Rhein Main Judges December

So 8 judges and two want-to-become judges enter a bar. One by one, they greet each other as they come from different cities within Germany, yet all in a broad area around Frankfurt/Main. The restaurant offers greek kitchen. Meat 😀 and the Hessen drink Appelwoi (apple whine). But the judges came here not to make themselves drunk. They came here for their monthly judge meeting! At this meeting, we discuss tricky rules questions which occured at the recent tournaments and argue with judge philosophy, guided by the documents JaR and IPG.

The meeting of December was highly affected by GP Vienna, the Standard GP in the capital of Austria.

The topics we discussed are:

1. Policy – From Judge Forums: True-Name Nemesis
2. Policy – Life Discrepancy discovered upon concession
3. Rules – Cloudfin Raptor + Master of Waves + Golgari Charm
4. Policy – Evolve trigger announced but never resolved
5. Policy – Rewind of Scry (2nd land for the turn is Temple of Silence)
6. Policy – Domestication and “end step +2/+2”

1. Policy – From Judge Forums: True-Name Nemesis

In this online forum, a question about True-Name Nemesis was asked: ]

A: “Cast True-Name Nemesis. Resolve?“
N: ”OK“.
A: ”End of my turn“
N: ”at end, StP Nemesis“
A: ”What!?“
N: ”You didn’t chose player.”

Well, besed on current rule, it is GRV to Player A, and FtMGS to N (maybe I need to have serious talk with N for cheating). Let A chose player (of course it will be N). Backup StP, continue their game.

So, in two player games, player’s choice for TNN is pretty obvious. Could we consider this choice as shortcut? In that case, no infruction? or GRV to Player N for illegal StP?.

As this thread was heavily discussed online, we also shared our thoughts on it.

We agree there’s no shortcut to name the opponent.
We solve the game by either Rewind (to when TNN entered the battlefield) or a partial fix “name a player now”. In the described situation, the error was caught in a reasonable time frame and rewinding is easy.

The philosophies for this situation have been well covered in already, so there’s no need to further crunch it in comments,


2. Policy – Life Discrepancy discovered upon concession

Norbert controls Aetherling and has 5 life. AndrĂ© controls 4 lands and has 3 life. He also has (just) a Mistcutter Hydra in his hand. He’s dead on board, so tries a bluff. He casts Mistcutter Hydra with x=3/3 for a 3/3 Haste, Protection from Blue and attacks. Norbert looks at his lifepoint paper and scoops up his cards.
AndrĂ© now wonders why Norbert scooped his cards, so he also looks at his opponents’ lifepoint paper. There it says Norbert 3! AndrĂ© sees this is not in line with his own notes but the first thing that comes to his mind is “I might’ve forgotten to note down a Hallowed Fountain.” Upon second thought, AndrĂ© realizes the opponent had both lifetotals correct, but switched up. Norbert wrote down N:3,A:5 when it should be vice versa.
AndrĂ© doesn’t say anything about the incident to his opponent and signs the result slip (AndrĂ© wins 2:1). AndrĂ© stays seated and ponders about the shady incident.

Instead of going to the SK, he wants to check with the HJ of the tournament whether what he did was legal or not. He knows this might get him DQed at the end of the day.

Here a few things that turn out during their “talk”:
André knows he has to announce a life total discrepancy immediatly when noticed during a game.
AndrĂ© wanted to play the Mistcutter Hydra as a bluff: “Maybe the opponent just scoops.”
André knows the penalty for cheating (not announcing life total discrepancy in order to gain advantage) is a DQ.
André did not play the Mistcutter Hydra while aware of the life total discrepancy.
André was not aware of any life total discrepancy until the opponent scooped up his cards.
AndrĂ© didn’t say anything to the opponent, even now.
André is not lying to the Head Judge.

We throughly discussed this situation at the meeting as well as during GP Vienna, where it happened. It’s interesting to me how far the different ideas on the situation can be, so I think it’s useful to keep our answers private for two weeks or so, that a discussion in this thread can evolve:

What do we (as judges) tell André ? Did he commit an infraction? Do we also involve the opponent?
Does it matter if André is a judge? Do we have some feedback for him so he can act as role model better?


3. Rules – Cloudfin Raptor + Master of Waves + Golgari Charm

André controls Cloudfin Raptor with a +1/+1 counter and casts Master of Waves. He announces the devotion-trigger and the evolve-trigger. Norbert asks about the order of the two triggers. André puts the devotion trigger on the stack first, then the Evolve trigger (on top). In response to both triggered abilities, Norbert resolves a Golgari Charm, to give -1/-1 to all creatures until end of turn. What happens?

First, Cloudfin Raptor and Master of Waves each get -1/-1 and Golgari Charm is put into its owner’s graveyard. Then, state-based actions make Master of Waves die.
Then, The devotion trigger resolves: The current devotion to blue is one, as there’s only Cloudfin Raptor on the battlefield. One 1/0 Elemental creature token is put on the battlefield. Evolve triggers AGAIN because 1/0(token) is partly greater than 0/1(cloudfin), (but in this situation AndrĂ© forgets about that trigger: he never announces is – too bad).
Then, the Evolve trigger (for Master of Waves) resolves. It determines Cloudfin Raptor P/T: 0/1 and tries to determine Master of Waves P/T. Master of Waves has changed zones already, so the game gets its last known information. Last time Master of Waves was on the battlefield, it was a 1/0 (because of Golgari Charm), which is bigger than 0/1.
In the end, Cloudfin Raptor will get a 2nd counter, making it a 0/1 with two +1/+1 counters!

About last-known information in ” Spells, Abilities, and Effects”:
608.2g. If an effect requires information from the game (such as the number of creatures on the battlefield), the answer is determined only once, when the effect is applied. If the effect requires information from a specific object, including the source of the ability itself or a target that’s become illegal, the effect uses the current information of that object if it’s in the public zone it was expected to be in; if it’s no longer in that zone, or if the effect has moved it from a public zone to a hidden zone, the effect uses the object’s last known information. See rule 112.7a. If an ability states that an object does something, it’s the object as it exists—or as it most recently existed—that does it, not the ability.


4. Policy – Evolve trigger announced but never resolved

The situation in 3. happened, but both players didn’t know about last known information. So AndrĂ© didn’t put a +1/+1 counter on his Cloudfin Raptor.
Nothing else happens in the turn. André realizes the mistake during Norberts draw step (before card is drawn). André calls for a judge:
Both players agree that André announced the Evolve trigger. What infraction occurred, if any, and how do we solve this situation?

AndrĂ© commited a GPE-GRV by not carrying out the effect of his triggered ability. Norbert didn’t say anything thus committed GPE-Ftmgs(Failure to maintain game state).
The trigger was not missed, it was clearly announced. We rewind to the point where Cloudfin Raptor should’ve gotten a +1/+1 counter (assuming nothing else but ‘Pass my turn’ happened). Both players receive a Warning. This is a pretty unknown rule, but Norbert still receives the Warning. It’s just a Warning after all.0


5. Policy – Rewind of Scry (2nd land for the turn is Temple of Silence)

It’s Aurelien’s turn. He plays an Island, some cards including Jace, Architect of Thought and uses the -2 “Fact or Fiction” ability of it. Then, he plays Temple of Silence and resolves the trigger of Scry. His opponent realizes its Aurelien’s second land for the turn and interrupts him, and calls a judge.

This is easy. Aurelien committed a GRV by playing a second land in a turn. Aurelien did not commit GPE-LaeC (Looking at extra cards) as a GRV preceeded the illegal action.
Aurelien receives a Warning and we rewind. We’re not sure if it’s completely in line with the IPG, but we also shuffle the Scryd card into the unknown part of the library (watch out for Jace activations).

Can you justify the shuffle with the IPG?


6. Policy – Domestication and “end step +2/+2”

Achmed controls a 3/3 Fleecmane Lion thanks to Domestication (enchanting that Fleecemane Lion).
He(A) passes his turn “Go!”.
Nunu now goes “end of turn, I Selesnya Charm your Fleecemane Lion, +2/+2.”
Achmed knows about the interviening if-clause on Domestication so simply lets Selesnya Charm resolve.
As Nunu wants ‘his’ Fleecemane Lion back because its too big now, the players can’t agree so call for a judge.

The problem is Achmed says Nunu cast his Selesnya Charm in the end step. Nunu intended to cast his spell ‘in response to the Domestication trigger’.
The thing is: there is no Domestication trigger, unless the power of the enchanted creature is already sufficiently high to make it trigger.

The players agreed to leave the mainphase. (A: Go, N: EoT,..) Casting Selesnya Charm was totally legal at end of turn, just not good. We will not let Nunu undo his play because it didn’t achieve what he intended. The game was represented legal throughout the turn.

Now let me make a reminder of what the interesting topics of the month were for us:

1. Policy – From Judge Forums: True-Name Nemesis
If you still have something to say about True-Name Nemesis, please do so at , not here.
2. Policy – Life Discrepancy discovered upon concession
What do we do with André? André is supposed to act as role model (as judge especially), what feedback should we give him so he can act as role model better? Did he even do anything wrong?
3. Rules – Cloudfin Raptor + Master of Waves + Golgari Charm
4. Policy – Evolve trigger announced but never resolved
5. Policy – Rewind of Scry (2nd land for the turn is Temple of Silence)
Can you justify the shuffle with the IPG?
6. Policy – Domestication and “end step +2/+2”
Do you agree? Do you want to rewind Selesnya Charm because N wanted to play it in response to a non-existing trigger? Do you let N play the Selesnya Charm in the mainphase instead?

If you want to comment, you’re welcome to do so on JudgeApps:
at http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/7393/

This entry was posted in Judge Meeting Reports. Bookmark the permalink.