Due to poor communication, the two players have different beliefs regarding the gamestate.

In the gamestate according to AP, NAP did break a rule, as NAP didn't put a creature that had received lethal damage in his graveyard. AP failed to point this out, so is committing FtMGS.

In the gamestate according to NAP, there was no rule violation. He put the only creature that received damage in the graveyard.

I'm ruling that the gamestate according to AP is correct, which means that strictly speaking NAP did break a rule, so strictly speaking I should be handing out a GRV. However, given that this GRV is the result of a decision that AP made and failed to communicate, a GRV warning for NAP feels too heavy handed here. The actual error made by NAP is failing to ask for clarification, which does not appear anywhere in the IPG. (and yes, this is a slight revision of my earlier answer)

Note that if I feel that NAP was aware that he must ask for clarification here, and decided not to in order to gain an advantage, I'll be doing a cheating investigation.

Edited Michel Degenhardt (Aug. 4, 2017 03:49:47 AM)

I don't really see any ground for a cheating investigation, since he has not broken any rule.

Like Dominik, I would not intervene by myslef, but I would rule that the 1/1 is dead if AP remembered early enough.

“Early enough” is a fuzzy concept, but I think the limits would be the next time that this creature is actively involved in the game, and never later than AP's next combat phase.

Originally posted by Florian Horn:

Like Dominik, I would not intervene by myself, but I would rule that the 1/1 is Dead if AP remembered early enough.

“Early enough” is a fuzzy concept, but I think the limits would be the next time that this creature is actively involved in the game, and never later than AP's next combat phase.

I'm not sure this is supported by the IPG. If you think a player committed a infraction, you are obligated to step in yourself, not just wait to be called over. If no infraction was committed, then you're performing a partial fix for no reason, which is a deviation.

Until the players have a verbal disagreement, we are in a gamestate where
there possibly wasn't an infraction, so there is no reason to step in.

Once the verbal disagreement happens, there may be a possible infraction,
so we investigate to figure out what happened. Chances are that after my
investigation, I rule that the 1/1 is dead, and assess a GRV. (Then we get
the partial fix, but you are correct that that is only once we think there
is a GRV.) At this point I would have a serious chat with NAP, but atm I
can't find justification to call what he did cheating, although I do think
it's pretty scummy.



2017-08-05 11:54 GMT-04:00 Isaac King <forum-37258-7363@apps.magicjudges.org

Originally posted by Isaac King:

I'm not sure this is supported by the IPG. If you think a player committed a infraction, you are obligated to step in yourself, not just wait to be called over. If no infraction was committed, then you're performing a partial fix for no reason, which is a deviation.

The gamestate is legal till AP says something, so why should he step in?

If you'll be giving a GRV to NAP once AP speaks up, then why don't you believe a rules violation happened before he speaks up? FtMGS happens all the time.

Judges should intervene when they believe a rules violation occurred. If the players agree with the current gamestate, no rules violation occurred, in which case your question for clarification didn't do much harm. If, on the other hand, there is a disagreement, then you caught an error before it became impossible to fix.

Originally posted by Théo CHENG:

I don't really see any ground for a cheating investigation, since he has not broken any rule.

AP is responsible for taking the decision of how to distribute combat damage. Let's assume for a moment that NAP is aware of this, and let's further assume that NAP believes that AP intended to distribute the damage 3 and 1. Given this set of assumptions, how doesn't NAP break a rule by not putting the 1/1 in the graveyard? Or given the situation as described, how do you know this set of assumptions isn't true?

Originally posted by Michel Degenhardt:

If you'll be giving a GRV to NAP once AP speaks up, then why don't you believe a rules violation happened before he speaks up? FtMGS happens all the time.

Because combat damage can be assigned to only one creature. And since we can't read minds we don't know he didnt want to do that till he speaks up(I think that was said before too). Either he does it, or he doesnt. You can assume many things while playing…

but as a judge, you can simply ask if that's what happened. If you believe a rules violation has occurred, you can ask for clarification. Why do you want to read minds or wait for him to speak up if you can simply ask?

Originally posted by Michel Degenhardt:

AP is responsible for taking the decision of how to distribute combat damage. Let's assume for a moment that NAP is aware of this, and let's further assume that NAP believes that AP intended to distribute the damage 3 and 1. Given this set of assumptions, how doesn't NAP break a rule by not putting the 1/1 in the graveyard? Or given the situation as described, how do you know this set of assumptions isn't true?

Playing a game based on wrong assumptions of elements that are not explicited is violating no rule. If your assumption is not true, your opponent will tell you so.

I cannot agree with that statement, for the simple reason that a player should never make assumptions regarding the game state.

If a player genuinely holds a belief regarding the game state (I was under the impression that my opponent wanted to deal all damage to my 3/3), but it turns out that belief is incorrect, then I agree with you that no rule violation occurred. However, no assumptions are made in such a scenario.

If a player genuinely doesn't know what the current game state is, then he has the responsibility to seek clarification, because of his responsibility to maintain a clear and legal game state. In this case, he is not allowed to make assumptions.

The only situation where a player is allowed to make assumptions regarding the game state is in the case of a missed trigger. There, it is mentioned explicitly that a player making a play that may or may not be legal depending on an uncommunicated trigger being missed is not committing an infraction. This explicit mention happens in a context where it is explicitly NOT a players responsibility to ask for clarification, implying that when it IS a players responsibility to ask for clarification, such a play that may or may not be legal would be an infraction.

If any situation of poor communication allows a player to assume whatever they want (rather then ask for clarification), then players are incentivised to misunderstand their opponents, in order to be able to try to sneak plays past their opponents. If they get caught, no harm, no foul. If they don't get caught, they got a free advantage.

To summarize: if poor communication results in a misunderstanding, then sure, that happens. If poor communication results in a player deciding to simply assume the most optimal scenario, regardless of the likely intention of the opponent, then that player is not trying to communicate at all.

Originally posted by Michel Degenhardt:

but as a judge, you can simply ask if that's what happened. If you believe a rules violation has occurred, you can ask for clarification. Why do you want to read minds or wait for him to speak up if you can simply ask?

This isn't 100% on topic, but have you read Scott's story-time post here? https://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/37235/?page=1#post-231123

If the AP hasn't communicated the damage assignment clearly, there is no default that states that the 1/1 should've died. We can't possibly know what the actual gamestate is, whatever our reasoned conclusion is. This is why we shouldn't step in until it is clear that the gamestate is (maybe) incorrect.

Originally posted by Dominik Chłobowski:

a player should never make assumptions regarding the game state

While I understand what (I think) you're trying to say, here, that's simply not how Magic is played. Assumptions are made all the time, and sometimes we get to sort that out.

Simply put, each player is likely to assume the game state that they expected - even when that's two quite different outcomes.

Originally posted by Florian Horn:

“Early enough” is a fuzzy concept

Indeed!
I think, in this case, my “rule of thumb” would be “at a point where it's reasonable for AP to notice” (that the 1/1 didn't go to the graveyard).

I'm speculating a bit here, but I think that those who are disagreeing (with the “no infraction, the 1/1 should be dead”) might need to watch more Magic, to get a feel for how players organically play the game. Arguably, lots of nitpicking violations occur in every game, and none of it is cause for concern, nor a judge's intervention. How many priority passes are skipped (shortcut? assumed?) in a turn of “draw, play land, go”? I can't count the number of times I've seen someone cast a spell, then crack a fetch to get the land to pay for that spell, all in one (very out of order) sequence - and I don't assess an infraction, they're trying to play efficiently.

d:^D

Originally posted by Dominik Chłobowski:

Originally posted by Michel Degenhardt:

but as a judge, you can simply ask if that's what happened. If you believe a rules violation has occurred, you can ask for clarification. Why do you want to read minds or wait for him to speak up if you can simply ask?

This isn't 100% on topic, but have you read Scott's story-time post here? https://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/37235/?page=1#post-231123

If the AP hasn't communicated the damage assignment clearly, there is no default that states that the 1/1 should've died. We can't possibly know what the actual gamestate is, whatever our reasoned conclusion is. This is why we shouldn't step in until it is clear that the gamestate is (maybe) incorrect.

I have. That post clearly explains why we don't intervene to prevent a rules violation from occuring. We only intervene if we believe a rules violation occurred in the past.

In this case, the 1/1 didn't die, and then AP passed the turn. As the potential rules violation already occurred, we're free to intervene to make sure that the gamestate is correct.

@Uncle Scott: perhaps assumption isn't quite the right word to use.

“I thought my opponent only wanted to kill my 3/3” is fine with me, such misunderstandings happen as a result of poor communication.

“I thought my opponent wanted to kill both my creatures, but he didn't explicitly say anything, so I decided to treat the game as if he dealt all the damage to my 3/3 in the hope that he wouldn't notice” seems like cheating to me. That's a type of assumption that a player should never be allowed to make, in my opinion.

“I didn't know how he wanted to distribute the damage, so I assumed that he took the decission that was to my advantage rather then ask for clarification” probably isn't cheating, but isn't going to get me to rule in your favour.

Edited Michel Degenhardt (Aug. 7, 2017 11:22:14 AM)