This is a situation we discussed at our monthly judgemeeting. As I can see how there can be a different set of ideas regarding the philosophy on this, I decided to outsource this question.




Achmed controls 3 2/2 attacking Grizzly Bears.
Nunu controls a Forest, 2 2/2 Grizzly Bears and a Horned Troll.

After Achmed declared his attackers, Nunu declares each of his creatures blocking one of Achmed's creatures.
Achmed now asks “Damage?”
Nunu declares: “Yes, so this Bear dies (points at the first 2 bears, puts his own to the graveyard), these Bears die (points at the 2nd pair of bears, puts his own to the graveyard) and here, I'll regenerate my Horned Troll (and now he taps a Forest).

Achmed doesn't agree with this. He says ”Since we already started to resolve combat damage, it is too late for you to Regenerate your Horned Troll.“ ”But I always do it this way." states Nunu.

As they can't come to a conclusion, they call a judge for help.


The judge believes this is a case of Out-of-order-sequencing so rules that Nunu can still regenerate his Horned Troll. The philosophy here is similar to the example-by-the-book of multiple attackers and a Treetop Village.



Now we (at the meeting) had another scenario in mind:
From Judge Blogs Rhein Main Judges “December”




Achmed controls a 3/3 Fleecmane Lion thanks to Domestication (enchanting that Fleecemane Lion).
He(A) passes his turn “Go!”.
Nunu now goes “end of turn, I Selesnya Charm your Fleecemane Lion, +2/+2.”
Achmed knows about the interviening if-clause on Domestication so simply lets Selesnya Charm resolve.
As Nunu wants ‘his’ Fleecemane Lion back because its too big now, the players can't agree so call for a judge.

The problem is Achmed says Nunu cast his Selesnya Charm in the end step. Nunu intended to cast his spell ‘in response to the Domestication trigger’.
The thing is: there is no Domestication trigger, unless the power of the enchanted creature is already sufficiently high to make it trigger.


The players agreed to leave the mainphase. (A: Go, N: EoT,..) Casting Selesnya Charm was totally legal at end of turn, just not good. We will not let Nunu undo his play ‘just’ because it didn't achieve what he intended.


The situations are relatively close. We couldn't agree whether the OooS-ruling in the Regeneration-scenario is correct or not, so I think it's worth to put the question open for discussion.

It's Comp REL. The players aren't there to learn some new rules or anything. They're there in the hope of winning big cash prizes.

For the 1st case, since both players agreed to move on the damage step, it is clearly too late for anyone to activate abilities like Regeneration. No communication errors has been done so we have no reason to allow someone to regenerate because he taught it worked that way.

For the second case, since it's an if intervening clause, there was never a trigger to respond to. In this case, one player's knowledge of the rules wasn't sufficient and the IPG, especially at Comp REL, doesn't allow judges to modify the game state so it would “represent what one player wants it to be like”.

I concur with both bolded rulings. Out of order sequencing allows a player to make or verbalize a “block” of actions “out of order” when it is convenient to do so. The player is still required to understand the correct order and may be asked to take those actions in the correct order (in case an opponent wishes to interrupt partway through, for example). “End of turn, Selesnya Charm” is only one action. While it's a feel-bad situation, the fact is that the player misplayed and it isn't our place to fix that. N's intent to cast his spell “in response to the trigger” only reinforces the fact that this is a misplay rather than part of an out-of-order sequence.

Edit: I'll talk about the first situation since Samuel disagrees with me. I suspect this is a legal out of order sequence. This is a single block of actions (although it spans two steps of the turn), N didn't gain any information from his opponent by taking these actions out of order, and if A wishes to respond to any part of N's sequence we can back up to allow him to do so at the appropriate time. Note that of course I would rule differently if it was A with the regenerate creature, as in that case he is gaining information that N has no effects before damage, but here the only actions that have been taken are “N: Regenerate, Pass to Combat Damage, resolve combat damage”.

Edited Dan Collins (April 12, 2014 10:09:03 PM)

> The philosophy here is similar to the example-by-the-book of multiple attackers and a Treetop Village.

The textbook example is with blockers.
I don't believe attack, attack, activate treetop and attack is legal OOOS
(as per http://www.reddit.com/r/mtgjudge/comments/1wdrv2/survey_about_shortcuts/cf20phy)

Originally posted by Simon Freiberg:

> The philosophy here is similar to the example-by-the-book of multiple attackers and a Treetop Village.

The textbook example is with blockers.

It would have been legal for him to regenerate in the Declare Blockers step, then let damage happen. (Just like with the blockers, it's legal to animate during the declare attackers step and block).

The situation in the Reddit post was with attackers, where it wasn't apparently legal to activate in the beginning of combat step because the Tournament Shortcut to get them there progressed the game too far.

If I took the regeneration call, I would not have called it OoOS before, but I find the argument compelling (as long as there was no fishing for reactions, and if the opponent wants to do something, we do things in the correct order so they can intervene)

On 12/04/2014 22:59, Philip Böhm wrote:
>
> This is a situation we discussed at our monthly judgemeeting. As I can
> see how there can be a different set of ideas regarding the philosophy
> on this, I decided to outsource this question.
>
>
>
> /
> Achmed controls 3 2/2 attacking Grizzly Bears.
> Nunu controls a Forest, 2 2/2 Grizzly Bears and a Horned Troll.
>
> After Achmed declared his attackers, Nunu declares each of his
> creatures blocking one of Achmed's creatures.
> Achmed now asks “Damage?”
> Nunu declares: “Yes, so this Bear dies (points at the first 2 bears,
> puts his own to the graveyard), these Bears die (points at the 2nd
> pair of bears, puts his own to the graveyard) and here, I'll
> regenerate my Horned Troll (and now he taps a Forest).
>
> Achmed doesn't agree with this. He says ”Since we already started to
> resolve combat damage, it is too late for you to Regenerate your
> Horned Troll.“ ”But I always do it this way." states Nunu./
>
> As they can't come to a conclusion, they call a judge for help.
>
>
> *The judge believes this is a case of Out-of-order-sequencing so rules
> that Nunu can still regenerate his Horned Troll. The philosophy here
> is similar to the example-by-the-book of multiple attackers and a
> Treetop Village.*
>
>
>
> Now we (at the meeting) had another scenario in mind:
> From Judge Blogs Rhein Main Judges “December”
> <http://blogs.magicjudges.org/rheinmain/2013/12/19/rhein-main-judges-december/>
>
>
>
>
> /Achmed controls a 3/3 Fleecmane Lion thanks to Domestication
> (enchanting that Fleecemane Lion).
> He(A) passes his turn “Go!”.
> Nunu now goes “end of turn, I Selesnya Charm your Fleecemane Lion, +2/+2.”
> Achmed knows about the interviening if-clause on Domestication so
> simply lets Selesnya Charm resolve.
> As Nunu wants ‘his’ Fleecemane Lion back because its too big now, the
> players can't agree so call for a judge.
>
> The problem is Achmed says Nunu cast his Selesnya Charm in the end
> step. Nunu intended to cast his spell ‘in response to the
> Domestication trigger’.
> The thing is: there is no Domestication trigger, unless the power of
> the enchanted creature is already sufficiently high to make it trigger.
> /
>
> *The players agreed to leave the mainphase. (A: Go, N: EoT,..) Casting
> Selesnya Charm was totally legal at end of turn, just not good. We
> will not let Nunu undo his play ‘just’ because it didn't achieve what
> he intended.
> *
>
> The situations are relatively close. We couldn't agree whether the
> OooS-ruling in the Regeneration-scenario is correct or not, so I think
> it's worth to put the question open for discussion.
>
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or
> view and respond to this message on the web at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/58963/
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/9539/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/9539/?onsite=yes
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit
>
Are these rulings correct at competitive rel? I am more than happy at
regular but a competitive rel?

Graham Theobalds

Originally posted by Graham Theobalds:

Are these rulings correct at competitive rel? I am more than happy at
regular but a competitive rel?

Well, the point of this thread is to discuss those situations. :)

Scenarios involving out-of-order sequencing (OoOS) will often require a bit of personal judgment. However, OoOS is a rigidly defined part of the documents. We as judges should still try to be as consistent as possible in these sorts of situations.

For my part, I agree that the first example (regeneration) is simply OOoS. It meets all the criteria (block of actions taken an illegal order, but still ends at a clearly defined game state), and from the initial description it doesn't seem like Nunu is gaining information – especially since Achmed already passed priority! Even though Nunu doesn't “know” that his actions fall under OOoS, that doesn't preclude him from the protections of this policy.

I think the second situation is very interesting.

To stir the pot a little, suppose instead that my friend Jake and I are playing Standard. Jake attacks me with a Lifebane Zombie. I say "animate my Mutavault and block!" Jake calls for a judge. Now what? (My Mutavault can't actually block – even though it's colorless, it's not an artifact creature.)

I disagree with allowing OoOS, however, given the number of judges who would allow it, I'm looking forward to learning why I'm wrong. ;)

From the MTR
“Nor may players use out-of-order sequencing to try to retroactively take an action they missed at the appropriate time.”

By moving to damage, NAP has missed the appropriate time to activate regenerate. Binning some of the creatures just reinforces this.

What am I missing here?

Adam, my interpretation of that clause is to prevent players from using this policy as a trick during a tournament. For example, say a player played a Wrath of God, then realized she could have sacrificed Sakura Tribe Elder to find a basic land. She cannot now decide to “create a block of actions” trying to use OoOS to fix her mistake. On the other hand, if she, in one motion, cast Wrath, put all her creatures in her graveyard, and says she sacrificed the elder, this would be fine.

Originally posted by Adam Zakreski:

By moving to damage, NAP has missed the appropriate time to activate regenerate. Binning some of the creatures just reinforces this.

What am I missing here?

Considering the example from the MTR: Couldn't that same logic argue that by moving to declare blockers you've missed the appropriate time to activate your Tree-Top Village?

The actions were legal if done in the correct order and doesn't result in decision-altering information.

What's the essential difference? Is there a more specific definition of “block of actions” we should be applying here?

Originally posted by Adam Zakreski:

By moving to damage, NAP has missed the appropriate time to activate regenerate.

The assumption here is that the player didnt forget to regenerate the creature, but instead resolved the combat pairs 1by1 instead of “all at once”. He was technically incorrect, but arrived at a clear legal gamestate.

If a player resolves a Rampant Growth by putting the Rampant Growth to graveyard first, then searching the library, he didn't “miss” to search for a land because he was in a technically wrong order. (Yes, this is an extreme example)

Originally posted by Philip Böhm:

The assumption here is that the player didn't forget to regenerate the creature

I think that's where I'm getting the disconnect. Nothing in the scenario would lead me to believe that he remembered and simply did it incorrectly. It seems far more likely to me that he went to resolve combat, picked up the Troll and thought, “Oh right, this guy has regenerate!” If I were investigating this, and I would, he'd be hard pressed to convince me that that's not what happened.

Going back and re-reading it, I can see how, “But I always do it this way,” could be interpreted as ignorance of the rules (or maybe superior knowledge of OOOS?), but not ignorance of the regeneration.

In that case, it's up to your judgment, as Paul pointed out above. Obviously it's possible that a player was gaming the system, but now you're entering the murky waters of investigations and cheating.

I have to say that I am in agreement with Adam on the ruling for scenario 1. AP clearly asked if they could move to the damage step, and when NAP agreed they moved past the ability to regenerate. This might result in a feel bad for NAP, but it's Comp REL and as judges we need to uphold the rules as written. We should be sure to take a minute to explain how regeneration works. It's very possible that the player though that regeneration worked as the creature was dying (like it did back in 1994). I would liken this to having a player try to respond to ‘damage on the stack’. It's simply not how the game is played and we need to take this and turn it into a learning experience for the player.

For Scenario 2 I agree with the consensus that NAP misunderstood the card interaction. its very subtle, and will result in a feel bad, but along the same thought, it's Comp REL, and its the players responsibility to know how the cards work.

Originally posted by Adam Zakreski:

I think that's where I'm getting the disconnect. Nothing in the scenario would lead me to believe that he remembered and simply did it incorrectly. It seems far more likely to me that he went to resolve combat, picked up the Troll and thought, “Oh right, this guy has regenerate!” If I were investigating this, and I would, he'd be hard pressed to convince me that that's not what happened.

Going back and re-reading it, I can see how, “But I always do it this way,” could be interpreted as ignorance of the rules (or maybe superior knowledge of OOOS?), but not ignorance of the regeneration.

So a player who puts his Savage Surge in the graveyard before untapping the targeted creature is either ignorant of the rules or having superior knowledge of OoOS?

In my opinion in both cases it's more likely the third possibility of players playing the game in a natural flow, not a perfect/robotic flow.

Simon Freiberg
> The philosophy here is similar to the example-by-the-book of multiple attackers and a Treetop Village.

The textbook example is with blockers.
I don't believe attack, attack, activate treetop and attack is legal OOOS
(as per http://www.reddit.com/r/mtgjudge/comments/1wdrv2/survey_about_shortcuts/cf20phy)

After reading there this:

As to “oh look, I can try to cheese them out of being able to attack”. Just no. You don't get to pull the turn ahead. AP has tried to take an action at a time they thought they could (even though they couldn't) and you don't get to decide to resequence that to your advantage.

That kinda makes me wonder about the second scenario. If Nunu thought he was casting the Selesnya Charm in response to a trigger on the stack, but there was no such trigger, isn't that similar (so the Charm would be ruled not cast?)

Edited Toby Hazes (April 14, 2014 12:07:24 PM)