Welcome back to the Knowledge Pool. This week we have another Silver scenario, so L2s should wait until Friday evening to join in the fun.

Anna and Nancy are playing in a Modern Masters 2017 sealed event run at Competitive REL. Anna casts Magma Jet targeting Nancy. She scries one card to the bottom of her library and the other to the top. She then flips the top card of her library, revealing Thragtusk, puts it into her hand, and rolls the die on her Domri Rade from 4 to 5. Nancy then says “Whoa! Hold on a minute! I had stuff to do! Judge!”

Nancy explains away from the table that she wanted to cast Path to Exile on one of Anna's creatures before the Domri ability resolved because Anna had scried a card to the top.

What do you do?

It looks like out of order sequencing from Anna's part, so no penalties are issued here. The problem I have is what should we do. Easiest thing (and the one I am sticking with) would be to put Thragtusk on top of the library with Domri Rade's ability on the stack and tell Anna to slow things down and to give an opportunity for opponent to respond.

I'm not quite sure if this qualifies as OoOS.
And it also doesn't seem to be a HCE, as the card's identity is not "known to only one player in a hidden set of cards both before and after the error" (emphasis mine). Since Anna revealed the card to Nancy before moving it, Nancy knew its identity.

First I would confirm with both players if the card revealed from the top of Anna's library was indeed a Thragtusk. Then as a fix I would perform a simple backup by returning the Thragtusk from Anna's hand to the top of her library without revealing her whole hand to Nancy since the card and the previous location are known to both players and the HCE fix doesn't apply (see above). Domri Rade's loyality shrinks from 5 to 4 and Anna has priority.

Anna would receive a Warning for GPE-GRV.

Edited Benjamin Herz (March 30, 2017 06:51:19 AM)

I kind of feel like I'm walking into a trap, but here's my thoughts. One question I have for Benjamin above is what rule that you believe Anna broke that warrants a GPE-GRV warning.

After resolving Magma Jet, Anna still has priority and can activate Domri Rade. Anna OoOS'd resolution of Domri Rade by resolving first, then adjusting loyalty (you announce activation and pay the cost, then add the ability to the stack at sorcery speed, which allows for a response). This can also be considered proposing a shortcut (activate Domri, reveal and draw known card?) Nancy is allowed to accept that shortcut or reject it, which she's inherently doing by saying she wants to Path to Exile a creature in response. The game itself says ‘wait, players disagreed on a shortcut, go to the last known / agreed upon action’ (i.e. activation of Domri Rade's ability but before resolution of the ability)

(see bit.ly/MTGOoOS)

Originally posted by Understanding OoOS Sequencing:

An opponent can request that I perform the out-of-order actions in the correct order, so that he/she can respond at the appropriate point.

If Anna had not known the top card of her library at that point, this would be LEC, but she does from the scry. Anna's proposed shortcut took away the ability for Nancy to respond before knowing what the top card of the library was; this could lead to a strange situation where there is no definitive way to prove that Nancy wanted to respond (even though she makes the argument that she wanted to respond because a card was left on top for the scry) but Nancy has that information because of Anna's actions, which she cannot necessarily control.

Long(ish) story short, there does not appear to be a violation here. The card revealed was known to Anna. Nancy has the right to respond to the activation of Domri Rade.

Originally posted by Bernie Hoelschen:

I kind of feel like I'm walking into a trap, but here's my thoughts. One question I have for Benjamin above is what rule that you believe Anna broke that warrants a GPE-GRV warning.

For me personally, if it feels wrong and doesn't qualify for anything else in the IPG, it should be treated as a violation of the game rules. Unless it's something neglible/minor of course. Just resolving an ability or spell without giving the opponent -who at least in retrospective had probable cause to respond- time to respond, is something that shouldn't pass as simple OoOS without an infraction. So, I think, a Warning for GRV is appropriate.

Buuut I'm very eager to learn something here, since I'm still fairly new to the Judge world. :>

Originally posted by Benjamin Herz:

Just resolving an ability or spell without giving the opponent time to respond, is something that shouldn't pass as simple OoOS without an infraction.

I'm afraid 3 of the examples in the MTR disagree with you:

A player discards a card to pay for Masticore’s upkeep cost before untapping his or her land.

A player with two creatures being put into the graveyard due to state-based actions resolves the
leaves-the-battlefield triggered ability on one of them before putting the other creature in the
graveyard.

A player declares a blocker, animates a Treetop Village, and then attempts to block with that Treetop
Village.

along with this sentence:

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

Hi,

I have a side note to the original scenario, just to prevent a possibility of a misunderstanding in your future rulings. You probably know it, but just in case:

The way how Path to Exile works, in case Anna decides not to search her library for a basic land, she will not shuffle her library and Thragtusk will remain on top.

Of course, you will not disclose this rules knowledge to Anna or Nancy (unless they ask specifically).

First, I agree this appears to me to be a simple cause of Out-of-Order Sequencing.

a) all actions taken are legal if they were executed in the correct order.
b) the out-of-order sequence cannot result in a Anna prematurely gaining information which could reasonably affect decisions made later in that sequence. * (Question at the end about the construction of this line as written in the MTR)

I see no infraction.

Second, Nancy is absolutely allowed to ask to have the actions done in the correct sequence so she can respond.

As such we do a simple backup (perhaps with the HJs permission) to the point of the error. That is, we have Anna return Thragtusk to the top of the library. The ability is on the stack. Priority is Nancy's. Nancy may now cast Path.

All that said, I might have an issue with “being lied to”. That is I really question her claim that “because a card was scryed to the top” she intended to Path at her next available opportunity.

I think many Modern players would want to hold on to that path to see if anything else is cast that turn, etc. Ameliorating my concerns is that even if she initially intended to do it at the end of turn or what not, the fact that active player may have given strategic information out-of-order is something that Nancy is free to use to her advantage.

Which brings me to the question of the MTRs exact language. It reads: An out-of-order sequence must not result in a player prematurely gaining information which could reasonably affect decisions made later in that sequence.

It says “a player” and not the active player. So, it cannot result in Nancy gaining information? I believed she could as I mentioned above. And if Anna didn't want her too, she can acknowledge her stack and priority passes better, no?

Also, important to me is what does it become if there is premature information possible. Does it then become a GRV-GPE because it doesn't fit any other infraction? And if it is “Nancy” who gets the info and that's not allowed because she's a “player” (not just an opponent, how does it make sense to give her the penalty?)

Originally posted by Benjamin Herz:

For me personally, if it feels wrong and doesn't qualify for anything else in the IPG, it should be treated as a violation of the game rules.

I don't know that this is a good metric for assessing a GRV. There are plenty of things that may feel wrong (like being able to notice an opponent's missed trigger and wait until a strategically optimal time to point it out) or are in fact wrong but don't receive a specific penalty (like pile counting twice in a row). Just because we might not want a player to do something doesn't necessarily make it a GRV (and philosophically this would actually be closer to LEC were it not for the fact that it qualifies for OoOS).

Originally posted by Mark Mason:

Which brings me to the question of the MTRs exact language. It reads: An out-of-order sequence must not result in a player prematurely gaining information which could reasonably affect decisions made later in that sequence.

It says “a player” and not the active player. So, it cannot result in Nancy gaining information? I believed she could as I mentioned above. And if Anna didn't want her too, she can acknowledge her stack and priority passes better, no?

To me the relevant consideration here is that Anna has prematurely revealed information to Nancy. If Anna were concerned about her sequencing giving premature information to Nancy, she could always perform her action in the proper order. Nancy should not be penalized for her opponent not giving her a chance to respond.

Any proposal of a shortcut carries to potential to prematurely alert an opponent to what is about to happen. I think we'd want a slightly higher standard of “premature information” that wouldn't rule out most (if not all) instances of shortcutting.

Originally posted by Mark Mason:

All that said, I might have an issue with “being lied to”. That is I really question her claim that “because a card was scryed to the top” she intended to Path at her next available opportunity.

I think many Modern players would want to hold on to that path to see if anything else is cast that turn, etc. Ameliorating my concerns is that even if she initially intended to do it at the end of turn or what not, the fact that active player may have given strategic information out-of-order is something that Nancy is free to use to her advantage.

I agree with your suggested fix and penalty here, and I don't think your other points are as problematic as they seem. I would agree with this if she wanted to respond solely based on a scry to top, but wanting to respond to Domri Rade's abilitiy because it's directly following a “scry to top” seems resonable due to the huge chance of there being a creature on top now. We would of course investigate as we should in most situations, but this explanation seem resonable to me, so my main reason for investigating here is checking that she really didn't get any chance to respond.

Originally posted by Mark Mason:

Which brings me to the question of the MTRs exact language. It reads: An out-of-order sequence must not result in a player prematurely gaining information which could reasonably affect decisions made later in that sequence.

It says “a player” and not the active player. So, it cannot result in Nancy gaining information? I believed she could as I mentioned above. And if Anna didn't want her too, she can acknowledge her stack and priority passes better, no?

Also, important to me is what does it become if there is premature information possible. Does it then become a GRV-GPE because it doesn't fit any other infraction? And if it is “Nancy” who gets the info and that's not allowed because she's a “player” (not just an opponent, how does it make sense to give her the penalty?)

As far as I understand this part of the MTR, the point is that a player isn't allowed to ooos in a way that prematurely gives away information. This doesn't mean this should be a GRV by default just because the other player gets information, it fits more with all the “general Tournament Error-cautions” (with no infraction) since the relevant rule is in MTR, not CR. I read it more like “You can ooos if all the actions are legal and end in a legal game state, if the opponent doesn't want to respond to any of it, and if the change in ordering doesn't give any of you any extra information. If any of this doesn't apply, do it in the correct order now”.

In some of these cases, where a batch of actions can't be considered ooos, one can argue about it being a GRV, but not when players do something that is legal and even encouraged if they had checked that the opponent had no response. And especially not when the problem is that the error give the opponent an advantage. It feels more correct to view it as a wrongly attempted ooos with no penalty, than a GRV for resolving a spell before paying costs.

Originally posted by Marit Norderhaug Getz:

As far as I understand this part of the MTR, the point is that a player isn't allowed to ooos in a way that prematurely gives away information.

But every OoOS gives away information- it gives away what the player performing the OoOS is about to do. The line in the MTR that's being discussed really should say "An out-of-order sequence must not result in the player performing the Out-of-Order Sequence prematurely gaining information.“ Players are always allowed to give away information that they are entitled to themselves- we don't give people GRVs for saying ”Hey, I'm going to attack you next turn".

Edited Isaac King (April 1, 2017 08:41:55 PM)

Originally posted by Isaac King:

But every OoOS gives away information- it gives away what the player performing the OoOS is about to do. The line in the MTR that's being discussed really should say "An out-of-order sequence must not result in the player performing the Out-of-Order Sequence prematurely gaining information.“ Players are always allowed to give away information that they are entitled to themselves- we don't give people GRVs for saying ”Hey, I'm going to attack you next turn".

Often, ooos doesn't give out extra information. For instance, writing down energy gained before paying a cost doesn't give away any extra information at all, that's what I thought about when I wrote it that way. But I agree, if you discard before paying a cost, you will legally give away extra information. So you're correct, the “player” here has to mean the player performing the ooos, and I guess the whole sentence in the MTR actually makes this clear by specifying “An out-of-order sequence must not result in a player prematurely gaining information which could reasonably affect decisions made later in that sequence”, since, technically, the opponent don't make any decisions as part of the sequence.

But, yeah, my point with the explanation was just the same as yours, that this shouldn't result in any GRVs anyway - it should just result in them having to do the correct sequencing. Your point just makes this even more logical, as it makes sense that this is completely allowed as ooos if there are no response.

Thanks to everyone who participated in this week's discussion.

Anna has committed Game Play Error - Game Rules Violation and will be issued a Warning. We will rewind the game state to the point of the error by having her replace the Thragtusk from her hand back onto the top of her deck. Then Nancy will receive priority and have the opportunity to cast Path to Exile.

Due to the course of this week's discussion, we would like to discuss Out of Order Sequencing in a bit more detail. Out of Order Sequencing applies to “a block of actions that, while technically in an incorrect order, arrive at a legal and clearly understood game state.” A good example of OOS is using Domri Rade's second ability, declaring a fight between two creatures that will both die as a result, then moving your creature to the graveyard before changing the loyalty on Domri. Technically, the loyalty change should happen first, but everything is clear to each player, and we end up in the right place.

In our situation, however, Anna reveals a card from her library and moves it into her hand without indicating any reason for doing so until after the action is already completed. It is only when changing the loyalty on Domri that Nancy is given the chance to figure out what just happened. By skipping the declaration of Domri's ability, Anna has failed to create a “clearly understood game state.” As such, OOS cannot apply.

Finally, we want to talk about the fix. The GRV is assigned for failing to announce the loyalty ability activation on Domri. So that is the point to which the game is returned. Anna has already activated Domri's +1 and has also decided not to hold priority. The Thragtusk needs to be put back on top of the library, and it will not be shuffled away. This is because the Thragtusk's identity is not random due to Anna's preceding scry and became legally known to Nancy during the rushed resolution of Domri's ability.

Hello,

While I do not argue against the reasonning of the solution, the part about “clearly understood game state once they are complete”.
I could not prevent myself thinking that the part “once they are complete” has been omited in the official answer and conviniently changes the interpretation of this scenario.

Should we apply exactly the IPG, the game state is very crystal clear once all the actions are performed. The fallacious point for me being that you are implying that changing the die on domri to a +1 position cannot be perceived as an OoOS, so is it GRV when a player reveals then turns his die? I believe that is textbook OoOS

If you want to be nitpicky, I imagine you can argue and present the argument of “a player prematurely gaining information which could reasonably affect decisions made later in that sequence” if you consider that can also apply to the opponent, but the justification in the answer does not sound right.

I find this scenario a bit strange. The issue here is not really failing to announce but truly the issue is not letting the opponent respond. The scenario can easily be announcing turning the die but going to fast and don't let Nancy respond and the scenario, at least I feel is the same than the one presented here. It feels very strange to give a GRV for “failling to announce”.

I have issue with making this a GRV.

While we are watching games, and notice GRV we give players moment for realisation, then we step in and do our job. If we take out Path to Exile part from that scenario I would never step in and issue GRV since it's fulfil all OOoS check-boxes for me. Adding back then Path part is no changer for me.

We have batch of actions and NAP want to act in response to one of those. I can find multiple of that kind scenarios (Tap Gideon to crew Vehicle then move counter +1; Put Angel Token for Geist of St. Traft and then tap all of them for attack)

To back up my thinking with MTR, it states as follow:

"block of actions that, while technically in an incorrect order, arrive at a legal and clearly understood game state once they are complete."

Once all of those actions are complete, it's clear that player was using +1 ability of his planeswalker.