Just a quick reminder everyone, that this discussion is great, but please make sure we don't propose entirely alternate scenarios. Keep it up! :)

Sent from my iPhone

Terror on a black creature is clearly an illegal play. If AP says “X=2” or
“for 2” or even “for lethal” during its casting, Devil's Play has clearly
been illegally cast.

The root question here is whether we can take intent that was not expressed
until resolution of a spell, and apply it to the casting of the spell - and
here's the rub - when that spell was already cast in a way that leads to a
different but equally legal outcome.

My interpretation of policy is that because there existed a legal
resolution of the spell based on established shortcuts, and that shortcut
was allowed to stand until resolution, it is now too late to for the
Devil's Play caster to (from the standpoint of his opponent) change his
mind about the value of X.

I would rule that the spell was legally cast, and X=1. While the player did not intend this, the shortcut rules are reasonably clear: if you don't say anything, you emptied your mana pool. Players constantly do things that have unintended consequences. We don't rewind those legal plays because they misread something or forgot a detail, I see no reason to treat this differently.

Before I rule one way or the other, it's important to make sure that both players agree on this sequence of events. Assuming the stories matched up, I would then tell AP that the only communication he provided about the intent of his play is tapping the three lands and announcing the spell targeting NAP. However, since X was not specified on casting the spell, nothing illegal has happened here, so there's no reason to back up or issue a penalty.

By not saying anything, AP has in essence said “I'm spending three mana on Devil's Play,” which is of course different from “I'm casting Devil's Play for two,” especially when additional costs come into play. I tell AP that he needs to be more careful about his communication in the future and instruct the players to continue on with the resolution of Devil's Play at X=1.

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

because there existed a legal
resolution of the spell based on established shortcuts, and that shortcut
was allowed to stand until resolution, it is now too late to for the
Devil's Play caster to (from the standpoint of his opponent) change his
mind about the value of X.

But this is exactly where the discussion comes from.
It is unclear whether there exists a legal resolution of the spell based on established shortcuts,
because the shortcut in question obviously was not written with an intent to handle a scenario like this and is ambiguous, to say the least (see my second post).

The question then becomes “how do we want the shortcut to be written”.
I agree that sloppy play should not provide advantage (see my first post.
However, it is also clear that the non-active player allowed the disambiguity to stand.

If I control a trigger, I need to remind you of it (Rhystic Study).
Why should this scenario be handled differently?
You have a “game modifying” object, you should remind me of it.


Shortcuts are created to ensure that games advance at a reasonable pace by skipping obvious and clear things, not to play ‘gotcha’.
If opponent asked “how big is X?” while the spell was on the stack, he would receive a clear answer, “2”.

I don't think the shortcut should apply.

AP (Abe) said “You're dead.” to NAP (Norman). This information states that he casted Devil's Play for X=2 to deal lethal damage to the opponent.

Here’s a question I don’t think I’ve seen asked yet Denis asked as I was typing this up- did Norman rush Abe by picking up his pen and asking “so I go to one?” In other words, is it possible that Norman spoke up a little too soon in order to force Abe into the shortcut?

I think we are all in agreement that had Abe said something along the lines of “Devil’s Play you for 2” when casting the spell, we would have a GRV and a rewind on our hands. If we are going to hold Abe to the shortcut, then, it is pretty clear to me that we need to investigate the possibility of Norman piping up too quickly without giving Abe the chance to actually say something like that. We need to ask if Norman interrupted Abe before he had the chance to say “kill you” or “Devil’s Play you to 0,” etc.

To put it yet another way, we wouldn’t want to empower Norman by giving him the ability to choose which way a judge will rule based on how quickly he spoke. I have the sneaking suspicion this was the main point the scenario was intended to show all along. It is Gold, after all.

So, I think we’d need a little more information, but, I see the fact that Abe immediately responded with “no, you’re dead” as a data point in favor of the “Norman rushed Abe” theory. Again, more investigation is required, but the scenario does not sound like Norman gave Abe a clear opportunity to pass priority or even to be ambiguous. And that’s not just the same-name bias talking. ;)

Thanks.


Abe

Edited Abraham Corson (June 7, 2013 04:01:46 AM)

Originally posted by Denis Sokolov:

the shortcut in question obviously was not written with an intent to handle a scenario like this

I'm not sure I agree with this statement. This shortcut exists so that NAP doesn't have to ask AP “What is X?” and thereby potentially tip his hand regarding responses. This shortcut was initially designed to avoid things like “oh, X was 3 less than you thought. I will pay for Mana Leak using the mana I left floating.” I believe that this situation falls easily within the intended scope of protecting NAP from ambiguous game states created by AP failing to state a value of X.

If we look at the mirror image of the proposed scenario, Abe controls Goblin Electromancer. He taps out to cast Devil's play with URR. Norman is at 3 and says “ok, I go to 1.” Abe points at Electromancer and says “No, you're dead.” Now Norman wants to back up and cast Sphinx's Revelation in response. Obviously, we never allow this. So, what's different here? It's just that Norman is now the player who didn't fully understand the shortcut. Does that mean that GRVs asymmetrically protect the caster of a spell from sloppy play with X spells? That seems like a very unsatisfying result, especially because this shortcut was explicitly designed to protect NAP. We at least want both players to be equally subject to punishment for not paying attention to the game.

As Abe Corson said, rushing is definitely something to consider. But in its absence, I just see a whole lot of problems with rewinding a spell that appeared to be completely legally cast until one player realized he had made a tactical error during its resolution.

Here’s a question I don’t think I’ve seen asked yet Denis asked as I was typing this up- did Norman rush Abe by picking up his pen and asking “so I go to one?” In other words, is it possible that Norman spoke up a little too soon in order to force Abe into the shortcut?

I don't think we have enough information to make that assessment. If this were a real life scenario that we were called to the table to handle, that's certainly worth investigating and a very good point, that could be happening.

In a knowledge pool scenario though, we don't get to investigate, we have only the information we were given, and that's it.

So going back to the original scenario:

Abe and Norman are playing a game during a Standard GPT. Norman is at 2 life and has Thalia, Guardian of Thraben in play, when Abe taps 3 mountains and casts Devil's Play targeting Norman.

Norman takes his pen and says, “So I go to one?” to which Abe replies, “No, you're dead.” Norman just points at his Thalia and repeats, “So I go to one?” Abe calls a judge.

We have no mention of anyone being rushed, we have a situation where what happened could be interpreted multiple ways.

I feel like this is going to be one of those situations where you really need to be there in order to give a proper answer, which then in turn makes me feel like I'm wrong, because I don't expect that sort of thing from a knowledge pool scenario. :)

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

This shortcut exists so that NAP doesn't have to ask AP “What is X?” and thereby potentially tip his hand regarding responses. This shortcut was initially designed to avoid things like “oh, X was 3 less than you thought. I will pay for Mana Leak using the mana I left floating.” I believe that this situation falls easily within the intended scope of protecting NAP from ambiguous game states created by AP failing to state a value of X.

The difference is - in the scenario with Mana Leak the AP has first played the spell with one X, and later changed the value of X.
Here the player has played the spell with a value of X and stuck with that value to the end.

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

If we look at the mirror image of the proposed scenario, Abe controls Goblin Electromancer.

Actually, I would prefer if AP would announce that X is one bigger because of cost reduction.
Absent that, I'll argue the difference is NAP can allow the spell to be resolved regardless of X value, he only needs to pass the priority. Sloppiness makes sense here. AP, however, is unable to allow the spell to be resolved without making the choice for X, because he must make one (unless, of course, we interpret the shortcut otherwise).

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

I just see a whole lot of problems with rewinding a spell that appeared to be completely legally cast until one player realized he had made a tactical error during its resolution.

Your assumption that spell was legally cast is, well, the point of this debate.
There is substantial reason to believe the spell was illegally cast, because the costs have not been paid properly.

I want to note that we are just circling around the same core issue - should or should not we interpret the shortcut forcing the player here.

My ruling would be that Abe legally cast Devil's Play for X=1. First and foremost, the play was completely legal. As most people have pointed out, the shortcut for determining the value of X when it hasn't been stated doesn't state (in either particular way) whether cost increasing/decreasing effects are taken into consideration.

I tend to fall back on this quote from section 4.1 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.

We can infer the reverse, in that it is acceptable for a player to be at a disadvantage for having a lesser understanding of the rules. Abe made a tactical mistake that was within the rules of the game.

The purpose of tournament shortcuts is to speed the game along. Occasionally a player may accidentally invoke a shortcut and miss an opportunity to act, but shortcuts should never force a player to take a positive action which that player did not intend.

In this case, Abe's intent is clear to everyone. Abe obviously did not believe he was casting Devil's Play with X=1, so we should not force him to do so. Just give Abe the GRV and back up to before he cast Devil's Play.

First and foremost, the play was completely legal. As most people
have pointed out, the shortcut for determining the value of X when it
hasn't been stated doesn't state (in either particular way) whether cost
increasing/decreasing effects are taken into consideration.

So if
the shortcut does not state it clearly, what makes the play “first and
foremost completely legal”?

Originally posted by Martin Koehler:

Example: Abe cast the with Thalia in play by paying 3 and targeting a 4 toughness creature. Later in the same turn he cast Shock targeting the same creature. Is that creature dead now because he wanted to cast Devils Play with X=2?

This is an interesting scenario. Let's say enough time has passed that rewinding is impossible.
If the current discussion ends up ruling in favor of intent, X is established to be 2, with NAP no way of knowing that and making half a turn of decisions thinking X=1.

Back to the main scenario, this issue seems to boil down to what we find more important to protect; the intent of AP or the clarity for NAP?
The current missed trigger rules (Knight of Infamy attacks, NAP has no way to know it's P/T unless he explicitly asks) make me think the former is favored. If NAP wants to know X, he has to explicitly ask.

Edited Toby Hazes (June 7, 2013 06:39:08 PM)

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

Back to the main scenario, this issue seems to boil down to what we find more important to protect; the intent of AP or the clarity for NAP?
The current missed trigger rules (Knight of Infamy attacks, NAP has no way to know it's P/T unless he explicitly asks) make me think the former is favored. If NAP wants to know X, he has to explicitly ask.

The way other issues are handled makes it reasonably clear to me that a player's intent when acting is our primary driver. (The difference between USC - Cheating and GRV or Stalling and Slow Play is player intent; when there's a Deck/Decklist Problem, we let the player use the deck they have (assuming it's legal) and update the list, letting them play what they intended.)

In general, philosophy seems to be that a player is always doing what they meant to do, and things are adjusted from there. Abe meant to cast for X=2, so we go with that, and adjust the game accordingly (rewind to the casting point, warning, etc.).

It probably does warrant a short investigation, both to see if Norman perhaps rushed Abe into the shortcut, and to see if Abe really did assume he was casting it for two the whole time, and wasn't just trying to sneak that past Norman.

Ultimately, this drives home something that gets talked about a lot - COMMUNICATION! If Abe had just said “Devils Play for 2,” Norman could respond “You don't have enough mana - JUDGE!” We try to rule based on player intent, but if players try to obfuscate their intent (or simply aren't clear enough about it), we can get stuck like this.