Hello, there was following conversation in legacy tournament.

A: "Cast True-Name Nemesis. Resolve?“
N: ”OK“.
A: ”End of my turn“
N: ”at end, StP Nemesis“
A: ”What!?“
N: ”You didn't chose player."

Well, besed on current rule, it is GRV to Player A, and FtMGS to N (maybe I need to have serious talk with N for cheating). Let A chose player (of course it will be N). Backup StP, continue their game.

So, in two player games, player's choice for TNN is pretty obvious. Could we consider this choice as shortcut? In that case, no infruction? or GRV to Player N for illegal StP?.

N needs to realise that judges are more likely to award him with a cheating
infraction than let the StP resolve. The current infractions handle the
situation pretty well, and encourage players to either ask or might the
obvious and sensible assumption without calling a judge.


On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Kenji Suzuki <
forum-7255-28e6@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

> Hello, there was following conversation in legacy tournament.
>
> A: "Cast True-Name Nemesis<http://apps.magicjudges.org/api/autocard/?card=True-Name+Nemesis>.
> Resolve?“
> N: ”OK“.
> A: ”End of my turn“
> N: ”at end, StP Nemesis“
> A: ”What!?“
> N: ”You didn't chose player."
>
> Well, besed on current rule, it is GRV to Player A, and FtMGS to N (maybe
> I need to have serious talk with N for cheating). Let A chose player (of
> course it will be N). Backup StP, continue their game.
>
> So, in two player games, player's choice for TNN is pretty obvious. Could
> we consider this choice as shortcut? In that case, no infruction? or GRV to
> Player N for illegal StP?.
>
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this e-email. Or
> view and respond to this message on the web at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/43112/
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/7255/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/7255/?onsite=yes
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit
>



–
Gareth Pye
Level 2 Judge, Melbourne, Australia
Australian MTG Forum: mtgau.com
gareth@cerberos.id.au - www.rockpaperdynamite.wordpress.com
“Dear God, I would like to file a bug report”

If I remember, the only choice when selecting players in any 2 player game is with “Target opponent”.

Edit - Thanks Nick

Edited Jeff S Higgins (Nov. 29, 2013 04:07:59 PM)

There is a slight difference between “default” and “only choice” be
mind-full of that. :)

In this scenario I would find it very difficult to believe that the AP
would not choose the NAP for the TNN. Usually when someone wants to make a
very illogical play they are doing it on purpose and are very vocal about
it. This seems like someone is fishing for a gotcha moment. NAP is
purposely letting the AP “forget” to say something in order to gain an
advantage. I'm going to ask a few more questions before making a final
ruling. Those questions will either get NAP a coupon to Dairy Queen or
warnings for both (grv and ftmgs).

I personally am O.K. with the assumed shortcut with TNN.

For reference, we were supposed to give out warnings for this at gp DC. However, the head judge was not counting them for repeated infraction upgrades. This might be a reasonable line to consider.

You get the education without potentially giving a game loss for what seems like a common sense shortcut 99% of the time.

I'm also probably not investigating too hard for cheating here. Players generally don't know the difference between triggered abilities and basically any other thing.

It's worth noting that TNN is an “as” not a “when”, meaning it's a replacement effect and not a triggered ability and thus (as far as I'm aware) does not get counted under the Missed Trigger rules, meaning that the player cannot “miss” their TNN “trigger”. There is no ruling consistent with MTR that would allow a player to StP another player's TNN without first confirming which player was named. There is no “gotcha” possible here within the rules, as far as I'm aware, even assuming everything that could possibly go awry went awry.

I think bringing up the “fix” of naming the choice with StP on the
stack and having it countered might be very useful in making sure
opponents don't try to take advantage of the situation.

Wouldn't that be a gotcha in the reverse direction - a player who honestly thought it was a Trigger would be receiving additional in-game punishment above and beyond what the IPG mandates for such a situation. We don't make Doomblades targeting black creatures get countered on resolution, ergo we shouldn't have the StP binned here.

GPE - GRV covers this 100%:

2.5 - GPE - GRV ……(actual rule)…

Examples:
D. A Voice of All is on the battlefield that should have had a color named for it.

The gotcha moment can also be the TNN player knowing the opponent now has a Swords to Plowshares in hand.

I can completely understand a waiver at GP DC on upgrading this penalty, considering how new the card was. I don't think that should continue now that players KNOW it is a card in the format and it is not simply seeing fringe play.

I would rule GPE - GRV and GPE - FTMGS.

Edited Jeff S Higgins (Nov. 30, 2013 11:20:20 AM)

Don't forget there is also potential for advantage for A here.
Had enough happened in the meantime to make backing up impossible, the choice would've been made without backing up so the StP would get countered.
Basically double-baiting, you try to get opponents who try to get you on a mistake.
That could be a reason to always require the choice to be stated, no shortcuts.

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

That could be a reason to always require the choice to be stated, no shortcuts.

While not technically true from a rules standpoint, in any two player game, the opponent is going to be the “default” choice. A player is rarely, if ever, going to choose himself. Looking at precedents, the cycle of curses from Innistrad were assumed to be enchanting the opponent unless otherwise stated; also, Storm players rarely announce their opponents as the target of their Tendrils of Agony or Grapeshot, yet the intention is understood. I don't see how this is any different. While clear communication is always preferable, shortcuts exist to make the game playable and TNN clearly falls within former precedents as having a non-technical default.

If the shortcut we are allowing means not issuing GPE - GRV for this penalty I am not okay with this. There are gotcha moments for both AP and NAP, and that is something we want to move away from.

With your examples:

Tendrils/Grapeshot - Most storm players I know say “Tendrils you Storm Count X” Shortcut that the storm is also targeting the player.
Innistrad Curses - Not familiar with a scenario where we are okay with default when it does not say “Enchant an Opponent”.

This is a clear-cut GPE - GRV. While we want players to be able to shortcut, we also don't want gotcha Magic. The pro/cons list of allowing this as a shortcut has too many items in the cons column for me.

First, I don't understand how shortcutting TNN is “gotcha” magic. Why would a player name themselves in a two player game? As I stated, it is not a default choice by the rules definition, but it is in line with how players play the game in real world situations. Isn't that one of the reasons shortcuts are allowed to exist in Magic? Who would legitimately assume that AP is not choosing NAP for TNN. The only reason that this is a question is because TNN is very new.

Secondly, I never stated that it shouldn't be a GPE - GRV. If the situation above occurs exactly as stated, it should be a GPE - GRV for AP and a GPE - FtMGS; however, in that situation only the NAP - the one attempting to play StP - is playing “gotcha” magic. When the AP failed to make a choice, the NAP should have asked which player AP is choosing. Failing to do so, then attempting to take advantage of that situation would warrant an investigation. I don't see how the AP was playing “gotcha” magic.

TNN is playable in 2 player magic only because it has protection from the opponent. If it was the exact same card with Protection from it's controller instead, TNN would never see play. This is why I think that the shortcut should be allowed. The obvious and majority choice is the opponent. Just like with other shortcuts, deviation would have to be clearly announced. All shortcuts are new at some point and many were probably discussed much as this is being discussed. Once precedent is set, then players will catch on and judges will have one less concern.

Third, addressing my examples. I know many Storm players who simply announce the spell without a target. The assumption is “I'm not trying to kill myself,” thereby creating a shortcut wherein the opponent is the target. The same reasoning I applied to TNN fits with my curses example. Being detrimental effects, it would be a rare situation indeed for a player to enchant himself with one; however, I do understand that this example is flawed from a purely rules viewpoint. It is how players play in real world though.

Edit: Grammar and clarity.

Edited Darrin Sisneros (Nov. 30, 2013 11:16:35 PM)

The “gotchas” are:
AP - Now knows a card in the opponents hand. If they had remembered the choice required by TNN, the StP would not have been cast.
NAP - TNN doesn't get named, and they want to kill it.

If two players play an entire match with no issues “shortcutting” TNN's choice, they rock. 100%.

Originally posted by Darrin Sisneros:

Why would a player name themselves in a two player game?

To go nuts with Pestilence =D

Originally posted by Darrin Sisneros:

As I stated, it is not a default choice by the rules definition, but it is in line with how players play the game in real world situations. Isn't that one of the reasons shortcuts are allowed to exist in Magic? Who would legitimately assume that AP is not choosing NAP for TNN. The only reason that this is a question is because TNN is very new.

Secondly, I never stated that it shouldn't be a GPE - GRV. If the situation above occurs exactly as stated, it should be a GPE - GRV for AP and a GPE - FtMGS;

But why would you give a GRV to AP if you believe he invoked a legal shortcut?

Originally posted by Darrin Sisneros:

however, in that situation only the NAP - the one attempting to play StP - is playing “gotcha” magic. When the AP failed to make a choice, the NAP should have asked which player AP is choosing. Failing to do so, then attempting to take advantage of that situation would warrant an investigation. I don't see how the AP was playing “gotcha” magic.

My concern was not with the exact situation above, but with a similar situation where backing up wouldn't be possible. In those cases AP could warrant an investigation as well.

Originally posted by Darrin Sisneros:

Third, addressing my examples. I know many Storm players who simply announce the spell without a target. The assumption is “I'm not trying to kill myself,” thereby creating a shortcut wherein the opponent is the target. The same reasoning I applied to TNN fits with my curses example. Being detrimental effects, it would be a rare situation indeed for a player to enchant himself with one; however, I do understand that this example is flawed from a purely rules viewpoint. It is how players play in real world though.

The reason I see those as different is twofold.
1. Cards with targets are usually pointed at their target, whether the target is a creature, a graveyard, a player, etc. Thus there can still be nonverbal communication here. Some curses like Curse of the Bloody Tome just can't be assumed to always target the opponent.
2. Any ambiguity has to be addressed right away. If a target is unclear, it has to be addressed before or when the card resolves. A Phyrexian Revoker without or with an illegal choice made can sit on the battlefield for a bunch of turns before the error is addressed.

Edited Toby Hazes (Dec. 1, 2013 12:44:33 AM)