Had a situation the other day:

N starts the match with leyline of sanctity in play. A starts the game by going “Land, inquisition”. N immediately points out the leyline. A goes “Well shoot, guess I need to inquisition myself then”, and proceeds to resolve inquisition targeting himself.

As a judge watching this, do you step in or not?

I would argue players aren't “both happy”.

Based on the stated situation nothing illegal has happened as AP had not chosen a target yet when NAP pointed out his Leyline. Information has been gained and AP is a valid target for Inquisition of Kozilek. There is no reason for the Judge to intervene.

Edited Kyle Peterson (Sept. 24, 2019 12:02:09 AM)

If players quickly sort out problems without calling a judge, we don’t step in. Most of the time it’s things like
NAP “that’s double white to cast”
AP “oh sorry, tap my plains instead”

This is the same philosophically, even though the outcome is probably much worse for AP than a retapping of mana.

All I might do is make a note of the situation and then have a word with AP later in the day about how that would have been fixed by a judge so that they’re better informed in the future.

I'd step in and simply ask A what they means by that. Based on the answer, I might have to educate the player.
I'll likely want to ask N a few questions as well, and I wish the least I have to do is educate that player as well.

Originally posted by Kyle Peterson:

Based on the stated situation nothing illegal has happened as AP had not chosen a target yet when NAP pointed out his Leyline.

I will have a hard time to be convinced that A didn't chose their target yet it in this interaction, but players are welcome to try to convince me. They might not like the way it ends though.

- Emilien

Originally posted by Emilien Wild:

I'd step in and simply ask A what they means by that. Based on the answer, I might have to educate the player.
I'll likely want to ask N a few questions as well, and I wish the least I have to do is educate that player as well.

Originally posted by Kyle Peterson:

Based on the stated situation nothing illegal has happened as AP had not chosen a target yet when NAP pointed out his Leyline.

I will have a hard time to be convinced that A didn't chose their target yet it in this interaction, but players are welcome to try to convince me. They might not like the way it ends though.

- Emilien

Hi Emilien!

Could you please elaborate on both parts of your answer?

I'll step in, for sure.

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

All I might do is make a note of the situation and then have a word with AP later in the day about how that would have been fixed by a judge so that they’re better informed in the future

In this scenario AP will drill all the wheels of your car, and he would be right :D

We have to keep the game fun and fair for everyone. Being forced to loose two cards is not fun nor fair.
It's not NAP's fault, AP proposed something that is not illegal. We can argue that NAP is not doing anything to correct the game-state, but I don't mind those kind of arguments because every point of view could be legit: it's a devil's advocate game :P

AP is clearly unfamiliar with tournament procedures and they're not inclined to call a Judge. While showing up, we are able to let the game keep on going in a fair way AND educate AP that judges aren't rude officers and they are ready to help players :)

I step in, if only to ask "A, were you intending to target N with that Inquisition of Kozilek?“

When A (almost certainly) answers ”well, yes, but N has the Leyline, so…“, I'll interject ”then that would be an illegal target, and we're just going to back up your spell, untap the mana, and issue a GRV. You aren't forced to choose a different, legal target."

While the GRV might be an unpleasant surprise, this not only corrects the problem but (maybe?) educates A on how policy actually works, in this case.

The tricky part in this scenario is that N could, conceivably, be Cheating. Did they honestly believe that it worked the way A was assuming? or, perhaps, did they already know how policy is applied when an illegal target is named? Did they honestly believe that A was going to target anyone else? Were they going to let A resolve Inquisition on themselves without correcting them, despite knowing better? It could be hard to successfully investigate this, and come to a Cheating conclusion - but it's possible. (And, I think this is part of what Emilien was getting at, in his last paragraph.)

d:^D

A, Theoretically, could also be cheating. If they've received 2 GRVs already, and decide that targeting themselves is better than the Game Loss.