I feel that Norman knew that Abe did not notice the Thalia in play and was trying to get him to agree that he was only supposed to take 1. If Abe didn't call a judge, that is what would've happened. I feel that although this is not sporting conduct, it's not unsporting conduct either. He was just trying to jedi mind trick his opponent. Players usually tend to solve simple issues like this themselves.

Unfortunately for Norman, Abe realized that this would be a GRV and called a judge on himself because he did cast Devils Play for 2 with a Thalia in play.

The shortcut for x mana spells does not apply here because it has no mention of added/subtracted cost for x spells.

GRV, rewind, add extra time and continue match.


Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device via Vodafone-Celcom Mobile.

Hi Shashi

If you take a look at Robert's post earlier in the thread, the shortcut does not even technically apply to the R cost of the spell, only the x value. If we were to take it literally, then anybody who would ever attempt to cast a devil's play using the shortcut would get a GRV as X would take the value of all the mana in their mana pool and there would be no mana left to pay R.

However, we are not here to play gotcha magic. We want players to win by playing magic, not because of technicalities. While we do not take into account the intent of the player when making rulings, we do take into account the intent of the rules.

In this case, the intent of the rule is to prevent players from Jedi mind tricking their opponents by tapping x mana and then stating (upon resolution) that they were casting the spell for a different cost than the one assumed.

So when we look at this scenario, how does this reconcile with the intent of the rules? Abe forgot about Thalia. He was not trying to Jedi mind trick Norman.

We all know that he could have intentionally cast devil's play for one less mana in the hope that Norman forgot about his own Thalia. If he did, then that is a different infraction entirely and not covered as part of this scenario.

My ruling is therefore a GRV rewind.

Hi Bob,

I think we are on the same page here. I do agree with Robert as well since the mandatory costs are not mentioned in that said shortcut and that shortcut itself is worded to work one way (which is to stop players from not declaring x but saying he has extra mana in his pool)

I did say that Abe forgot about Thalia and I said NORMAN knew that and Norman was the one who was trying to jedi mind trick Abe so that he'd just say “yeah u go to 1. Crap I misplayed my devils play” But Abe didn't and called a judge.

Besides that point, we also therefore come to the same conclusion, GRV Rewind.

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device via Vodafone-Celcom Mobile.

Originally posted by Bob Narindra:

If you take a look at Robert's post earlier in the thread, the shortcut does not even technically apply to the R cost of the spell, only the x value. If we were to take it literally, then anybody who would ever attempt to cast a devil's play using the shortcut would get a GRV as X would take the value of all the mana in their mana pool and there would be no mana left to pay R.

Well that depends on what ‘it’ refers to I think:

If a player casts a spell or activates an ability with X in its mana cost without specifying the value of X, it is assumed to be for all mana currently available in his or her pool.

If we say that it refers to ‘a spell’, or ‘a spell with X in its mana cost’ we get:

If a player casts a spell or activates an ability with X in its mana cost without specifying the value of X, that spell is assumed to be cast for all mana currently available in his or her pool.

Or am I saying something nonsensical now as a non-native English speaker? =p

Edited Toby Hazes (June 8, 2013 12:34:43 PM)

As far as I can tell, this boils down to whether or not we value the players intent when casting a spell (X=2, and then GRV +rewind) or the implicit shortcut (X=1, as the spell could be legally cast with available mana). While I can definitely understand the argument of intent, and i understand that a brief investigation should be done, I'm loathe to rewind a legal gamestate because of sloppy play and/or poor communication, especially at competitive REL.

Good day everyone! Welcome back to Knowledge Pool. One of the things I've learned since taking over the lead on Knowledge Pool is that judges will often interpret policy in unexpected, and often quite enlightening ways. That is certainly the case with this scenario as well. Let me explain a bit about the KP process (for those of you who have been in either my, or David de la Iglesia's Knowledge Pool seminar, you already know this part).

1. One of the great KP team posts a question to our private forums. Often these are real life scenarios which have happened, though sometimes it's just an area of need for education. On rare occasions I will make a call for a question on a particular topic.

2. The members discuss the various pros and cons of such a question, and the necessity of the education. The question is fine tuned a bit, and made suitable for consumption by a wide audience.

3. The solution to the question is discussed, and again tweaked to fit the needs of the group. Additions are made to the solution based on the responses we see in the KP forums.

4. The question, and solution are approved (typically by myself and Scott Marshall respectively), and the question is posted.

However, this week we have hit something of a snag! Gold questions are meant to be a bit more open ended, and this one certainly is. There are seemingly multiple valid interpretations to make (and many of them were made quite eloquently), and different opinions to be had. In this case we have different opinions from several level 4 and level 5 judges. There is some discussion being had and we will be posting the solution to this question pending the outcome of that discussion. So for now, our usual solution posting on Tuesdays will be pushed back a bit. Note that typically solutions are posted on Tuesday, and new questions on Wednesday. The new question of the week will also be pushed back a bit to coincide with our final answer being posted.

I want to thank you for your patience with this matter, and I hope that you enjoy learning from this project as much as I enjoy leading it! As always if there are any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
-Ben

The sticking point for me is the first sentence of MTR 4.2: “A tournament shortcut is an action taken by players to skip parts of the technical play sequence without explicitly announcing them.” That is, applying the X-cost shortcut assumes the player took the action of taking the shortcut in the first place. Whether that assumption is true depends on the outcome of the investigation of the current situation. We can tell by Abe's response of “No, you're dead” that the shortcut Norman is accepting was never proposed, and that the answer to the investigative question “Abe, what exactly did you do?” is “I forgot to pay the Thalia tax”. After the investigation we know that a player tried to perform an illegal action, a GRV has occurred, and we have to back up.

The comparison to Grizzly Bears + Shock + Gaea's Anthem that was brought up earlier isn't really a good example, because no rules are being violated in that situation. Similarly for the example adding an activated Security Blockade to the board. We can all agree that an action taken by a player who isn't paying full attention or has forgotten something important has to stand if it is legal.

The alternate example of Devil's Play paying 2R on a N/4 followed by Shock is more complicated, because as described the players aren't making as much as an effort as they are in the OP to be clear with each other about how much damage the spell is dealing. That would require further investigation, and the results aren't obvious from the way the situation was described.

So… to paraphrase, the answer is, do whichever you feel like?

And, here's the complete post, with 100% more embedded links. (And, no, the answer is not ‘do whatever’, the answer is ‘learn from all of this discussion and use that to inform your decisions’.)

———————————————–

Gold scenarios aren't always going to be neat & clean. This one certainly didn't turn out that way!

Perhaps the most important thing for all of us to learn, from this scenario and the ensuing discussion, is that there are some situations where policy just won't fit as neat & clean as we'd like. This is one of those situations, and there is no “final answer” or “correct solution”.

Some of you have already seen this, but it's highly recommended reading anyway: Toby's blog.
One of the most relevant lines in that blog might be this: “If you’re worried about how one of the less-rigidly defined phrases in the IPG interacts with a card that might come up in your Ice Age Sealed event…” It applies to this scenario, even though Devil's Play and Thalia aren't Ice Age.

This scenario generated a lot of discussion, both in this forum and among groups of judges all over the internet. Even the L4+ Judges were divided in their interpretations. In that regard, this was a very successful Knowledge Pool, indeed; as Stan & Kyle might say, we all learned something today!

To recap, the scenario is, essentially, this:
Abe taps RRR and casts Devil's Play, but fails to announce a value for X.
Norman assumes that the value of X is 1, since - thanks to Thalia's cost increase - that's the only value it can be with 3 mana available. Based on that assumption, Norman allows Devil's Play (for one!) to resolve.
Abe clarifies that he wanted to cast it with X=2, and a Judge is called.

One point of much debate, was whether or not that defined shortcut was meant to include cost increases or reductions. Quite frankly, no, it wasn't even considered, originally - but it works fine if such modifications to the cost are included.

The intent of that shortcut is to ensure that the opponent can act on the game state based on the assumption that X is “max possible value”. That shortcut prevents a player from tapping all their mana sources, announcing an X spell, and then - when it's relevant - claiming that X is something other than the implied value (i.e., the maximum it can be). Abe's opponent (Norman) is thus protected by assuming that X can only be 1. Of course, Norman could improve things by saying “for 1?” before letting it resolve. Unlikely, since that's not in his best interests, and he's probably certain that the rules will support him.

On the other hand, Abe seems to believe that the value of X is 2, and that's the “shortcut” he's assuming. Had he only been a touch clearer in his announcement of Devil's Play, this wouldn't be such a sticky wicket. "Devil's Play for 2" would have been a clear GRV (not paying 1 for Thalia), and we all know how to deal with those. Again, it's not the ideal situations with clear communication that we learn from…

Some feel very strongly that we need to protect Abe's intent, which is likely "Devil's Play for 2“ - thus, it's a GRV, back it up, and assess the infraction and penalty.
Some feel very strongly that we need to protect Norman's assumption (X=1), which is a legal play on Abe's part, no infraction, leave things as they are.
Both of those are reasonable conclusions, and you'd be giving a solid, justifiable ruling, were you to follow either course. Just be prepared to hear counter-arguments; as you've seen, there are many.

Another key learning point: some of your rulings won't be cut & dried, and stand a good chance of making one player - or even both players! - unhappy. That's part of what we do, as judges. (We give rulings regardless of the consequences, that is - we aren't saying ”go forth and create unhappy players!“)

Some also felt that policy was in need of ”correction“; we can't agree with that conclusion, however. Policy works just fine - except for those odd corners when it doesn't. As has been noted, many times over the years, we can't cover all contingencies in the IPG or MTR; if we tried, then (a) the document might be bigger than all of Wikipedia, and (b) we'd still miss something that would come up the very next day. (Kudos to Denis Sokolov, who quickly noted that ”It is obvious that the scenario is not covered by official documents. One can interpret both the shortcut rule and rule 601 one way or another".)

Kudos also to: Michael White, who pointed out that, sometimes, we just need to ask the players simple questions to sort out complex situations (but be careful to avoid questions that guide the player to the right answer!); to Abe Corson, who considered the possibility that Norman rushed Abe a bit and thus created this whole snafu; Joshua Feingold, for a number of well-crafted posts (even if half of us think you were wrong - heh!), and for pointing out the intent of the shortcut. And, many kudos, for too many to list, for carrying on a very well-mannered debate in a constructive manner!

Just a quick follow-up: I really appreciate all the (private) e-mails I've received, since sending this, asking for more info of some sort. I'm sorry that I really can't respond to each & every one personally, as I often do.

However, I do plan to discuss a bit more about this scenario - including some insight into the L4+ discussions! - in a future blog post. So, keep your eyes peeled, and watch for an update on Uncle Scott's blog.