Player A and Player B are playing a team event. Player A makes a play, and Player B immediately says “no, do this instead”. Does this count as “information gained” by Player A, thus precluding a takeback? Or do we consider the team as a single entity and evaluate the takeback as though Player A had inturrepted themselves?

Looking for an Official answer.

The new policy re: takebacks isn't really new policy, it's just newly codified in policy; it's what many senior judges (e.g., GP and Pro Tour Head Judges) already did. The change isn't how we want to handle takebacks, it's putting it in writing that we can lean on when players question our sanity. :)

And, it doesn't apply to teams. Each player is responsible for their game, and thus their “takebacks”.

In your example, Isaac, the crux of the question is really “what do the opponents do?”

If they don't want A to change based on what B said, we can point to policy and say “you gained information before you could change your action, so we can't allow a takeback.”

If the opponents don't care, we won't get involved.

d:^D

Thanks for your response Scott. So to clarify, the first option I presented is the Officially correct one, where information gained from a teammate prevents the takeback from being allowed by a judge?

Well, as I said, it's gonna be up to the opponents - if they object to a takeback inspired by information gained - even when it's gained from a teammate - then judges can't enforce the takeback. So in the case where opponents say “no”, then yes, you are correct.

If the opponents don't care, then neither do we.

And to further clarify - you asked if we treat the team as a single entity; no, we do not. Teams should learn to cooperate before they commit to an action. :)

d:^D