Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

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?

No. Once you've started resolving Savage Surge there's no room for the opponent to respond respond, no room for additional information to be gained, and no out of order sequence that can result in a different outcome.

I have two fundamental problems with the original scenario:

1) If AP decides now he wants to respond we need to rewind to before damage. In the proposed scenario it's trivial, however it isn't difficult to imagine a situation where this becomes a pain in the rear. “No, that guy had 3 counters not 2! That enchantment was on the other guy. Hey, he was tapped.” However, search as I may, pain in the rear doesn't show up anywhere in the MTR, so I can concede this point.

2) It rewards players who lie to us and punishes those who tell the truth. “Oh yes Judge, I was totally doing this as a block of actions,” vs. “Actually, as I was putting it in the graveyard I remembered it had regenerate.”

Originally posted by Adam Zakreski:

No. Once you've started resolving Savage Surge there's no room for the opponent to respond respond, no room for additional information to be gained, and no out of order sequence that can result in a different outcome.

Which of the latter two do you believe are the problem in this case?
(The first one differs so my example was bad, the Treetop Village/declare blockers example of a few posts back is a better comparison, what are your thoughts on that?)

Originally posted by Adam Zakreski:

I have two fundamental problems with the original scenario:

1) If AP decides now he wants to respond we need to rewind to before damage. In the proposed scenario it's trivial, however it isn't difficult to imagine a situation where this becomes a pain in the rear. “No, that guy had 3 counters not 2! That enchantment was on the other guy. Hey, he was tapped.” However, search as I may, pain in the rear doesn't show up anywhere in the MTR, so I can concede this point.

I guess my ruling depends on whether Nunu can anticipate those pains. The ones you name are unexpected results, by-product pains that only become apparent after the matter, so they won't affect my decision.
But if Nunu has just cast a Brainstorm and one of his bears is actually Darksteel Colossus that would die to wither and he shuffles it in his library before declaring to regenerate at which point Achmed calls a judge saying he would actually like to cast a Fog in response to the regenerate… then I wouldn't rule OoOS because Nunu did too much.

Originally posted by Adam Zakreski:

2) It rewards players who lie to us and punishes those who tell the truth. “Oh yes Judge, I was totally doing this as a block of actions,” vs. “Actually, as I was putting it in the graveyard I remembered it had regenerate.”

That first answer seem more like the question was worded wrong to detect intent =)

EDIT: Also, there are many cases where telling the truth is punished (For example, calling a judge on yourself when you notice one of your cards is still exiled and you're playing with a 39 or 59 card deck). We have Cheating for those who lie. So this is not a valid sentiment.

Edited Toby Hazes (April 15, 2014 02:50:49 AM)

Originally posted by Philip Böhm:




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.

From this information and this information alone (keep in mind, rulings may differ as being present during the call is important), when Nunu declares “Yes”, he's not necessarily wanting to go do damage per se, his intent is clear that he is showing what would happen with the creatures and says he will regenerate the Horned Troll.

Keep in mind that it is the intent of the player. There are plenty of people that go “K, block here take damage, block here take damage, block here and regenerate, etc”.

My question to you all is…how would this situation change your ruling if he didn't say “Yes”, but said everything else after that? (I'm bolding it out below).

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).

In my LGS, this situation happens quite often. Regeneration cost are usually paid as the combat damage is dealt.
If I were called to this table, I would rule that it is an OoOS.

If Achmed (the AP) wants to respond to the activation of Horned Troll's regeneration, he may do so with the ability still on the stack.

MTR 4.3 Out-of-Order Sequencing
…
All actions taken must be legal if they were executed in the correct order, and any opponent can ask the player to do the actions in the correct sequence so that he or she can respond at the appropriate time (at which point players will not be held to any still-pending actions)
…

Originally posted by Maykel .:

In my LGS, this situation happens quite often. Regeneration cost are usually paid as the combat damage is dealt.

I do hope this isn't the case if it's the attacker with the regenerator?

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

Also, there are many cases where telling the truth is punished (For example, calling a judge on yourself when you notice one of your cards is still exiled and you're playing with a 39 or 59 card deck). We have Cheating for those who lie. So this is not a valid sentiment.

I disagree. If we could polygraph each player and know for sure if they are lying or telling the truth then I would agree. The existence of a cheating penalty does not mean we will always catch them. In the original example, unless the player cracks for some reason, it's very unlikely you're going to DQ for cheating.

When I'm investigating, I make the outcomes clear to the player. For example, if you tell the truth, you're probably going to get a game loss. If you lie to me, you're going to get a game loss, and a disqualification. Take the reward for gambling right out of the equation from the start.

In this situation, they have a very clear reward for lying and a very low risk of getting caught.

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

I do hope this isn't the case if it's the attacker with the regenerator?

This brings up another complication… say two turns later the situation is reversed.

AP: Damage?
NAP: Yup.
AP: Okay I'll regenerate my guy.
NAP: JUDGE!
…
AP: What do you mean I can't regenerate after combat damage, you just told him he could!!!

If that problem arises, it's likely because of a faulty or incomplete explanation the first time. A more complete explanation that straightens out the sequence for the players to see will be less likely to lead to that in the first place, and at the very least will make the difference clear upon walking through the second situation.

Edited Callum Milne (April 15, 2014 02:30:45 PM)

Originally posted by Adam Zakreski:

I disagree. If we could polygraph each player and know for sure if they are lying or telling the truth then I would agree. The existence of a cheating penalty does not mean we will always catch them. In the original example, unless the player cracks for some reason, it's very unlikely you're going to DQ for cheating.

When I'm investigating, I make the outcomes clear to the player. For example, if you tell the truth, you're probably going to get a game loss. If you lie to me, you're going to get a game loss, and a disqualification. Take the reward for gambling right out of the equation from the start.

In this situation, they have a very clear reward for lying and a very low risk of getting caught.

Isn't the same true for any Cheating that looks like a Game Rule Violation or Failure to Maintain Game State? No game losses involved.

Originally posted by Adam Zakreski:

This brings up another complication… say two turns later the situation is reversed.

AP: Damage?
NAP: Yup.
AP: Okay I'll regenerate my guy.
NAP: JUDGE!
…
AP: What do you mean I can't regenerate after combat damage, you just told him he could!!!

Maybe this is a nice one for Personal Tutor =)
But the above scenario clearly illustrates information being gained. ‘Yup’ from one player followed by a late regenerate from the other guy.
In the original scenario the yup and late regenerate come from the same person, which is why it's easily OoOS and matters as little as first putting the spell in the graveyard and then untapping in the Savage Surge example.

I also agree with Callum Milne's take on it. So far both concerns you've raised seem to be caused more by faulty Judgespeak than anything inherent to the case.

Althougt I do understand that OoOS can be considered for the regeneration issue, the switch from declare blockers to damage step with the confirmation from both players gives me a headache. I assume Achmed wants a clear game status and do things in the right order, maybe he was even considering to take a game action in response to the regeneration ability.
Which leads me to a question: assuming (as a judge) I do rule it's an OoOS and the regeneration ability goes on the stack, if Achmed wants to respond to the trigger: is a rewind a appropriate option so the game state is more clear?

Of course. Maybe it helps to see it not only as OoOS but also as a Tournament Shortcut.
By saying either “regenerate this guy and those die” or “those guys die and regenerate this” Nunu is essentially proposing a shortcut for both players to pass priority after the regenerate activation until damage is dealt.
We rewind this just as we would rewind Nunu shortcutting activating Looming Shade 3x and Achmed saying “I would like to respond to the first activation.”