Hey all, welcome back to the Knowledge Pool! This scenario is silver level, so if you are L2+ please wait until after your FNM is over to contribute to discussion.

The blog post for this scenario is here.

You are the only judge at a local Modern GPT. Nat calls you over and explains that Addison just cast a Tribal Flames on his Siege Rhino, saying “5 to your rhino.” Nat responded by activating his Tectonic Edge targeting Addison's Blood Crypt. The players had then both recalculated for Tribal Flames, and realized that Addison had only controlled 4 basic land types before Nat activated Tectonic Edge. You believe that Addison's mistake was unintentional. What do you do?

TE-CPV for Addison.

“The name of any visible object” is specifically defined in section 4.1 of the MTR as free information. In addition, “All characteristics of objects in public zones that are not defined as free information” is specifically defined as derived information. I believe at least one of those applies here as my rationale for saying this is a CPV.

As for the fix, the IPG says the following:

A backup may be considered in cases where a player has clearly acted upon incorrect information provided to them by their opponent.

In this case, I would rewind to the activation of Tectonic Edge. Addison legally cast a spell with a legal target, so a backup before the spell being cast is inappropriate. Issue a time extension and remind both players to play carefully in the future.

GPE-GRV to Addison, it's he obligation to know how the cards he owns works. More than that, he should know the checks he need to do cast a spell.

GPE-FtMGS to Nat, a good thing to remember: Both players have the obligation to keep the game working.

Originally posted by Gregory Farias:

GPE-GRV to Addison, it's he obligation to know how the cards he owns works. More than that, he should know the checks he need to do cast a spell.

GPE-FtMGS to Nat, a good thing to remember: Both players have the obligation to keep the game working.

What was the Game Rule that Addison violated?

“No problems. Continue play as normal please.”

My first instinct was cpv but im not so sure now

Ok so tribal flames x value is derived information and a player is not expected to derrive it for his opponent however he can't represent it incorrectly. At the point the judge has been called the spell hasnt resolved so no game rule has been broken.

The question therefore is has derrived information been misrepresented if so its a cpv if not noone has committed a penalty and play continues. So
…

Addison has stated the wrong value for x which is based on an item of derrived information.

However there is no mention that he has obscured his lands or stopped his opponent from derriving the information themselves.

His opponent has acted based on the verbal miscalculation.

But the point that item of derrived information becomes relevant is the resolution of the spell which hasnt resolved yet till then the value for the derrived information can change effecting the spell (otherwise why tectonic edge). So X was calculated prematurely

Is the initial mis calculation enough to warrant misrepresentation when the value is going to change before resolution and the opponent can derrive the information themselves? Im gonna say it isn't but im not sure

So no penalties game continues despite tactical misplays

I would say since there were no infractions, the play just go on.
Since the lands and their types are considered public information, the damage from tribal flames is derived information which Nat could derive from.

But based from the TS, it seems like since there was this mention that Addison's mistake was unintentional (means ruling cheating out), it might even be a TE: CPV

Addison should get a Tournament Error - Communication Policy Violation. While the value for X would not check on Tribal Flames until it is resolving, Addison clearly misrepresented the number of basic land types in play (derived information). A TE - CPV seems to fit perfectly here since cheating has been ruled out.

Nat should not be issued a penalty as the game state is still correct. He did nothing wrong in this case.

The IPG allows for backups when a player acted on information that was incorrectly provided to them. While this is certainly the case, I don't think the game state is substantially worse off if left as is. So, I would not perform a backup. Addison is down a Tribal Flames, there is a Siege Rhino on the battlefield with less than lethal damage marked on it and both players are down a land.

Before:

Okay, so from what I can tell, Addison has committed a Tournament Error - Communication Violation Policy, by claiming that Tribal Flames does 5 damage, as opposed to 4. As a result he should be awarded a penalty.

Since Nat acted on this incorrect information, a backup can be considered. Since the error was caught soon enough, backing up would just include returning the two lands to the battlefield and untapping the land Nat used. In this case, I would backup to when Tribal Flames has been cast and put on the stack.

After:

Okay, interesting points of about derived information here. However, TE-CPV philosophy includes that a player may not incorrectly represent derived information. If Nat had claimed it was 4 and Addison said nothing, but at resolution corrected him that would be fine. In this case, Addison incorrectly represented it by claiming it was 5, as opposed to 4. Hence I think the penalty stands.

Edited Kai Clark (June 25, 2015 10:28:00 PM)

First response: TE-CPV for A (incorrect derived information), No Penalty for N, no fix necessary (no illegal game actions taken)
After reading: I stand by my original answer

My Solution:
The game state stays unchanged - no rewinding. The Active player receives a Caution downgraded from a warning for committing a Tournament Error - Communication Policy Violation.

Reasons for my decision:
The active player wanted to “assign” damage while casting the spell. However announcing how much damage a spell does upon resolution is not part of the “casting a spell” steps. That would only be the case, if damage were to be devided among targets.

Tribal Flame has only one target. Upon resolution of that spell, it is checked how much damage tribal flame deals. This information is derived from a zone that is free information for every player. Blood crypt has 2 basic land types - swamp and mountain. The nonactive player destroyed Blood Crypt before Tribal Flames resolved. To make the decision whether to activate Tectonic Edges the nonactive player had to anounce a Target. By doing so he had to check the lands that are valid targets for tectonic edge and also had to check if the ability could be activated (only if an opponent controls 4 or more lands).

By doing so, the nonactive player (if not sooner) should have been aware of the situaton that the active player controlled only 4 basic land types.

The IPG would allow me to rewind the game to a state prior to the error. But where was this “error”. Annoncing a wrong amount of damage even though that is not required while casting a spell? This could be a Tournament Error - Communication Policy Violation. It is one of the standard cases of this infraction because a player represented wrong derived or free information.

Or the tactical error the nonactive player made? The IPG is not there to undo tactical errors commited by a player but this is what would happen if the game was rewound. The nonactive player would get a second chance to think about his “Tectonic Edge-Move”. So rewinding the game in this situaton would give the nonactive player an advantage to correct his tactical error.

Since the infraction commited by the active player was unintentional the queston that remains is if he should get a warning or a Caution. Since the situation is clear to both players and dealing with it takes far less time than reading this post - I would tell the active player not to announce any amount of damage while casting spells like tribal flame but to wait for the spell to resolve to then determine the damage. I would explain the nonactive player that rewinding the game would allow him to undo his tactical error of activating the Tectonic Edge.

Edited Denis Leber (June 26, 2015 02:00:58 AM)

Tournament Error - Communication Violation Policy for Addison with a Warning.

While not required to declare the amount of damage Tribal flames will do, he has misrepresented derived information by declaring it will do 5 damage. I'm convinced that misrepresentation will have played into Nat's decision to use the ability of Tectonic Edge and so I would backup the game to before that with Tribal Flames on the stack.

Originally posted by Denis Leber:

My Solution:
The game state stays unchanged - no rewinding. The Active player receives a Caution downgraded from a warning for committing a Tournament Error - Communication Policy Violation.

Denis:

Which part of the IPG section for TE - CPV allows for such a downgrade? Remember that other than explicit downgrade/upgrade paths, the Head Judge can only deviate from the IPG guidelines in “significant and exceptional circumstances” (IPG 1. General Philosophy). I don't really see anything significant or exceptional in the proposed scenario.

Dear Level 2 judges who get Knowledge Pool emails,

Please remember that for all Silver level Knowledge Pool scenarios, you are asked not to participate until after FNM in you respective time zone. These scenarios are designed to let those working their way to level two discuss policy, and we should only guide the discussion if an answer doesn't seem to be on its way after a few days. Moving forward, keep this time frame in mind when commenting on scenarios.

Sincerely,
Patrick Vorbroker
Knowledge Pool Lead

Without reading other responses:

No infraction, no backup.

If this were any sort of infraction, it would fall under TE: CPV. While Tribal Flames is on the stack, any damage it does and effects it have are in the future; the CPV does not list “future game states” as something that is free or even derived information.

I'm not sure this is 100% clear cut, because “5 to your rhino” could be viewed as misrepresenting the number of basic land types on the field, which would be derived information according to 4.1 of the MTR. The exact phrasing puts it in a weird corner-case. If he said, “Tribal Flames your Rhino, this will kill it if it resolves” it's a 100% legal bluff. If he had said “Tribal flames your rhino with full Domain,” he's definitely misrepresenting derived info. But I think “5 to your rhino” is closer to the former than the latter.

Reading other responses: I see lots of people saying CPV for misrepresenting the number of land types he has. Did he really do that, though? He misrepresented what would happen in the future of the game, since Flames was still on the stack; he didn't misrepresent the current state.