Be Patient, then Dash!

At a PPTQ you’re head judging, Art attacks Nin with a Dashed Lightning Berserker. The players calculate damage, then Art passes the turn. Nin takes her turn, then passes back the turn. Art attacks with the Berserker again on his next turn, pumping it multiple times with its activated ability. With the last of those activations on the stack, Nin calls you over and points out that the Berserker should have been returned to Art’s hand at the end of his last turn.

When you investigate further, you learn that Art had completely forgotten that he dashed this Berserker in since he cast one normally earlier in the game. You also learn that Nin noticed the issue during her turn, but decided to wait to call you until now to throw off Art’s game plan. What do you do?

Judges, feel free to discuss this scenario on Judge Apps!

Nin, while she noticed an infraction but didn’t call immediate attention to it, has not committed any infraction herself because players are NEVER obligated to point out their opponent’s missed triggers. Therefore she is within her right to notice the error and wait to call a judge later. She is gaining an advantage through paying more attention to the game than her opponent and knowing very well how the rules apply to the situation, both of which are legal and encouraged.

Art is guilty of GPE-Missed Trigger, and because the dash ability’s delayed trigger is generally detrimental, he will be awarded a warning. Because this is a delayed trigger that changes the zones of an object, it doesn’t expire, and will be resolved either the next time a player would get priority or at the start of the next phase, whichever Nin chooses.

Emrakul, the situation torn

At a Grand Prix Trial, Ajani plays Glimpse the Unthinkable and mills Nissa for ten cards. Amongst them, Emrakul is put into the graveyard. After the ten cards are put into the graveyard, Nissa immediately picks up her graveyard and begins shuffling it into her library. Ajani calls over a judge and explains he wished to respond to the Emrakul trigger with the Crypt Incursion he has in his hand. After investigation, you find out there were about 30 cards in Nissa’s graveyard after Glimpse the Unthinkable had resolved. What do you do?

Judges, feel free to discuss this scenario on Judge Apps!

Thank you for everyone who contributed to this week’s KP discussion. 4 pages of lively debate made for some interesting readings and opinions. This week, there are two possible ways to address the situation. Fortunately, they have almost identical outcomes!

The first way to approach this is as a GRV. Technically speaking, Nissa is responsible for giving Ajani priority before resolving the trigger, which means in this case she’s violated the CR. We can assess the GRV for the error, but a rewind is impossible here and no partial fixes are relevant.

The second approach is to look at Nissa’s actions as a proposed shortcut. While she didn’t communicate it well (or at all), what she’s doing is shortcutting through two priority passes straight to the trigger resolving. Shortcuts exist to allow players to just play, and not worry about the highly technical side of things, so in many situations this would be fine. Unfortunately she didn’t give him the chance to accept or reject her shortcut, which violates the MTR in a way that’s not a specific infraction. As such, there is no penalty, we would simply tell her that she needs to not repeat this error, and any further issues of this type would be handled with USC-Minor and an investigation.

Both approaches lead us to the same place- the game has been messed up in a way we don’t have the power to fix, we tell Nissa she needs to be more careful moving forward.

Break it Down Now

You have called time in round 6 of a GPT for which you are the head judge. You are overseeing the extra turns of the last match when you overhear Nate talking to his friend about how he played three really good games but since he lost and is dead in the event he gave the opponent 2-0, in case it mattered. You double check with the score keeper that the result was reported as 2-0 (it was). You then call Nate’s opponent Andy to the judge area. Andy tells you “I asked for 2-0, to help with breakers … I mean, it’s not mentioned in the penalty guide, so it must be OK, right?”

How do you handle the situation from there?

Judges, feel free to discuss this scenario on Judge Apps!

To find our answer, let’s take a look at MTR 2.4.
MTR 2.4 If a game or match is not completed, players may concede or mutually agree to draw in that game or match. A match is considered complete once the result slip is filled out or, if match slips are not being used, a player leaves the table after game play is finished. Until that point, either player may concede to or draw with the other, though if the conceding player won a game in the match, the match must be reported as 2-1. Intentional draws are always reported as 0-0-3.
While Andy has done something wrong in asking for a result that violates MTR 2.4, our investigation determined he wasn’t aware what he was doing was illegal. As such, we will inform him that this is not an allowable action and fix the result with the scorekeeper.

Some people were saying USC –Minor

A player takes action that is disruptive to the tournament or its participants. It may effect the comfort level of those around the individual, but determining whether this is the case is not required.
That is not the proper use of the infraction. This is neither disruptive to the event nor its participants. Sure it caused us some time for investigation and to fix it. The event was not dramatically affected. So we are not issuing USC-Minor.

Cheating was tossed around a bit. This also not cheating because Andy failed to meet all of the requirements. A rule was broken, advantage was gained, he was NOT aware that it was bad. Since all three requirements were not met we will not be removing Andy from the event with disqualification. It is important to understand that all three requirements must be met to disqualify someone for cheating.

We should not penalize this person for something that is general behavior we do not want. Please remember that because there is no penalty associated with this doesn’t mean you get to deviate from the policy and make one up in order to penalize unwanted behavior. We remind the player that its bad and not to do it again. If they choose to do it again we now can apply the IPG and appropriate fix which is grounds for USC-Cheating. Most of the time a stern talking to will be more effective at stopping players from unwanted actions.

You can choose any color you want, as long as it’s black.

Aaron and Nadine are playing in a Legacy Grand Prix. Aaron has a Griselbrand and a Tidespout Tyrant in his graveyard. He announces, “I’m going to Exhume my Tyrant.” Nadine says, “OK, Exhume resolves. I choose my Shriekmaw“.

Aarons says “Oh, I didn’t realize you had that… then on resolution I’m going to pick my Griselbrand instead.” Nadine calls you over. What is your ruling?

Judges, feel free to discuss this scenario on Judge Apps!

View Answer
Hello all! I’m very glad to see that everyone remembers there are no takeseys-backseys at Competitive REL! We’re all correct that Aaron is going to have to stick to his choice here. Now, on to the penalty.

Three options were discussed Game Rule Violation (i), Communication Policy Violation (ii) and No Penalty (iii).

Regarding i – Reading the IPG, we see that a GRV “…handles violations of the Comprehensive Rules…”. Tournament shortcuts are not part of the Comprehensive rules, they’re part of the MTR. As such, deviations from the shortcut guidelines do not qualify as GRVs.

Regarding ii – We have 4 rules that players must follow when communicating. They must answer judge questions completely and honestly, they must not represent derived or free information incorrectly, they must answer questions honestly regarding free information, and at Regular we consider derived information to be free information. None of these rules were violated by either player.

Regarding iii – Since neither player has done anything that qualifies as an infraction, we’re into the No Penalty Zone. We want to educate the players accordingly. Inform Aaron that he cannot change his mind at this point, and inform him that if he announces a choice before he is required to, that he will be obligated to stick to that choice unless his opponent takes an action before he would be required to make that choice.

So there we have it, no infraction has been committed so no penalty is issued, but Aaron doesn’t get to change his mind. This is an opportunity for education, but not one we need to penalize.