Oblivion Ring
Black Knight

Ok had some interesting conversations at a judge conference recently, and it made me think of a situation. What happens if a player casts oblivion ring and says targeting black knight. Now the shortcut they are proposing is illegal, since black knight has protection from white. However what if the opponent wants to respond to the casting of the oblivion ring, and therefore rejecting the shortcut and responding to where the casting of it would be legal. Would this be cheating, since they didn't point out the illegal shortcut, or would this be acceptable since they are rejecting the shortcut and allowing the player to make a new decision upon resolution?

So let me give an example: Adam casts oblivion ring and states he targets Nina's black knight. Nina has two creatures (one being black night) and no other non-land permanents. So Nina wants to respond to remove the other creature she controls so Adam would have to target one of his own non-land permanents. If Nina did that without pointing out that Adam's shortcut is illegal did she cheat? Thanks.
Cris Plyler

This is a very interesting question and I'm looking forward to hearing an official answer.

In my opinion, not stating that shortcut is illegal in not cheating if we plan to not accept the shortcut, since we are not letting any game rule violation happen. If I'm correct here, what you describe in second paragraph would be perfectly legal.

Of course it would be illegal to accept the shortcut, since that would case GRV to occur, but that is probably clear and not part of the question.

Because Nina is breaking the shortcut, I would think the first time she is responsible for ensuring that oblivion ring has a legal target is when its triggered ability goes on the stack. Punishing Nina because Adam is not reading cards and playing sloppily isn’t what I would want to do. As long as she corrects him before he would commit a GRV, I think she is fine.

Nina would have the right to allow Oblivion Ring to resolve and then make Adam choose a legal target once it does, so I don't see why responding changes her obligations. Once they reach the point at which Adam put Oblivion Ring's ability on the stack, Nina needs to be careful but proposing a shortcut is not the same as putting the ability on the stack and they haven't reached that point in the game yet.

Just spelling things out a little more to make sure I'm on the same bandwagon. (It's comfy here, I'd hate to have to leave)

From the MTR:

• If a player casts a spell or activates an ability and announces choices for it that are not normally made until resolution, the player must adhere to those choices unless an opponent responds to that spell or ability. If an opponent inquires about choices made during resolution, that player is assumed to be passing priority and allowing that spell or ability to resolve.

So the target isn't actually selected yet, but the player is locked into selecting it later on if Nina doesn't do anything.

So the question becomes for me: Is she responsible for stopping him from making an illegal choice in the future?

And from the IPG section USC-Cheating

• …notices an offense committed in his or her (or a teammate's) match and does not call attention to it.

“Committed” = past tense. It seems she is required to call attention to the error when it's actually made, not when she learns that it is eventually going to be made. And that seems reasonable to me.

If a player says something like “I sided in an answer to your Stormbreath Dragon: Banisher Priest, I think I'm good now”, I don't think we expect their opponents to remind them that it's pro-white, and wouldn't tag them for cheating by letting them cast the Banisher Priest knowing what they intended to do with it. The main difference between the cases is the O-Ring one is committed to the choice, and I don't think that justifies turning a GRV for him into a DQ for her.

Seen from another perspective, say she points out the error right away. The game would be backed up to the Oblivion Ring cast and resolved, just before the EtB triggers goes on the stack. So in this scenario the point at which Nina wants to respond (Oblivion Ring on the stack) also happens. So there is no advantage gained by not pointing out the illegal shortcut. In both cases the same outcome can be achieved.

The problem is, when a player proposes a shortcut that is illegal, I was told we back up the entire process. So it would be backed up to the point before the oblivion ring was cast.

Originally posted by Cris Plyler:

The problem is, when a player proposes a shortcut that is illegal, I was told we back up the entire process. So it would be backed up to the point before the oblivion ring was cast.

I'm not sure why you were told that. I don't think there's document backup for it (at least, I haven't found it)

Consider another example: I say “Go” in my first main phase. You point out that I have a beginning-of-combat trigger. That wouldn't rewind the game to the first main phase just because I couldn't legally say “Go” as it is understood to mean.

Edited Toby Elliott (Dec. 19, 2013 04:02:10 PM)

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

Seen from another perspective, say she points out the error right away. The game would be backed up to the Oblivion Ring cast and resolved, just before the EtB triggers goes on the stack. So in this scenario the point at which Nina wants to respond (Oblivion Ring on the stack) also happens. So there is no advantage gained by not pointing out the illegal shortcut. In both cases the same outcome can be achieved.

If I'm not mistaken, rewinding to after Oblivion Ring resolves means the target for the ETB has to be chosen for the trigger to go on the stack. Responding to the trigger is too late as it will just result in the ability being countered instead of a valid target on the O Ring's controller's side needing to be chosen.

I see no problem with just saying, “hold on, before you choose a target, I want to respond to the O Ring spell.”

Edited Joe Reeves (Jan. 1, 2014 12:05:54 PM)