This scenario took place in a PTQ where I was a player. I realized a few rounds later that it gives the opponent a good chance to get UC-Cheating if they know they are committing FtMGS.

After combat, Al taps 5 lands, plays Kalonian Hydra, and passes the turn. Nina untaps her lands and calls for a judge. She says “Judge, my opponent has a 0/0 Hydra on the battlefield.”

Does untapping her lands make her a cheater?

EDITED: To reflect that it IS NOT a missed trigger but a GRV.

Edited Cameron Bachman (Sept. 3, 2013 09:46:27 PM)

Since I wasn't there I'd rather not speculate on what the players intent was when calling a judge. In order for a player to be cheating must know they did something wrong, and that is something I just can't determine based on the information given.

Also the scenario you described was not a missed trigger. The Kalonian Hydra's ability as it enters the battlefield is a replacement effect, which is applied as it's entering. So at the very least it should have been a GRV for Al and a FTMGS for Nina.

The fix for this would be different then a missed trigger too, either we back up to the point where the error occured, or we leave the game state as is and apply appropriate state based actions.

First off, Kalonian Hydra's ability is not a triggered ability - is it a replacement effect, so it's impossible for it to be a missed trigger. In this case, Nina has allowed her opponent to commit a Game Rule Violation in not putting counters on his Hydra, and then progressed further in the game before alerting a judge. This is definitely a situation where an investigation for cheating would be warranted.

Either she was aware that the Hydra was supposed to get counters, and allowed her opponent to NOT put counters on it so she could gain an advantage, which would be cheating, and a DQ; or, if she legitimately thought that the Hydra's ability was a trigger and was just unclear on how the ability worked, it's Failure to Maintain, and we back up to when the Hydra entered the battlefield and put the counters on it.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Chris!

Edited Casey Brefka (Sept. 3, 2013 09:28:59 PM)

This is kind of a rules and policy question. Kalonian Hydra's first ability isn't a triggered ability, but rather a replacement effect that applies as it enters. Not placing the counters could only really be a GRV (and maybe not even that if the player was just assuming everything was clear to both players, or was just passing turn to speed up the game before grabbing a die).

If Nina believed it was a triggered ability (certainly possible), then she wouldn't have been committing an infraction in her mind, as she's not required to point out an opponent's trigger. The judge should educate her and correct the GRV and/or error in representation.

If you believe Nina knew it wasn't really a trigger and let the GRV happen to gain advantage, then it would be USC-Cheating, but only an investigation at the table could help you determine if that is indeed the case (and it wouldn't be my first assumption). Cheating requires: 1) knowledge that a rule is being broken (not the case if she really thought it was a trigger), and 2) doing so with the intent to gain advantage.

My apologies for misreading the card. The card in question was printed in my non-native language but after reviewing the English text its clear, it wasn't a missed trigger.

It was this misunderstanding that set off my thinking. If a card had an effect that, if missed, would create an illegal game state (a 0/0 on the battlefield), it would seem to be cause problems. It is now clear that this was thought of before it was printed and I am not nearly as clever as I thought.

Thanks for your input, everyone. This forum is one of my favorite resources in becoming a better judge!

Is there really a 0/0 on the battlefield? Or is there just a 4/4 that doesn't have a visual representation of its counters? Does either player honestly think the Hydra is anything other than a 4/4? And, if so, why? I think we just need to clarify an ambiguous representation of game state rather than perform an IPG-derived fix.

I think we can probably rule out Cheating here. Why would a player call a judge if he already knows what he is doing is wrong?

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

I think we can probably rule out Cheating here. Why would a player call a judge if he already knows what he is doing is wrong?

I really like this line of thinking. Even if Nina was trying to get the Hydra placed in the graveyard, that would be because she thought the rules supported that and assumed the judge would rule as such.

I'm afraid I must agree with my colleague, Joshua. If we look at the IPG we see that “A player allows her opponent to put a creature into the graveyard even though the creature has not been dealt lethal damage” falls under USC-Cheating. I think that this textbook example of cheating is very similar to the situation our colleague Cameron presented.

Both players are responsible for preserving the game state. If one player knows that there is something illegal going on (with the exception of a missed trigger), then they are responsible for correcting it. To not do so is to intentionally violate the rules of the game. In the case under discussion here, this was to gain an advantage (killing the hydra). That seems to hit all of the check boxes:

• The player must be attempting to gain advantage from his or her action.
• The player must be aware that he or she is doing something illegal

What player in their right mind would call over a judge to inform him or her that they just cheated? It seems very likely that they think that the Hydra has a trigger that gives it counters and they are trying to lock their opponent into missing the trigger and kill the Hydra. If that's the case, it does not fit the criteria of being aware that it is illegal.

Based on the info given, Nina waited until it was very clear that what could have been mistaken as a trigger and then called a judge. Isn't that how we want players to handle missed triggers? Granted we don't want them taking a game action first but this is more likely to happen than them calling for a judge before she untapped. So we investigate a little bit further. We make a little decision tree in our head with a handful of “If/Then” and handle appropriately.

I agree with Joshua, I'd tell Al to please represent the correct number of counters on the Hydra and play on. If Nina tries to angle shoot that there was a 0/0 creature on the battlefield, I'd explain that was not the case. I'd ask her “If it is not a trigger why do you believe it is a 0/0?”


With the info posted in the question. We have not established if she was aware that she was trying cheat. With out an investigation of the players involved we cannot jump to cheating so quickly. Accidents like this happen all the time mostly when players think they know the rules better than they do. Also what Riki said.

It seems there is some contention with what I said. I was specifically thinking of this blog post: http://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2012/10/24/the-jackie-lee-dq/ when I posted it. Yes, I understand, no players will call judges when they know they'd get a DQ, but there is a difference between knowing that something is against the rules and knowing it is USC-Cheating.

I find it kind of funny since if this was an ETB triggered ability, the Hydra would die to SBAs before the trigger adding the counters resolved.