Welcome to another installment of the Knowledge Pool!

This week's scenario is Silver so, as always, a polite request for judges L2 or higher to allow the L1's and L0's a day or so to discuss this before you jump in!

The blog post for this scenario can be found at: http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/?p=822

Athena is playing against Neptune at a GPT.

Athena controls a Zameck Guildmage. Neptune controls an Azor's Elocutors with 3 red plastic beads on it. Athena casts a Mark of Mutiny on the Elocutors, and Neptune places another red bead on it before sliding it across the table.

Athena asks what the red beads represent, and Neptune replies, “I've just put the +1/+1 counter from the Mark of Mutiny”.

Athena then activates her Zameck Guildmage's second ability twice, removing two counters from the Elocutors and drawing two cards. At this point, Neptune quickly points out that the remaining counters on the Elocutors were all filibuster counters, and calls for a judge!

What infraction, if any, has been committed, and what penalty would you assess? How would you go about fixing the situation?

Disclaimer: For the purposes of this discussion, please assume that no cheating or foul play has occurred. Have fun!

I believe that Neptune committed a TE-Comminucation Policy Violation before Athena illegally drew a card because Neptune failed to answer completely and honestly a question pertaining to free info. Athena's question of what the red beads represent is a question of the types of counters in a public zone. Neptune's answer ("I just put the +1/+1 counter from the MoM) did not completely answer that question. His answer should have indicated to Athena the type of each counter on the card. Consequently, Neptune receives a warning for his infraction. Athena is not penalized.

As for the fix, I would get permission from the HJ to undo the illegal card draw by putting a random card from Athena's hand on top of her library, putting a filibuster counter on the Elocutors, and untapping the mana used to pay for the ability.

In addition to what Eric was saying, I believe we should also give Athena GPE - GRV because she activated and resolved an ability without paying the appropriate cost. While it's true that Neptune's answer may have deceived Athena on what the beads represented, Athena is still responsible for knowing the game state and, among other things, keeping track of the kinds and quantities of counters on Elocutors. As such, we can expect her to know that there is only one +1/+1 counter on the Elocutors.

Notably, it is not appropriate to assign Athena GPE - DEC, because the moment before she performed the action that drew her a card, a GRV or CPV was committed.

EDIT: I made a dumb mistake and edited it out.

Edited Darcy Alemany (Aug. 28, 2013 04:40:51 PM)

Types of counters in public zones are free information, and thus Neptune committed TE - Communication Policy Violation by not fully answering Athena's question–and, perhaps, before that by not visibly distinguishing between the filibuster counters and the +1/+1 counter on the Elocutors. As the MTR notes, players are responsible for "aintaining a clear and legal game state", and Neptune did not maintain a clear game state.

As for Athena's actions, certainly we should back up one draw, since her second draw was illegal. This is not GPE - Drawing Extra Cards, since TE - CPV has already occurred. I am not entirely comfortable with issuing Athena GPE - Game Rule Violation, however, since she has a reasonable expectation of receiving complete and accurate information about the types of counters on the Elocutors, and acted on what she thought was such.

EDIT: That isn't to say that I wouldn't tell Athena that she should keep a closer eye on what sort of counters are on what cards.

Edited Daniel Pareja (Aug. 28, 2013 07:22:04 PM)

Everyone states that they would back the game up to the point before the illegal card draw occured. Why would you do this?

seems like backing up to the point where the PCV occured is better.

I agree with the general consensus on the CPV, and I also agree with Darcy that Athena should be issued a GRV, because although the infraction only occurred due to misinterpretation of what Neptune's response, taking this into account in our ruling seems to be a deviation from policy, which would be undesirable.

My recommended fix would be to back up as far as possible. It certainly seems reasonable to back up to the point of the CPV in this case (with HJ approval, of course). So, pick two random cards from Athena's hand to put on top of her library, and replace any “red beads” that were removed earlier (or, probably better, make the counters more clearly distinguished - there should be 3 filibuster counters and 1 +1/+1 that can be clearly distinguished).

Another thing of note: Although it's usually noted by someone in just about every thread, I think in this case, Neptune's actions seem particularly sketchy. A thorough investigation into Neptune's knowledge of the rules and intentions in this circumstance should probably be conducted.

my assumption is that Neptune was unaware of the distinction between free
and derived information. he probably is familiar with the rules about
incompletely answering things like “what's in your graveyard” when there's
a tarmogoyf in play, and he didn't realize this situation was any different.

Originally posted by Sam Sherman:

seems like backing up to the point where the PCV occured is better

You're right. Thanks for pointing that out.

Aric Parkinson
make the counters more clearly distinguished

I agree with this because all the counters look the same and they're all not representing the same information, which can cause confusion to people playing or watching the game. We can ask the players to make the situation more clear by using dice or different colored beads to represent the second set of counters.

My first thought was a open & shut case of DEC (as unfair as it felt), but then I saw the comment about removing the +1/+1 counter being an additional cost for using the Guildmage's ability. So, my next thought was GRV: warning, backup, continue playing. I didn't think it was CPV, thinking it was like the “Vampire Nighthawk, it's a 2/3 flier” scenario. But reading the policy documents (something I really need to get a better/more complete grasp on), it's a pretty clear-cut CPV. The IPG states that "Players must completely and honestly any specific questions pertaining to free information." Types of counters is free information (per the MTR).

So, Warning to Neptune for CPV, get permission to backup to before Athena used the Guildmage's ability. Put the counters back on, return two random cards from Athena's hand to her library, ask Neptune to be a little more careful and clear about the counters.

Sheesh, all these awkward communication policy questions that I keep flunking. :( But I guess that's what this forum is for, eh?

One thing that I haven't seen explicitly mentioned is that when returning 2 random cards from Athena's hand to the top of her deck, we should ask about any known cards in her hand. My question is whether the Mark of Mutiny is now “known” since both players saw it cast from the hand? -Stricken due to misreading the scenario.

I agree with the line of discussion of Warning: CVP for Neptune, and permission to backup to the point of the CVP.
I feel that Athena still committed an error, I'm just not sure if it would be FtMGS for incorrectly knowing the counters and/or allowing Neptune to use the same counter to represent 2 different things. Or GRV for trying draw a card from the filibuster counters. I definitely agree that it is not DEC since the CVP already took place.

Any thoughts?

Edited Nicholas Brown (Aug. 29, 2013 03:22:28 PM)

Originally posted by Jack Hesse:

But I guess that's what this forum is for, eh?

And we're overjoyed to hear it's working! :)

Originally posted by Nicholas Brown:

One thing that I haven't seen explicitly mentioned is that when returning 2 random cards from Athena's hand to the top of her deck, we should ask about any known cards in her hand. My question is whether the Mark of Mutiny is now “known” since both players saw it cast from the hand?

Why would we ask the players what cards in Athena's hand are already known to both of them? The MoM has already resolved (Neptune put a +1/+1 counter on his Elocutors and passed it to Athena) before the CPV occured.

Originally posted by Eric Paré:

Why would we ask the players what cards in Athena's hand are already known to both of them? The MoM has already resolved (Neptune put a +1/+1 counter on his Elocutors and passed it to Athena) before the CPV occured.

Good point I missed that the question was asked AFTER the MoM was cast. thanks for pointing that out.

Something to consider: If for some reason Neptune was to ask Athena about the counters on Elocutors, Athena would still be required to answer honestly, openly, and completely. This means that we must expect that Athena is keeping track of, and is aware of, these counters no matter how Neptune represents them or what information he provides. I think it's clear cut that Athena has committed GRV here, by that logic.