for his turn, then windmill slams Angel of Serenity, and Nora says, “Man! That's a good top-deck… Seems bad for me.” Austin says, "Well, it's not GOOD for you, that's for sure! Exile your Thragtusk, Beast token and Restoration Angel.“

Nora sighs and says, ”Fine… I'll miss you guys!“ as she puts the two cards under the Angel. She slides the beast token off to the side then back to the same spot while saying, ”Goodbye, old beast… Oh, hello new beast! Nice of you to join us.“

Austin then taps an empty pink sleeve representing a token. ”Attack.“ Nora asks, ”What's that again?“ and Austin replies, ”It's a 3/3." Nora thinks for a moment, looks at the Ghor Clan Rampager in her hand, sees that Austin is at 1 life and has only the untapped Angel to block, then declares “No blocks” and marks her life from 4 to 1. Then Austin says, "Ok, flash back Geistflame for the win!“

Nora groans and says ”Awww, I totally forgot about Geistflame, because it's so random that you would play it in the first place!“ But when Austin grabs his graveyard to cast Geistflame, he says, ”Doh! I got that token from my Huntmaster of the Fells, didn't I? It's actually a 2/2 wolf… I got confused because of all the beast tokens.“

”JUDGE!“ is then shouted in stereo.

What do you do?

Edited Benjamin McDole (April 3, 2013 11:51:27 AM)

Provided that it was unintentional error, I think it is pretty obvious CPV.
Which means warning for Austin and (at least from my point of view) backup
to the declare attackers step after the attackers were declared, since the
situation is simple enough.

2013/3/27 Josh Stansfield <forum-3550@apps.magicjudges.org>

I agree with David, warning for CPV for misrepresenting the token and with permission of the HJ backup to right after the token had been declared attacking.

If it is unintentional, it's pretty obvious CPV and warning for Austin. With permission of HJ, the game could be backed up to declare attacker's step, after attackers are declared.

Although, one question we may want to investigate about: since when did the token enter the battlefield, and what impact had it done to game state? I'm pretty sure nobody will play Huntmaster of the Fells and pretend the token to be 3/3 for all the time.

Another additional question: If it was the third game of the match, and after Austin cast Geistflame, both player still didn't remember the token should actually be 2/2. They agreed with the result and signed the score slip. When the two players chatting after the match, Austin suddenly remembered the token is actually the wolf, and both player called judge. If that's the case, what should you do?

The real question to be asked here is, I guess, if the fact of not declaring any blockers isn't already giving a lot of information to Austin. Nora has told Austin she forgot about the flashback Geistflame (else she would have blocked, in the presumption she was being attacked by a 3/3).

With all this information Austin can deduct that Nora might have an “ace” up her sleeve for the back swing. So if the game would be backed up till before attackers are declared: He now could play it defensively and decide not to attack, or attack and use the flashback Geistflame on the beast token if she blocked (in the presumption he might have seen a Ghor Clan earlier games).

Nora also agreed with the wolf wrongly being a 3/3. This on her part is a mistake (hinting towards F2MBS). With her also forgetting the geistflame in GY (she is now also making a strategical fault) she admits that she would also benefit from a back-up for a complete different reason.

So I agree with above that the game should be backed up till right after attackers are declared, in such way Austin can't forsake the attack.

CPV warning for Austin
I would remind Nora to play more carefully

The infraction is obviously CPV (almost forgot the name change twice) : the power/toughness of a creature is derived information per section 4.1 of the MTR, and Austin involuntarily represented incorrectly.
Section 3.7 of the IPG tells us the penalty is a Warning, and that we may back up to the point immediately prior the CPV. Since the CPV, no information has been revealed to either player : the Geistflame was in Austin's GY beforehand, and Nora's decision to not block obviously depends on the size of the token. I would therferore request permission from the HJ to backup to the declare attackers step, after attackers have been declared. Nora has priority.

By saying that the token is a 3/3 Beast, Austin has incorrectly represented free information, violating the Communication Policy. The remedy we're given in the IPG is to (with HJ permission) back up to the point where the policy was violated. In this instance, it's: “Austin then taps an empty pink sleeve representing a token. ”Attack.“”. So we back up to when the token has been declared as an attacker and carry on from there, with a TE-CPV warning for Austin, and no penalty for Nora (FTMGS is more fully known as Game Play Error - Failure to Maintain Game State and is awarded to players who allow their opponents' GPEs to go unnoticed).

In this scenario, players' life totals, Geistflame, decisions about whether to block or not etc etc are, I feel, all red herrings. We're not worried about what information players may or may not have gained.

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

In this scenario, players' life totals, Geistflame, decisions about whether to block or not etc etc are, I feel, all red herrings. We're not worried about what information players may or may not have gained.

I'm not sure I agree here. The language in the Additional Remedy for determining when to back up is similar to the corresponding language in the Additional Remedy for GRV. We can certainly take game state and the amount of information revealed into account when determining to backup a GRV, so it seems reasonable that we can do so in the case of CPV as well. (Though I agree with others that in this case it would not be too disruptive to back up.)

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

So we back up to when the token has been declared as an attacker and carry on from there, with a TE-CPV warning for Austin, and no penalty for Nora (FTMGS is more fully known as Game Play Error - Failure to Maintain Game State and is awarded to players who allow their opponents' GPEs to go unnoticed).

Why would we issue FTMGS here? Did Nora allow a GPE to go unnoticed?

Originally posted by Michael McCliment:

Mark McGovern
So we back up to when the token has been declared as an attacker and carry on from there, with a TE-CPV warning for Austin, and no penalty for Nora (FTMGS is more fully known as Game Play Error - Failure to Maintain Game State and is awarded to players who allow their opponents' GPEs to go unnoticed).

Why would we issue FTMGS here? Did Nora allow a GPE to go unnoticed?

I think there may have been a mis-reading involved here, Michael. Mark said “no penalty for Nora,” then he explained when FtMGS would be appropriate otherwise.

Edited Josh Stansfield (March 28, 2013 11:24:12 AM)

Originally posted by Josh Stansfield:

Michael McCliment

Mark McGovern
So we back up to when the token has been declared as an attacker and carry on from there, with a TE-CPV warning for Austin, and no penalty for Nora (FTMGS is more fully known as Game Play Error - Failure to Maintain Game State and is awarded to players who allow their opponents' GPEs to go unnoticed).

Why would we issue FTMGS here? Did Nora allow a GPE to go unnoticed?

I think there may have been a mis-reading involved here, Michael. Mark said “no penalty for Nora,” then he explained when FtMGS would be appropriate otherwise.

Whoops! You're right. :rolleyes:

Josh is right.

I mentioned it only because I saw Niki mention “F2MBS” and just wanted to point out for anyone who might be interested that that infraction has not been committed in this scenario :)

It is obvious that this situation starts out as a CPV. In this case I would not back up to this point, since a lot of things have happened: A blocker declaration, damage assignment, multiple chances to play spells and abilities, and lastly a spell was announced.

But the situation escalated to a GRV the moment Austin assigned three damage from the 2/2 creature. That he did is clear from the fact that both players assumed her to be at 1 life now. I feel more comfortable backing up to the combat damage step here, and I probably would. Basically the error was noticed the moment the next action was about to be taken.

Edited Sebastian Rittau (April 1, 2013 11:44:07 AM)

Thanks to everyone who participated in this discussion! Let's just quickly recap the scenario:

Austin is playing a very long game against Nora at a GPT, and has no cards in hand. He draws for his turn, then windmill slams Angel of Serenity, and Nora says, “Man! That's a good top-deck… Seems bad for me.” Austin says, “Well, it's not GOOD for you, that's for sure! Exile your Thragtusk, Beast token and Restoration Angel.“

Nora sighs and says, ”Fine… I'll miss you guys!“ as she puts the two cards under the Angel. She slides the beast token off to the side then back to the same spot while saying, ”Goodbye, old beast… Oh, hello new beast! Nice of you to join us.“

Austin then taps an empty pink sleeve representing a token. ”Attack.“ Nora asks, ”What's that again?“ and Austin replies, ”It's a 3/3.” Nora thinks for a moment, looks at the Ghor Clan Rampager in her hand, sees that Austin is at 1 life and has only the untapped Angel to block, then declares “No blocks” and marks her life from 4 to 1. Then Austin says, “Ok, flash back Geistflame for the win!“

Nora groans and says ”Awww, I totally forgot about Geistflame, because it's so random that you would play it in the first place!“ But when Austin grabs his graveyard to cast Geistflame, he says, ”Doh! I got that token from my Huntmaster of the Fells, didn't I? It's actually a 2/2 wolf… I got confused because of all the beast tokens.“

”JUDGE!“ is then shouted in stereo.

What do you do?

***********

David Zalesky was quick to point out that this is, in fact, a Tournament Error - Communication Policy Violation, because Austin has provided incorrect free and/or derived information. You could argue either way: ”He implied it was a token named Beast“ (free information), or ”He stated his Wolf token was 3/3 instead of 2/2" (derived information), but it doesn't much matter. Either way, the infraction, penalty and fix are the same.

Definition
A player violates the Player Communication policy detailed in section 4.1 of the Magic Tournament Rules and summarized below. This infraction only applies to violations of that policy and not to general communication confusion.

Additional Remedy
If the situation is simple enough to safely back up without too much disruption to the course of the game, the judge may get permission from the Head Judge to back up the game to the point of the incorrect information. Each action taken is undone until the game reaches the point immediately prior to the error. Cards incorrectly placed in hand are returned to the location in the zone from which they were moved (if the identity of the incorrectly drawn card is not known to all players, a random card is returned instead). Once the game is backed up, it continues from that point.

Alex Mullins added a small but important piece of information; the head judge must approve a backup if we feel one is appropriate.

And Sebastian Rittau called attention to some of the things to take into consideration in your decision of whether to back up.

We see that some information has been gained (Nora is reminded of the Geistflame, Austin can probably figure out that Nora has some kind of trick for next turn, etc.), but most of us agree it's not too complicated to simply back up the game. Even if you don't back up the game, issue a warning for TE:CPV to Austin for incorrectly representing the power/toughness of his creature. Back up to the point of the incorrect information being given, which was ”It's a 3/3“ during the declare attackers step in this case. Return the Geistflame to the graveyard (if it was actually moved to the stack), undo combat damage by putting Nora's life to 4 again, and return to the declare attackers step where the 2/2 is attacking. We don't force any previously taken game actions after that point where the CPV occurred. Allow Nora to block if she wishes, and allow Austin to choose whether to cast Geistflame and how to cast it if he wishes.

And of course it's a good idea to do a little investigation, but considering that Austin was the one who noticed the error and called it on himself as soon as he noticed, when he would have just won the game if he had remained silent, it's probably safe to assume this error was unintentional.

Thanks, and see you at the next Knowledge Pool!