I actually believe there's no current “shortcut” on what is named as True-Name Nemesis enters the battlefield, however, I'd strongly advocate such a shortcut being used for tournaments. There are some cases in which we should assume that a player is not making a highly illogical and unusual play without being vocal about it. A more or less inofficial precedent for such cases was set with the rulings for Cavern of Souls. The recommendation was to assume that the player tapped this land for colored mana when casting a creature spell of the chosen creature type.

I think we should handle it the same way when dealing with TNN issues. Until then, it's GPE-GRV for A and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, GPE-FtmGS or UC-Cheating (-> DQ) for N.

Edited Jasper König (Dec. 1, 2013 07:45:43 AM)

Making an official shortcut to auto-choose the opponent if a player is not named in a two-player game could help prevent gotcha moments. Something like “If a player does not announce his choice of protection from a player when instructed to choose a player in a 2-player game, he is assumed to have chosen protection from his opponent”?

Another example where this is relevant: Player A has a True-Name Nemesis out with Lightning Bolt in hand. His opponent has a hand of Show and Tell, Emrakul, the Aeons Torn and Misdirection. The opponent is at 9 life. If Player A names Player B, then cast Lightning Bolt targeting Player B to speed up his clock, Player B can misdirect it to True-Name Nemesis and hope to top deck another Show and Tell to win. If Player A names Player A, then his opponent is almost certainly dead on board with no outs in a current Sneak and Show list. Let's say he swears to you he accidentally forgot to name a player with True-name. The game would need to be backed up to prevent creating a huge advantage for player A as he gets to name himself after misdirection is cast.

This example doesn't make the best sense because the guy can block with Emrakul if Player A chooses himself, but something like that could happen in the many, many Show and Tell vs. True-Name Nemesis matches to come.

I think implementing a shortcut, if it can be done cleanly, would be an improvement overall.

Edited Brian Brown (Dec. 1, 2013 10:17:43 AM)

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

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

Because as of right now, there is no legal shortcut for TNN. My argument is that there should be. Just as both Brian and Jasper have stated, there are other situations in which we assume the player is not making illogical choices unless otherwise stated. This is another situation in which the card doesn't have a default choice built in, but the game does - in a 2 player match.

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

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.

This is exactly the reason for there being an accepted shortcut for TNN. If no deviation is specifically voiced, then it is assumed that the opponent is the choice. This avoids any misunderstanding or chances for someone attempting to game the system.

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

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.

I grant that my examples are flawed. Jasper's example of Cavern of Souls is obviously much better. I do have some answers to your points though.

1. Nonverbal communication is important and helps the game move along. My point was that common sense plays a similar role. No one is going to assume that a Storm player is going to target themselves with their win condition. Simply laying the spell on the table and saying, “Tendrils. Storm count X” is usually enough to garner the concession from an opponent. Why? Because the Storm player is trying to kill the opponent, not himself (being the only other legal target for Tendrils). As for Curse of the Bloody Tome, it's the exception that proves the rule. The fact it was necessary to find the singular exception to the fact that the curses are generally detrimental means that the rule is in fact true.

2. I stated the same thing above with the TNN example. If the NAP wasn't assuming he was the default choice for TNN, then he should have raised the point immediately and either called a judge or asked the AP for his choice. The Phyrexian Revoker example is flawed though. There are an arbitrarily large number of choices for Revoker, while there exist two choices for TNN; only of which is the logical and intuitive choice.


Small aside: How does one link cards in the forum?

I don't think implementing a shortcut for this case is as simple, or even desirable, as it's made to be in this thread. Creating a shortcut for literally one card is not really reasonable, and a generic solution (presumably something which addresses most if not all cards which have similar choices, e.g. Cavern of Souls or Runed Halo) seems difficult (if not impossible) to define.

At the end of the day, isn't this the reason that these choices are handled as they are in the partial fix for a GRV? I don't understand what is so fundamentally worse about this True-Name Nemesis scenario than the Adaptive Automaton scenario from Knowledge Pool back in October. At least here you can safely do a backup, since almost nothing has happened.

Granted there are sloppy scenarios where this gets a lot worse, but that's true of almost any GRV since, by their nature, they put the game state into an illegal position.

Originally posted by Aric Parkinson:

I don't think implementing a shortcut for this case is as simple, or even desirable, as it's made to be in this thread. Creating a shortcut for literally one card is not really reasonable, and a generic solution (presumably something which addresses most if not all cards which have similar choices, e.g. Cavern of Souls or Runed Halo) seems difficult (if not impossible) to define.

How about “If the effect granted would be generally beneficial, assume the choice made is the player, and if the effect is generally detrimental, assume the choice made is the opponent”? We have (awkward yet functional) definitions for “generally beneficial” and “generally detrimental” as per the Trigger Rules, why can't we just invoke those?

EDIT: To better cover cases where the choice is not “player vs opponent” but is instead something like “counterable vs uncounterable” (Cavern of Souls) or “my creature vs your creature” (Flame Slash when opponent has only 1 creature in play), or something like that, a better phrasing would be “if one option is generally beneficial, assume that option was chosen, if one option is generally detrimental, assume that option was not chosen”.

Edited Lyle Waldman (Dec. 1, 2013 10:29:56 PM)

Lyle: That doesn't really address the issue, it's still just patchwork for TNN's specific ability. How could you possibly extend that to cover effects like Adaptive Automaton, Runed Halo, or Cavern of Souls, while simultaneously not considering the board state (which you shouldn't do - rulings need to be consistent regardless of the particulars of a specific match)?

We don't have anything written anywhere for “generally beneficial”.

And I honestly don't think there is a need for a shortcut. If the player is playing gotcha magic and thought he could notice an error, sit on it, and wait to play “gotcha” Magic, I feel a very serious conversation needs to be had. This is also true if the AP thought he could take advantage of the players negligence. All it takes is a few question after asking each person what they thought happened, and what has happened previously with TNN in their games.

Sent from my iPhone

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

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.

Thanks for information. This resolution or just downgrade this GRV to caution will be fine.
Moreover, thanks all judges for useful reply.

* To make shortcut or not to do

I understand opinion such as “we shouldn't make official shortcut for only one card”. In TNN cases, all player need is saying “you”. Educating players (who use TNN) not forgetting chose player will be fine enough.
On the other hand, many players already consider this choice as shortcut, so in this case, there is no problem.

* DQ NAP for cheating?

Definitely we need to talk to NAP. He might think is trigger so that he don't need to mention it. In that case, FtMGS is proper ruling. If he know it is not trigger and use it to gain advantage, this is DQ worthy. However, as some of you mentioned, it might be hard to convince us to make DQ decision here. (But definitely there is possibility of DQ here.)


First, education for TNN user.
Second, education for all legacy players.
And after that, there is small possibilities of cheating.

Is it valid to assume that the target for TNN was the opponent? Toby has provided one example where naming yourself might be useful. (Not likely in Legecy, granted, but *possible*.) To what extent should we consider board state, or what decks people are playing?

Assuming that N incorrectly believe this is a missed trigger, and is thus not trying to cheat, and A believes it's a short cut, should we not backtrack to the choice made on resolution, and issue GRV and FtMGS warnings?

Originally posted by Huw Morris:

Is it valid to assume that the target for TNN was the opponent? Toby has provided one example where naming yourself might be useful. (Not likely in Legecy, granted, but *possible*.) To what extent should we consider board state, or what decks people are playing?

It's just so unlikely that a player is making such an unusual choice without being explicit about it.

Originally posted by Huw Morris:

Assuming that N incorrectly believe this is a missed trigger, and is thus not trying to cheat, and A believes it's a short cut, should we not backtrack to the choice made on resolution, and issue GRV and FtMGS warnings?

This is one of the few cases in which we can apply a partial fix. If a player failed to make a required choice for a permanent on the battlefield, that player makes a legal choice. We don't need to rewind for this.

Your logic is backwards.

You should always rewind if you can.

You only consider a partial fix only if a rewind is impossible or
sufficiently complex that it could change the course of the game.

Originally posted by Huw Morris:

Is it valid to assume that the target for TNN was the opponent? Toby has provided one example where naming yourself might be useful. (Not likely in Legecy, granted, but *possible*.) To what extent should we consider board state, or what decks people are playing?

Even official shortcut described in MTR, they are not only choice player can take (for example, sometimes player might not want to spent all of their mana for X spell). Very small possibility won't prevent that shortcut being official, in general.

Of course, it doesn't mean TNN choice should official shortcut, as I said before.

Originally posted by Aric Parkinson:

Lyle: That doesn't really address the issue, it's still just patchwork for TNN's specific ability. How could you possibly extend that to cover effects like Adaptive Automaton, Runed Halo, or Cavern of Souls, while simultaneously not considering the board state (which you shouldn't do - rulings need to be consistent regardless of the particulars of a specific match)?

Huh? What relevance do any of those things have to the current conversation? Also you'll have to be a bit more specific: With Runed Halo and Cavern of Souls, there are a couple of choices that have to be made. Which choices are you referring to specifically?

Travis Coffman
And I honestly don't think there is a need for a shortcut. If the player is playing gotcha magic and thought he could notice an error, sit on it, and wait to play “gotcha” Magic, I feel a very serious conversation needs to be had. This is also true if the AP thought he could take advantage of the players negligence. All it takes is a few question after asking each person what they thought happened, and what has happened previously with TNN in their games.

Let's assume we have 2 players who are very bad at CompRules. Player A casts TNN and doesn't name a player (cause he's forgetful, plays sloppy, assumes a shortcut, whatever). Player B is very bad at rules and, like probably 70% of players I've met online, think every ability without a colon is a trigger (and even some abilities with colons are triggers). Thus, to him, Player A has missed his trigger, and according to the Trigger Rules, he doesn't get to go back and fix it (yes, some players really are this bad at knowing rules, I'm not making this up). Then we have the state as presented in the OP. Player B is under the assumption that playing “gotcha Magic” in this case is well-warranted, because the Trigger Rules say so (Player B is not aware that the Trigger Rules do not apply to TNN). How do you handle this?

Second situation: Assume the same thing as the above, except Player A is also really bad at rules. He realizes he missed his TNN “trigger” but doesn't realize that it's not a trigger and doesn't call a judge at that moment. When his opponent attempts to StP his TNN, he calls a judge to make sure of what's happening. How do you handle this?

This seems like really delicate situations that could get sticky. We could simply solve all these cases by creating a shortcut, since in 99.999% of cases, if you don't want to name the opponent with TNN you will state so specifically, and in the other 99% of cases when you cast TNN you will want to name the opponent. Naming yourself is the edgiest of edgy edge cases, so edgy that I think most players even assume there already is a shortcut, and we may as well just officialize it, similar to how Cavern of Souls worked.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Let's assume we have 2 players who are very bad at CompRules.

In this case, as well as in the cases where player B thinks that “Gotcha!” is supported by the rules - we educate. We do so in the form of Infractions (and the proscribed penalty).

* * *

There's been a lot of back & forth about whether or not TNN needs its own shortcut. And I can assure you, all of your comments have been read and carefully considered by the Policy Team. As always, we appreciate this sort of input - even if there's no clear indication of such, it can be helpful.

Much like with “failing to Scry”, we already have rules in place that cover the situation. There is not an official shortcut for True-Name Nemesis. If a player fails to make a choice - for whatever reason - we ask some simple questions to eliminate the concerns re: Cheating, then we assess the GPE:GRV (and probably GPE:FtMGS) infraction(s) and the Warning(s), as appropriate.

And in doing so, players will quickly learn that (a) TNN is not a trigger, (b) a choice must be made, and © we don't (actively) support “Gotcha!” Magic.