{"id":1353,"date":"2017-07-13T18:13:42","date_gmt":"2017-07-13T16:13:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/whatsupdocs\/?p=1353"},"modified":"2017-07-13T18:13:42","modified_gmt":"2017-07-13T16:13:42","slug":"miscommunication-yes-again","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/whatsupdocs\/2017\/07\/13\/miscommunication-yes-again\/","title":{"rendered":"Miscommunication (yes, again)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Welcome back to What\u2019s Up Docs?!<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

As you may have read in this announcement<\/a>, one of the reasons I\u2019ve resigned from being a Program Coordinator was that I could not find the time to enjoy talking about tournaments and policy situations on What\u2019s Up Docs. It took me some time to Restore Balance<\/a> in my life but, well, the fact I\u2019m actually writing this while making a pause from dismantling my furniture before permanently moving to Paris tomorrow seems a good sign.<\/p>\n

So what exciting has happened at my GPs in the past months? Miscommunication<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Way too similar names
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/p>I\u2019ve talked about this topic several times already but this situation was one of the touchiest I\u2019ve had to deal with.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Situation <\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

AP casts Path to Exile<\/a> targeting Vizier of Remedies<\/a>, not physically displaying the target NAP responds by sacrificing Viscera Seer<\/a> to scry. AP then passes the turn, NAP untaps and draws a card.<\/p>\n

At that point, AP asks why NAP\u2019s Vizier of Remedies<\/a> is still on the battlefield. They call a judge<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/p>The Investigation<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I asked NAP why he believed that AP targeted Viscera Seer. He told me that AP didn\u2019t physically demonstrate the target and that he heard \u201cSeer\u201d (which is not so far from the second syllable of \u201cVizier\u201d). I was puzzled by the statement as I felt that players usually target the Vizier and asked why NAP felt this play would make any sense. NAP said that he plays only one Seer in his deck and that, while killing the Vizier would indeed prevent him from making infinite mana (he also has Devoted Druid<\/a> on the battlefield that he just cast), he has nothing great to do with the mana and he already has 7 mana sources, which means he doesn\u2019t really need the mana, he needs to have access to the Scry. I argued that he plays some Eternal Witness<\/a>es, which he agreed with, yet he indicated he has more Viziers than Witnesses left in the deck, hence the good play from his opponent was to make him sacrifice the Viscera Seer.<\/p>\n

While most of the reasoning displayed here is very contextual and potentially not accessible to AP, that at least felt like a good explanation as to why NAP would think he’d target Viscera Seer.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

AP, on his side, confirmed that he only verbally announced the target. He also indicated that, against these decks, he knows they should always target the Vizier. I asked him how he didn\u2019t notice until NAP had untapped and drawn that the Vizier was still there. He said he didn\u2019t pay much attention.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Overall, NAP displayed a much larger understanding of the game state and I could double check his statements versus his actual deck content. Also, the strategic reasoning made sense. It might not have been optimal (I can\u2019t safely evaluate that) but I couldn\u2019t find a significant flaw in them, therefore I concluded NAP didn\u2019t cheat.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/p>The decision<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Since I excluded Cheating, I needed to know how to make that game resume. Partial fixing is not supported and backing up was really touchy since NAP had 4 or 5 cards in hand and a fetchland on the battlefield. Had I backed up, I might have allowed NAP to mini-brainstorm.<\/p>\n

But outside of these considerations, I tried to evaluate who was the most responsible for this situation:<\/p>\n