Please keep the forum protocol in mind when posting.

Competitive REL » Post: Stubborn Denial vs halfway cast spell

Stubborn Denial vs halfway cast spell

Oct. 23, 2014 07:21:29 AM

Toby Hazes
Judge (Level 2 (Judge Academy))

BeNeLux

Stubborn Denial vs halfway cast spell

Augustus has 3 creatures of varying size, Nero has 1. Game 3, 5 minutes left on the clock. Augustus taps his last 2 lands, shows a Savage Punch and says “I'll fight your creature with…” before thinking for a moment. Nero, wanting to save time, quickly says "Stubborn Denial it“ while Augustus is thinking. Augustus says ”No wait I actually don't want to cast this."

What do you do?

Oct. 23, 2014 07:36:26 AM

Bartłomiej Wieszok
Judge (Level 2 (International Judge Program)), Tournament Organizer

Europe - Central

Stubborn Denial vs halfway cast spell

Augustus hasn't chose targets yet, so Nero tried to cast his counterspell without priority. For me, this is just situation when we back up that stubborn denial and allow Augustus to properly chose targets for his spell.

Oct. 23, 2014 07:46:27 AM

Christian Genz
Judge (Level 2 (UK Magic Officials)), Scorekeeper

United Kingdom, Ireland, and South Africa

Stubborn Denial vs halfway cast spell

Ant then? We can not force him to pay mana, so if he does not want to pay then we have to rewind to before actually casting the Savage Punch…

Oct. 23, 2014 09:09:07 AM

Gareth Pye
Judge (Level 2 (Oceanic Judge Association))

Ringwood, Australia

Stubborn Denial vs halfway cast spell

I'm happy to encourage sensible methods of making the game go faster. With
the simple game state mentioned and the fact that he had tapped his land I
don't see a reason to punish Nero for wanting to skip the slow process of
picking a target when it is completely irrelevant. Spell was cast targeting
{data that can be defined if Augustus has a way around the counter} and has
a counter targeting it, continue.

And I'd be happy to make that ruling regardless of when it is in the round.

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Christian Genz <
forum-13493-8071@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

> Ant then? We can not force him to pay mana, so if he does not want to pay
> then we have to rewind to before actually casting the Savage Punch…
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> 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/86794/
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/13493/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/13493/?onsite=yes
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/
>




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”

Oct. 23, 2014 09:50:34 AM

Robert Hinrichsen
Judge (Level 3 (Judge Foundry))

Canada - Eastern Provinces

Stubborn Denial vs halfway cast spell

Originally posted by Christian Genz:

Ant then? We can not force him to pay mana, so if he does not want to pay then we have to rewind to before actually casting the Savage Punch…

Is this actually the case? I am aware that we cannot force a player to activate mana abilities, but according to the initial description he tapped his lands first, indicating that the mana was already in his mana pool before the spellcasting process had begun. If we rewind to the point of choosing targets for the Savage Punch in 601.2c, then when the time comes to pay costs in 601.2g the player must pay (as he has sufficient mana to do so).

Oct. 23, 2014 08:07:39 PM

Christian Fagerheim
Judge (Uncertified)

Europe - North

Stubborn Denial vs halfway cast spell

First step of casting a spell is announcing it and placing it on the stack, and in the above scenario he did quite a bit more than that. Regardless, seeing as this is Comp REL, I'd rule that he has indeed placed the spell on the stack, and thus shown intent to cast it. There is no opening in the rules to “take back”, thus even if Nero did jump the clock a bit here the end result would be the same.
Trying to game the opponent by removing things from the stack is not OK in my book, at least not as long as there are no legal methods for doing this in the rules (or cards).

Also, re forcing to activate mana abilities. As far as I can recall, it's only illegal to cast if you do not have the required mana available. In other words, the rules requires the players to activate mana abilities, to pay for the spells/abilities they've announced.

Edited Christian Fagerheim (Oct. 23, 2014 08:09:03 PM)

Oct. 24, 2014 12:00:01 AM

Darcy Alemany
Judge (Uncertified), Scorekeeper

None

Stubborn Denial vs halfway cast spell

What would we do here is Nero hadn't tried to cast a spell? I would immediately allow Augustus to rewind his spell cast if he started casting it but hasn't named targets yet.

The non-active player cannot advance the game state by “rushing” through the active player's actions, this philosophy is supported in multiple parts of the IPG and MTR (most notably in GPE - MT). In this case, Nero is rushing through Augustus' spell cast, and we shouldn't rule differently because he did so.

Oct. 24, 2014 05:45:36 AM

Petr Hudeček
Judge (Uncertified)

Europe - Central

Stubborn Denial vs halfway cast spell

While the player is still thinking about target, we allow him to take back the casting. His opponent attempted to cast a counterspell, but we're still not even sure that the spell will actually be cast.

Put the counterspell back in the opponent's hand and allow the active player to continue thinking about the target, or perhaps to take back the spell back into his hand.

I suppose it might be technically a GRV for the opponent, but I wouldn't give it.

Oct. 24, 2014 06:11:53 AM

Scott Marshall
Forum Moderator
Judge (Level 4 (Judge Foundry)), Hall of Fame

USA - Southwest

Stubborn Denial vs halfway cast spell

My philosophy on actions you've started but not completed has long been “If you had an opportunity to learn something from your opponent's reaction, you're committed to that action.”

In this example, I'd talk to both players about the time between tapping & announcing, and reacting; if I felt that Nero was interrupting Augustus' thought process before Augustus was truly committed to it, I might side with Augustus.

However, in situations like this, it usually goes in Nero's favor; Augustus not only gave Nero plenty of time to react, and had a chance to read that reaction - but Nero did react and Augustus now has info he wasn't entitled to. At Comp REL, think, THEN act.

I suspect you'll find some variance in this - it's a scenario that benefits greatly from having actually been there… ;)

d:^D

Oct. 24, 2014 07:22:54 AM

Marc DeArmond
Judge (Level 2 (Judge Academy))

USA - Pacific Northwest

Stubborn Denial vs halfway cast spell

I just want to separate out the two competing interests here. We have an AP that hasn't completed casting a spell and a NAP that is going to counter that spell regardless of targets.

Looking at AP who hasn't completed casting a spell. Technically speaking, a spell should be announced, targets declared, then mana paid before the NAP has any chance to respond. I've seen, fairly often moves like “I cast brainsto– wait, no, don't want to do that” realizing that an opponent has a Spirit of the Labyrinth. Clearly there is some point at which you can start casting a spell and stop due to some reason present on the board state. If someone places a spell face up on the board and then looks to tap their mana and realizes they don't, they will self correct and that is sufficient to avoid an GRV.

Looking at the NAP perspective, I can totally see what he's doing here. Your opponent says he's casting a spell and you either think you already know what he'll target or you don't care because you're going to counter it anyway. Technically, you know you're supposed to wait until they're done but the following resolution doesn't really matter since regardless of targets or what mana he taps, you're going to counter it.

AP's argument is that he was fast played into doing something he “didn't want to do”. NAP's argument is he was responding once he had sufficient information to know his response.

I think that the only real question I'd want to ask is to ask AP “Why don't you want to cast that now?” and need a really good answer before I let him not cast the spell. The problem here is that any really good answer would have probably led to NAP not wanting to counter the spell in the first place. Which means that I'm breaking for Nero pretty much every time.

Edited Marc DeArmond (Oct. 24, 2014 07:24:18 AM)

Oct. 24, 2014 09:48:23 AM

Adam Zakreski
Judge (Uncertified)

Canada - Western Provinces

Stubborn Denial vs halfway cast spell

You can always bolster the position of holding A to his actions by taking him aside and having a conversation…

“So you were going to cast Savage Punch?”
“Yes.”
“And now you don't want to?”
“No.”
“Why?”

Now he has two options…
“Well… he has a counterspell.”
“Okay, can you see how I'd have a problem with letting you take the spell back now?”

…or lie.
*insert other conversation here*

Oct. 26, 2014 05:11:38 AM

Emilien Wild
Forum Moderator
Judge (Level 3 (International Judge Program))

BeNeLux

Stubborn Denial vs halfway cast spell

Originally posted by Robert Hinrichsen:

Is this actually the case? I am aware that we cannot force a player to activate mana abilities, but according to the initial description he tapped his lands first, indicating that the mana was already in his mana pool before the spellcasting process had begun.
Please do not treat announcing spells and taping lands or taping lands and announcing spells differently. This is not a distinction we want to create, we did in the very far past and it led to really ugly situations.

If you decide to back up a spell (I would not, for the reasons given by many here), please back up the whole block of actions that involved tapping the lands for mana.

Edited Emilien Wild (Oct. 27, 2014 04:46:37 AM)

Oct. 26, 2014 08:38:54 PM

Jasper König
Judge (Uncertified)

German-speaking countries

Stubborn Denial vs halfway cast spell

Originally posted by Christian Genz:

Ant then? We can not force him to pay mana, so if he does not want to pay then we have to rewind to before actually casting the Savage Punch…

The spell is on the stack right now. If the player intentionally refuses to pay the cost that are connected to the spell, he's clearly doing something illegal. Just because there are some sentences in the Comprehensive Rules on how to handle illegal actions doesn't make them legal in any way.

Oct. 26, 2014 09:16:38 PM

Christian Genz
Judge (Level 2 (UK Magic Officials)), Scorekeeper

United Kingdom, Ireland, and South Africa

Stubborn Denial vs halfway cast spell

Jasper, I'd like to disagree, before anouncing targets a spell can never be on the stack (see 601.2h)…
And I never said that what he did was legal… but comp.rules 601.2 tells us exactly what to do when something illegal happens during casting a spell: “…the game returns to the moment before that spell started to be cast”. If the player did intentionally wait to announce targets to sneak some information from his opponent we are into a more serious infraction though.

Edited Christian Genz (Oct. 26, 2014 09:17:35 PM)

Oct. 26, 2014 09:25:01 PM

Jasper König
Judge (Uncertified)

German-speaking countries

Stubborn Denial vs halfway cast spell

“601.2a The player announces that he or she is casting the spell. That card (or that copy of a card)
moves from where it is to the stack.” That's the first thing that happens when casting a spell.

The spell is on the stack, because it was announced. This is what the Comp Rules say. 601.2h tells us when a spell is considered being cast. I'm not saying that holding the players to the exact letters of the Comp Rules is necessarily a good idea in a case of poor communication, out-of-order-sequencing, etc., I just wanted to point out that if a player intentionally wants to do something illegal, we might want to have a stern talk with the player.

Edited Jasper König (Oct. 26, 2014 09:35:04 PM)