NAP controls Always Watching.

AP attacks with Gatstaf Arsonists.
NAP blocks with two Thraben Inspector.

AP says “OK, I'll take down this one”, pointing to Inspector1.
Damage resolves, Arsonists and Inspector1 are put into the graveyard.

In his second main phase, AP casts Angelic Purge to destroy Always Watching.
NAP almost puts Always Watching in his graveyard. Almost.
With Always Watching one centimeter from graveyard, AP points at Inspector2, suggesting it is now a 1/2 with 2 damage, so it should die.
NAP stops and puts Always Watching on the table again.

AP: “You want to respond with a pump spell? I am afraid it's too late for that”
NAP: “I didn't put the card in the graveyard, I am still thinking”
JUUUUUDGEEEE!

What would you do?

Edited Francesco Scialpi (May 9, 2016 07:40:40 AM)

This sounds like one of those “had to be there to really know” situations, but just based on the written text, I'd go for letting NAP think about responding until that enchantment really hits the graveyard. I do not see NAP gaining any new information by “fishing for AP's reaction” or anything of the likes. Moving things around on the battlefield is not illegal. Also, if we ruled that the spells are resolving as soon as somebody touches a card, we will have a lot players slowing down their pace of play to counteract that ruling.

tl:dr Once the card hits the graveyard, the action has been acknowledged.

From how I read this, it appears to me the player wanted to let Angelic Purge resolve. Then, while carrying out the instructions of the card, he realized his strategic mistake. I will have the Always Watching exiled, then kill 2nd Thraben Investigator.

Question I want to find out there:
Did the players agree that Angelic Purge can start to resolve ? Yes/No
AP wanted to let Angelic Purge resolve. NAP also wanted to let Angelic Purge resolve, why else would he move the target to the exile graveyard to another zone?

Just a quick question: from the initial description it is not clear to me that AP specified that he was assigning the excess damage from the arsonists to inspector 2, so why are we ruling that inspector 2 is dying?

In the absence of any applicable shortcut, it is my understanding that, as with trample damage, it is up to the AP to indicate damage assignment explicitly. Failing that, the only communication in the scenario as described is “I'll take down this one” while pointing to inspector 1. I would rule AP had assigned all damage to inspector 1, so inspector 2 lives regardless.

I was thinking the same ^_^

AP assigns 2 damage to inspector 2??
NAP can confirm it??
Remember that lie a judge it´s a bad decision.

As much as i see, in the case description AP never tells NAP that assign 2 damage to inspector 2, soo… i judge as inspector 2 have no damage. Since NAP puts “allways watching” in his/her graeyard i instruct to put it there (NAP had not intention of response it until AP call for inspector 2 dies them i take this as resolved).
I call both players to improve a bit the comunication between they and play focusing instead make moves automaticly.
Game continues in AP second main phase.

I´m not sure about some santion, really i only think it about a comunication problem (avoiding cheating).

Did NAP check with AP how the damage was dealt?

No.

Who deal the damage?

AP.

Who is probably the most able to know how the damage was deal?

To be more explicit:

AP attack with a 4/4.
NAP block with two 2/2.

AP put one of the 2/2 first then ask «Damage?».

NAP say yes.

AP put her creature in the graveyard.
NAP put just one 2/2 in the graveyard.

AP say «Hey, the second one is dead also».
NAP say «No, you didn't explicitly said that you deal 2 damage on each».

Originally posted by Pascal Gemis:

To be more explicit:

AP attack with a 4/4.
NAP block with two 2/2.

AP put one of the 2/2 first then ask «Damage?».

NAP say yes.

AP put her creature in the graveyard.
NAP put just one 2/2 in the graveyard.

AP say «Hey, the second one is dead also».
NAP say «No, you didn't explicitly said that you deal 2 damage on each».

This is a different scenario. In the situation you describe, AP is pointing out that the second creature dies from damage immediately. This is sufficient to constitute an explicit assignment of damage. In the original scenario, the question of whether damage was assigned does not arise until later, at which point it is too late for the AP to claim that he had *intended* to assign damage to the second creature.

Edited Robert Hinrichsen (May 10, 2016 09:00:54 AM)

So, if AP, before realizing NAP didn't put the creature in graveyard cast a spell, you'll be ok with NAP and say the creature is still alive?

Edited Pascal Gemis (May 10, 2016 09:10:20 AM)

Originally posted by Pascal Gemis:

So, if AP, before realizing NAP didn't put the creature in graveyard cast a spell, you'll be ok with NAP and say the creature is still alive?

I think it would depend on the timing. If the players were playing quickly such that AP was casting his spell as NAP was putting the first creature in the graveyard, then pointed out that the second creature died too, then I would consider that sufficient to rule in AP's favour. If AP allowed NAP to put only one creature in the graveyard, paused for reflection, considered his options, cast the spell, and only then noticed that the second creature was not dead, then I would rule that he hadn't explicitly indicated his damage assignment in time.

Originally posted by Robert Hinrichsen:

Pascal Gemis
So, if AP, before realizing NAP didn't put the creature in graveyard cast a spell, you'll be ok with NAP and say the creature is still alive?

I think it would depend on the timing. If the players were playing quickly such that AP was casting his spell as NAP was putting the first creature in the graveyard, then pointed out that the second creature died too, then I would consider that sufficient to rule in AP's favour. If AP allowed NAP to put only one creature in the graveyard, paused for reflection, considered his options, cast the spell, and only then noticed that the second creature was not dead, then I would rule that he hadn't explicitly indicated his damage assignment in time.

In all honesty, I think that you are basically allowing NAP to perform a cheap trick.
“I'll put only one creature in graveyard, and hope he doesn't notice”

Originally posted by Robert Hinrichsen:

Just a quick question: from the initial description it is not clear to me that AP specified that he was assigning the excess damage from the arsonists to inspector 2, so why are we ruling that inspector 2 is dying?

In the absence of any applicable shortcut, it is my understanding that, as with trample damage, it is up to the AP to indicate damage assignment explicitly. Failing that, the only communication in the scenario as described is “I'll take down this one” while pointing to inspector 1. I would rule AP had assigned all damage to inspector 1, so inspector 2 lives regardless.

I think this is an incredibly bad precedent that you don't want to set. While I can't find an official shortcut that indicates default damage assignment is lethal to each creature in blocking order, there probably should be one.

Well,I think we are missing the point right here.

First, the player call a judge, then explained the situation as a short cut, which make sense because they want to keep go on quickly for thier game, and base on the information, we Should notice that both player have notice the damage have been delt the way were both of them were agreed with, and that's why they called the judge for seeking a clear backup if possible.

Also, I thought we are talking about how are we handle the judge call at this monent, not the damage. Is definitely out of topic.

–John Bai

I think there's a communication issue here (not a problem), after AP cast Angelic Purge, he should ask to NAP if he allows it to resolve, not give information to NAP assuming something that hasn't be verified by word yet, like someone said, moving things around the table is okey.
As always is used to say at the tournament welcome speechs, communicate in an appropiate way and shuffle enough. Well, it's seems like some players use to forget the first words.
The fix, ask both players about in which moment of the spell resolution they think they're remembering them that lying to a judge is a serious issue. If they both agree with the moment, we continue from that moment, if they don't agree, as we saw, the Angelic Purge is still in the stack (AP never mentioned anything on moving Angelic Purge to the graveyard in a way to clarify that his spell has already resolved), so NAP can answer to the card using his priority.
Don't issue any penalty (I was thinking in CPV but, didn't match any case, no derived or free information has been bad represented here) and tell the players to keep playing.

Greets.

As judges we shouldn't assume that something has happened. We should ask - how did you assign the damage? It seems clear to me from the scenario that both player were playing with the knowledge that the damage assignment order was such that the damage would first be dealt to one blocking creature and excess damage would be dealt to the other. Nothing in any of the actions implies that the blocking player thought it was different. We shouldn't be changing that mutual understanding by introducing other standards, unless the situation isn't a legal game state.

The scenario asks whether picking up a creature and almost putting it into the graveyard is enough to rule that a player had accepted the spell was resolving. I think we are getting way off topic discussing whether damage was assigned correctly, as implied or anything else. That is not the scenario.

My opinion is that picking up and moving the card almost to the graveyard is enough of an indication that they are letting the spell resolve, it provides a chance for a reaction so I would rule it's too late to respond to the spell.