Welcome to the Knowledge Pool! We're back with a Silver scenario this week. That means we would like L2+ judges to restrain themselves until Saturday.

Here are your blog link and scenario:

Aldis and Natalie are playing a Battle for Zendikar sealed PPTQ. Natalie controls a Veteran Warleader and two 1/1 Kor Ally tokens. Aldis asks Natalie how big the Warleader is. She responds, “It's a 3/3.”

Aldis attacks with his Deathless Behemoth. Natalie doesn't block. After combat, Aldis casts Complete Disregard targeting the Warleader. As Natalie picks up the Warleader to put it in her exile pile, she realizes that she has an Awakened land tapped in her land pile. The Warleader was actually a 4/4!

“Judge!”

What do you do?

Natalie violates “Tournament Error - Communication Policy Violation” and the penalization for that is a Warning.
Also I should perform a backup until the begining of the action “Aldis casts Complete Disregard”.

Edited David Pla (Nov. 5, 2015 06:59:52 PM)

I would issue Natalie a Warning under “Tournament Error - Communication Policy Violation” for misinforming Aldis of the P/T of Veteran Warleader. Afterwards, I would back the game up to just prior to Complete Disregard being cast.

Natalie would be issues a TE - CPV for incorrectly presenting the power/toughness of the Veteran Warleader. The game would be backed up to right before Aldis cast Complete Disregard.

This is a Tournament Error - Communication Policy Violation (misrepresenting derived information). Put the Complete Disregard back into Aldis's hand, and put the Warleader back onto the battlefield under Natalie's control. Issue Natalie a Warning.

(One might be tempted to issue Aldis a GPE-GRV, but he acted upon misinformation provided by Natalie, who, while not required to assist Aldis in obtaining derived information, is also not allowed to misrepresent it. It also seems silly to punish Aldis for a mistake he didn't really make.)

Natalie should be issued TE - CPV and recive warning - she incompletely clarified Veteran Warleader power. I would backup this sitiuation before Aldi casts Complete Disregard. Remind players to play more carefull and that they must answer completely and honestly any specific questions pertaining to free information.

Natalie has committed a TE - Communication Policy Violation and, as such, will receive a warning.
Aldis acted with Natalie's wrong information in mind, so no penalty to her.

The remedy suggested by the IPG is to backup the game to the point of the incorrect information, but a lot has passed since then - lots of decisions could change in combat - and information has been gained - the Complete Disregard itself in Aldis' hand - so a backup won't do. I don't think this is a case for a deviation, and since Natalie already picked up her Veteran Warleader to exile it, I would maintain the game state as is, with the Disregard successfully cast.

EDIT: Just reviewed the IPG, and noticed the following line:
The backup should be to the point of the action, not the erroneous communication.
So, you guys are probably right on backuping the game to the point before the casting of Complete Disregard.
I was probably reading some older version of the IPG.

Edited Yurick Costa (Nov. 6, 2015 11:07:56 PM)

Before reading other responses:

Aldis asked Natalie for information about her creature - its power and toughness. Figuring out the power and toughness requires both the actual text on the card, and calculating other information from the game state. That is to say, it's derived information.

It's generally permissible to not answer a question about derived information, but it's never permissible to give incorrect information. Natalie has committed the rare and elusive Tournament Error - Communication Policy Violation. Natalie will receive a warning.

Aldis has cast a spell targeting an illegal target. This sounds like a GPE - GRV. However, as it's a simple error, based on incorrect communication from Natalie, I wouldn't asses it in this case. No infraction.

As an additional remedy, we may consider a backup, if we Aldis has clearly acted on the incorrect information. Aldis has performed two actions - they chose to attack with their creature, and they chose to cast a spell. Aldis may have chosen not to attack, if Natalie could trade with the Behemoth, but they also may have. The Complete Disregard, however, was clearly cast based on the understanding that the Warleader was 3/3, as that's the only legal way to cast it. I would rewind to right before Complete Disregard was cast - return the spell to Aldis's hand, untap the relevant lands, and continue the game.


After reading other responses:

The consensus seems to generally be No Infraction for Aldis and TE-CPV for Natalie.

I'd be interested in a bit of discussion on whether Aldis has actually committed GPE - GRV, and what their responsibilities are in ensuring the legality of a spell, after having received incorrect information. GPE - GRV doesn't indicate it has any exception for acting on incorrect information (or any exceptions at all), so the decision not to asses GPE-GRV is really just a judgement call on the judge's part, and it's important that we act consistently there.

Well there are two things that happened here: there was a GRV for Aldis from casting Complete Disregard with an illegal target, and the Communication Policy Violation for Natalie for misrepresenting the Veteran Warleader. Because the GRV occurred as a result of the CPV, I'm inclined to rule this a CPV for Natalie, for which I'd assign her a Warning, and no violation for Aldis as he acted upon incorrect information. Since the information he was given would have made his actions legal, he's in the clear.

For the Fix, the IPG states that “A backup may be considered in cases where a player has clearly acted upon incorrect information provided to him or her by his or her opponent.”

This is clearly the case, so I would backup to the point just before the casting of Complete Disregard, and tell them to continue playing from that point.

But… it's NEVER CPV…

Natalie misrepresented derived information. She'll get a warning for communication policy (TE-CPV). Aldis's action might have been a GRV, but it was based on the misrepresented information and I'd back the game up to return the Complete Disregard to Aldis's hand.

Let's wrap this one up!

What we have here is the rare and elusive Tournament Error - Communication Policy Violation. Although Natalie is not required to tell Aldis the power and toughness of her creature, she is also not allowed to get it wrong if she chooses to answer. So, we we have a Warning for CPV, but what else are we going to do?

CPV supports backups, but to which event should we back up? The IPG says

Originally posted by IPG 3.7 Additional Remedy:

A backup may be considered in cases where a player has clearly acted upon incorrect information provided to him or her by his or her opponent. The backup should be to the point of the action, not the erroneous communication.

So, right off the bat we know that we will not be going back to the point of the incorrect answer. This leaves us two potential actions, which may have been based on erroneous information: attacking with the Behemoth, and casting Complete Disregard. While the decision to attack was likely informed in part by the power and toughness of the Warleader, it is not clear that correct information would have had any impact on this play. The choice to cast Complete Disregard with an illegal target, however, was unambiguously the result of thinking the Warleader was 3/3. Since very little has happened since that decision, we simply return the Warleader to the battlefield and back up the casting of the spell. Since Aldis's error was a result of Natalie's CPV, we do not assess him a Game Rules Violation.

Thanks to everyone who participated this week. We'll be back tomorrow with a new scenario!

I think that attacking with a 6/6 is very different when your opponent has 5 or 6 total power.
I would definitely back up before the attack.

Also: would you give Aldi a W for GPE-GRV ?

The information was crucial if Aldis was in a low life counter, because he only made the attack thinking that he could kill the veteran warleader after combat and dont die from his opponent attack next turn. So, i think its correct to back up before the attack.

P.S. sorry for bad english.

Deathless Behemoth has vigilance and was not blocked. While it is possible that Aldis may decide not to attack with correct information, this is not “clearly” the case. If the decision would have been different, only Natalie could benefit from such a change.

When you have only tenuous grounds to back up and only the person who made the error might potentially benefit from such a choice, don't do it.

There is no GRV. This was addressed in the original answer.