Wanted to have this question opened to a wider audience.

Player A casts Tragic Arrogance. Player B replies “What are you targeting?” Player A says “You keep a Rattleclaw Mystic, Sarkhan, I keep Silkwrap and Deathmist Raptor”. Player B says that he will Negate it. A says that the spell has started to resolve, B calls a judge.

B says that he thought Arrogance has targets, and he wanted to see what they were because “if they were wrong ones, I would not counter”.

What would your resolution be?

One of the arguments was that Target is a very specific word in Magic lingo, and by responding to player B's question about the spells targets A has commited a CPV, because TA does not have any targets. On the other hand, A did not use the word “target” himself.

The argument from the other side was player B was clearly asking for choices that are made on resolution, even if he used a different word, but ones that are effectively synonymous. And it is one of the defined tournament shortcuts which mean the spell has started to resolve and it is too late to Negate it.

Any ideas, arguments, disagreements?

Directly from the MTR in 4.2 it says that if a player is asking about choices made on resolution then it is presumed they are passing priority and allowing to resolve. (5th bullet)

How has A committed a CPV?

I'm generally of the opinion that in situations like this, the exact specific words are not that important. This is mostly because of language barriers at international events. While Player B used the word Target (which has it's own particular meaning in the Magic universe), he was, as Nathaniel pointed out, asking about choices made on resolution (albeit unwittingly). The argument that “if they were wrong ones, I would not counter” gets is in fact why this rule is in the MTR in the first place.

Similarly, I'm not of the opinion that a CPV has taken place as it's very believable that Player A has translate the request for targets into “what's not getting destroyed by Tragic Arrogance?”

Basically, I don't want the minutiae of the English language to get in the way of understanding what actually happened, and ruling accordingly.

I feel like this scenario has quite some parallels to a recent discussion (especially if we compare your scenario with the Sundering Titan one).

Player B's understanding of the shortcut does not invalidate it. They have asked for information only relevant on resolution, and so have agreed to move the turn to that point. While I see the argument for an issue being present due to having asked for “targets,” it is still on the player to read the card if they don't know it, and play according to the established rules. Not knowing the text of a card, or how the shortcut works, is not an excuse to accommodate that lack of knowledge.

So why does the shortcut exist in the first place?

It exists so that the NAP can't trick the AP into revealing information about the spell prior to its resolution so NAP can use it to make a decision.

Regardless of what they thought, NAP was trying to gain information about the spell they shouldn't have in order to know how to respond.


———————————————

The grumpy curmudgeon in me wants to agree with Bryan (and others), but - just like that other discussion, linked by René, NAP's poor choice of words doesn't excuse AP's assumptions.

In this example, and in those others, all AP has to do is say something like “it doesn't target” or “so it's resolving?”, or even “do you mean choices?”, any of which avoids the problems caused by NAP's wording and AP's assumptions about that wording.

So often, the communication isn't even as clear as this scenario (“What are you targeting?”) - something more like “Targets?”. That's really ambiguous; it could mean “what targets do you choose?”, or “does that spell have targets?”.

I still think this is a scenario better experienced in person, so we can decide if NAP was trying to trick AP (thus, Bryan's position would be appropriate), or if NAP was saying something that makes no sense, and AP then assuming based on that nonsense. As is, I'm sticking with my previous answer.

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

The grumpy curmudgeon in me wants to agree with Bryan (and others), but - just like that other discussion, linked by René, NAP's poor choice of words doesn't excuse AP's assumptions.

In this example, and in those others, all AP has to do is say something like “it doesn't target” or “so it's resolving?”, or even "do you mean choices?", any of which avoids the problems caused by NAP's wording and AP's assumptions about that wording.

Never in my life, and I mean that literally, have I heard a non-judge player talk like that. And yes, that's relevant. If we want to check if the tournament shortcut can be applied, we have to take into account the usual habits of player communication. I think the vast majority of players would have understood NAP's question exactly like AP did. NAP did ask about information that's only relevant on resolution, albeit unwittingly. In my opinion, the tournament shortcut can be applied to this situation.

I totally agree that this is a “You had to be there!”-situation. Arguing from the information provided here, my ruling would be that Tragic Arrogance has started resolving and NAP cannot counter it.

There's a simple principle I apply to most situations in which a communicative ambiguity results in a problem and I as a judge have to decide what has happened and what has not: My ruling will usually not be in favor of the player who created the ambiguity, and I will held all players to the common standards of players communication.

NAP created the ambiguity, and most players would have understood the question exactly like AP did. We need to rule accordingly.

Edited Jasper König (Oct. 20, 2015 10:35:26 AM)

Thanks for the link to the other thread - my search had not turned up anything.

The troubling part of Scott's ruling is that it allows a player to exploit this by wording their questions in a specific way to gain information they are not entitled to. Suppose you cast Cabal Therapy/Memoricide. I can then ask “what card are you targeting?” While odd, I don't think most players would stop and say “this spell does not target cards”, they would proceed with choosing. And then I'll go “aha, I want to respond by casting those spells”.

Originally posted by Jasper König:

There's a simple principle I apply to most situations in which a communicative ambiguity results in a problem and I as a judge have to decide what has happened and what has not: My ruling will usually not be in favor of the player who created the ambiguity, and I will held all players to the common standards of players communication.
NAP created the ambiguity, and most players would have understood the question exactly like AP did. We need to rule accordingly.

Another argument that came up is that it was player A instead who created the ambiguity by giving an answer to a question that was not actually asked. I personally failed to understand this particular line of argumentation, but I wanted to present the other side too.

First of all, there's no CPV here. The NAP thinking the spell had targets when the text for the spell is plainly written on the card is not a CPV, that's just a faulty assumption. I assume this is a compREL tournament based on where this thread is located, so at compREL, players are allowed to make mistakes based on faulty assumptions. The NAP here is trying to get information that normally is given when the spell is resolving, so AP giving that information means the spell is now resolving. I would rule that NAP cannot counter the Tragic Arrogance.

I agree with Scott, most times a more savvy AP will say something like “is the spell resolving then?” because situations like this can be ruled both ways due to the ambiguity, but I still think this scenario as presented should be ruled that NAP can't cast the negate. To extrapolate, I believe the NAP is essentially performing the actions listed in the tournament shortcut by asking for information normally chosen on resolution.

Edited Justin Turner (Oct. 20, 2015 10:57:57 AM)

Originally posted by Justin Turner:

this can be ruled both ways due to the ambiguity

Exactly. That's why “you had to be there” keeps cropping up. And some very experienced judges have landed on opposite sides of this - because, after all, we *weren't* there.

Tomas Sukaitis
I'll go “aha, I want to respond by casting those spells”

Oh, so you KNEW that wasn't correct wording, and you were intentionally misleading your opponent to gain an advantage, eh?
Yeah, I don't think that's a conversation you'll want to have with me.

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Oh, so you KNEW that wasn't correct wording, and you were intentionally misleading your opponent to gain an advantage, eh?
Yeah, I don't think that's a conversation you'll want to have with me.

This is pretty much why I would rule in favor of AP here (if not taking into account the “had to be there”-part). The potential for abuse is quite high on NAPs side since he created the ambiguity. AP just casted the spell and NAP took the initiative to ask for the targets although he could easily read the spell directly in front of him not saying anything about targets. If he sees this being ruled in his favor there is not much keeping him from doing the exact same thing again in the future whenever any of his opponents casts Tragic Arrogance against him, pretending not to know that Tragic Arrogance does not target. AP on the other side can not do something alike since he always has to depend on what his opponent asks to gain a similar advantage.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Oh, so you KNEW that wasn't correct wording, and you were intentionally misleading your opponent to gain an advantage, eh?
Yeah, I don't think that's a conversation you'll want to have with me.

Does this go both ways? If AP knows that the spell has no targets, but chooses intentionally to interpret NAP's question as a shortcut to resolution anyway?

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

Does this go both ways? If AP knows that the spell has no targets, but chooses intentionally to interpret NAP's question as a shortcut to resolution anyway?

This is why questions like this make my head hurt.

My take on this (and I'm only trying to sort through this, so I appreciate any comments that would help me understand this better) is that this is the type of situation where once I understand the sequence of events, I have to separate both players immediately and try to get to the root of the logic behind each of their responses. They've created a confusing issue.

Failing the finding of any response where one player tried to trick the other, I think I'd have to rule in the NAP in this case. Why? AP owns the deck - he/she should understand how it works when we get to Competitive. The response of the AP, without clarifying if it Resolves, seems to be slightly hinky on their part. That's my opinion only, and I can very easily be swayed back to ruling for the AP - either way, it feels like something that will end up in the HJ's hands.

Cheers,
Charles

Edited Charles Featherer (Oct. 21, 2015 09:53:02 AM)

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Oh, so you KNEW that wasn't correct wording, and you were intentionally misleading your opponent to gain an advantage, eh?
Yeah, I don't think that's a conversation you'll want to have with me.

I leave specific land untapped, tap then untap different land, point at some creatures then appear to be counting, tank when I'm hellbent and have drawn a land and countless other things all in an attempt to mislead my opponent to gain an advantage - but as far as I knew this wasn't a problem?

If we start with the assumption that the shortcut only applies if the NAP asks specifically about ‘choices’ I don't see why a NAP can't ask an AP what they're ‘targeting’. Even if the NAP knows that the spell has choices on resolution and that they'll be able to gain information if the AP doesn't understand this, its not free or derived information nor anything else covered by the communication policy as far as I can tell? It not nice, but what rules are being broken?

I would have thought this would have fit very cleanly into this part of the MTR:

“The philosophy of the DCI is that a player should have an advantage due to better understanding of the rules of a game, greater awareness of the interactions in the current game state, and superior tactical planning. Players are under no obligation to assist their opponents in playing the game.”