I was playing in FNM the other night, using turbo fog against g/w beats, and my opponent had a Mirran Crusader and a Vengevine out in play. He didn't know what I was playing yet and was quite confused.
He did the following (as a side note, I was at 16 life): "I cast Overrun for game" and I said "Please tap the creatures and call combat as normal."
As soon as I said this, he put on a confused look, and instead only swung with the Mirran Crusader. I called judge for clarification of the following:
He said Overrun for game, and in doing so, didn't he put forth the shortcut to continue to pass priority until he could swing at me for exactly lethal damage, and also make the implication that he'd be swinging with both creatures?
In the same way people say Oblivion Ring your X, and then once O-Ring resolves they are beholden to still pick that same target, in this instance was my opponent beholden to a proposed shortcut to go into combat with BOTH of his creatures?
In general, when someone says "Such and such for game" aren't they then beholden to carry out that action, even if you respond later? As in: given that I didn't scoop outright to his Overrun for game statement, he therefore concluded I had tricks and therefore played more carefully, but isn't that illegal?
i would venture to guess that since overrun itself cannot be cast "for game" as it does not damage and doesnt cause you to draw cards, he committed no shortcut only cast the spell. i really dont see how this is an issue for you. besides the fact that he kept a blocker back, but as far as i know about turbo fog you really dont care if he kept a blocker back.
If you want to put a break in a proposed shortcut, all you have to do is say at what earlier point you'd rather propose the shortcut end. "Alright, so after your guys attack I'll take priority again before we move to damage assignment." The response you give in your post could be interpreted to mean you'd rather the shortcut only go up to Declare Attackers, so because of the ambiguity in communication, it's up to the judge to decide the proper course of action based on the details of the situation.
I'll start by saying the ruling would depend on the investigation.
There isn't any particular shortcut that covers this. Absent a previously agreed-upon shortcut between the players, there isn't much a judge can do to force an attack. We shouldn't assume the player knows what he needs to attack with to deal lethal damage. Saying "cast Overrun for game" isn't an explicit announcement of declaring an attack. It could be the player was looking for a counterspell or some other response before attacking. Since there appears to be confusion between the players (and especially since this is Regular REL), the game should be backed up to the point of confusion. That would likely be the point at which Overrun is on the stack.
Also, even if it's determined that his statement was a proposed shortcut, you interrupted that shortcut by asking him to announce his steps. This starts when moving from main phase to beginning of combat, so he is free to make play decisions from that point.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 3 Judge
This FAQ answers many of the common questions asked in the MTGS Rulings forum. Take a look!
I'm the editor/content manager of the Magic Rules Tips Blog - Bookmark this site for daily tips about game and tournament rules.
"Abstract concepts of perfect judging run headlong into the realities of how people play the game." - Toby Elliott (papa_funk)
My response to these sorts of statements from my opponents, to avoid giving away information and to prevent them from angle shooting, is always confusion. I just act like I don't know what they are talking about. "Wait :confused look:, what?"
Usually this causes them to just explain explicitly what they mean without giving them a warning that maybe they're about to be surprised, which can mitigate attempts to back-pedal their intention based on information I accidentally give.
I am not a judge.
But I cannot help but make the observation that there is a tradition of exchanging the "I do this. Do I win nao?" question between players in endgame.
If "showing the card", as it were, can't be locked by this communication policy into being an actual specific game plan, then, that would have to be taken into account on ruling some particular act as being a "communication of intent" as used with the communication policy.
I, as a player, would be upset to find out that, among the stylistic variants of "hoping the game is over, and mumbling something to that effect", some of these actually commit me to a string of game actions, possibly beyond my ability to predict.
That's where I see player B coming from.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Unfortunately it does, just not in the rules text...
I think the op is just curious as to the ruling on similar situations and him holding his vengevine back wasn't actually relevant. It doesn't sound like a bitter post...
If he would have had to swing with both to win the game with overrun I think he does commit himself by saying "overrun for game" otherwise his proposed shortcut is cheating.
If I were in a situation where my opponent proposed a shortcut and by me slowing down the proedures gave away critical information I would choose my words very carefully, sometimes saying nothing and forcing him to move forward with the game is the right move. If he doesn't tap his creatures to attack scooping his cards will cause problems for him and is probably going to cost him a game. Other times I would call a judge before the game moved any further, especially in a critical turn when moneys on the line.
Hell you could even turn it all around on him and use a shortcut on your own and just bluff "I'm going to fog" and wait for it until he attacks.
The burden is on him to make a play to win the game so in no way should you be losing information based on his sloppy play.
Edit: It's important to note that if a player is doing this type of thing to cheat, well, he is cheating. A good judge will see that. If he's just being casual and using shortcuts because he's rushed or w/e they won't care too much about you not accepting it. Intent is very important.
In the same way people say Oblivion Ring your X, and then once O-Ring resolves they are beholden to still pick that same target, in this instance was my opponent beholden to a proposed shortcut to go into combat with BOTH of his creatures?
Well, there's a misunderstanding here.
We only hold him to the target if you don't interrupt with anything else. If he says he's casting Oblivion Ring, and announces the target at the time of casting, and you say "OK, in response I'll Stave Off to protect my guy", then we don't hold him to that -- we'll let him choose the target he wants when the O-Ring's ability triggers and goes on the stack.
Which means that if you want to try to generalize that bit of the shortcut policy (which, per the Tournament Rules, only applies to making a choice at casting that's normally made later), you also have to generalize the "interrupt the shortcut and he's not stuck with the choice" bit
Also, in general the purpose of the shortcut policy is to provide convenience by letting the game go more quickly without the need to explicitly walk through all the technical bits every time you do something. It's not meant to be a trap you can use to get judges to force your opponents into bad plays, and attempts to use it that way probably won't turn out how you want them to.
We only hold him to the target if you don't interrupt with anything else. If he says he's casting Oblivion Ring, and announces the target at the time of casting, and you say "OK, in response I'll Stave Off to protect my guy", then we don't hold him to that -- we'll let him choose the target he wants when the O-Ring's ability triggers and goes on the stack.
Are you sure?
because the O-ring player used a shortcut actually saying, if my oring isnt countered it will exile permanent A. Then the non-active player responded to that by telling, im not countering, but im giving Permanent A protection. This wouldnt give the O-ring player the right to target someting else... At least, i would not rule such thing at a tournament, FNM nor Pro-tour...
because the O-ring player used a shortcut actually saying, if my oring isnt countered it will exile permanent A. Then the non-active player responded to that by telling, im not countering, but im giving Permanent A protection. This wouldnt give the O-ring player the right to target someting else... At least, i would not rule such thing at a tournament, FNM nor Pro-tour...
This isn't correct. It falls under this category from the Official Tournament Rules:
If a player casts a spell or activates an ability and announces choices for it that are not normally made until resolution, the player must adhere to those choices unless an opponent responds to that spell or ability. If an opponent inquires about choices made during resolution, that player is assumed to be passing priority and allowing that spell or ability to resolve.
Also, as a general matter of policy, if a player decides to interrupt a shortcut, the rest of the shortcut is canceled. This is because shortcuts only function with the mutual agreement of the players. You cannot trap a player in his or her own shortcut in this way, because as soon as you take any action that isn't part of the shortcut, the shortcut is void because the players didn't agree on it.
EDIT: Of course, the player playing Stave Off may say "I meant to cast that in response to the triggered ability," in which case (assuming it's true that he did mean that and he's not trying to cheat now that he knows how the rules work) the O-ring player will be held to his shortcut. That's a separate issue, though.
Sorry to have this deviate to the Oblivion Ring topic. As I am to understand it the DCI does not want players "rules lawyering" at REL Regular and judges are to "deviate like hell" or whatever to make FNM/REL Regular more fun etc. With this mindset how do we rule the following situation?
Do we instruct player N about the rules regarding these shortcuts and tell them to be more careful/vigilant in the future? Do we rule against player A and tell him/her that player N would have played differently if he or she were more informed? Do we try to determine if player A was legitimately trying to game the system (rules lawyer) and if not allow the Oblivion Ring to resolve and "change" targets?
I am a new judge and making these "rough justice" rulings scare me a bit. I think I would lean on ruling in favor of player A and instructing player N on the hows and whys. I feel like in the end it is better for the game, but maybe not as good for the player environment. Either way I am not really sure.
Given that player A is experienced, he obviously knew what he was doing if he started off by saying "O-ring your bear," which was baiting the Stave Off and hoping to lawyer away the Serra Angel. (Of course, if he has a Plummet in hand, things are different.)
So likely, I'd reverse everything back to the point where Oblivion Ring is on the stack, and explain to player A that this is FNM, not a PTQ, and that trying to capitalize on the ambiguity of what exactly is on the stack after one says "O-ring your bear" isn't going to fly at regular REL.
Given that player A is experienced, he obviously knew what he was doing if he started off by saying "O-ring your bear," which was baiting the Stave Off and hoping to lawyer away the Serra Angel. (Of course, if he has a Plummet in hand, things are different.)
So likely, I'd reverse everything back to the point where Oblivion Ring is on the stack, and explain to player A that this is FNM, not a PTQ, and that trying to capitalize on the ambiguity of what exactly is on the stack after one says "O-ring your bear" isn't going to fly at regular REL.
I absolutely would not do this; so long as it's clear the choice was made at casting, tournament rules -- which apply just the same at FNM as they do at PTQs -- say that responding allows a new target to be chosen.
We're OK with players who have superior knowledge of the rules being able to gain advantage from that knowledge (as I recall, something very like that statement is actually in the Tournament Rules). We're not OK with players trying to get judges to force their opponents into bad plays. That's the key difference here, as I see it.
It's impossible for us to make a precise judgement based on one persons view of what occured in this instance. Too many 'unknowns' are involved, such as what intent or motive the other player had (if any), or if the player was simply overconfident.
In cases like these, call a judge over and he/she will listen to both people and make a decision.
• Players must answer all questions asked of them by a judge completely and honestly, regardless of the type of information requested. Players may request to do so away from the match.
• Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly.
• Players must answer completely and honestly any specific questions pertaining to free information.
• At Regular REL, all derived information is instead considered free.
Also from the Tournament Rules:
An out-of-order sequence must not result in a player prematurely gaining information which could reasonably affect decisions made later in that sequence.
In the O-Ring Situation it would be my ruling that a player saying O-Ring X is performing an out of order sequence that is resulting in them prematurely gaining information. In the case presented the caster of the O-Ring is the person at fault and the actions should be reversed so that they do not gain from their misplay. Everyone seems to be saying that the New person in this situation has something to learn and that the experienced person is teaching a lesson with their rules knowledge but the experienced person is not rules lawyering they are performing an illegal play. If the experienced player had cast O-Ring and the new person said "targeting ?" and then tried to counter it after the experienced player responded then the new player is making the illegal action and the play should NOT be redone.
• Players must answer all questions asked of them by a judge completely and honestly, regardless of the type of information requested. Players may request to do so away from the match.
• Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly.
• Players must answer completely and honestly any specific questions pertaining to free information.
• At Regular REL, all derived information is instead considered free.
Also from the Tournament Rules:
An out-of-order sequence must not result in a player prematurely gaining information which could reasonably affect decisions made later in that sequence.
In the O-Ring Situation it would be my ruling that a player saying O-Ring X is performing an out of order sequence that is resulting in them prematurely gaining information. In the case presented the caster of the O-Ring is the person at fault and the actions should be reversed so that they do not gain from their misplay. Everyone seems to be saying that the New person in this situation has something to learn and that the experienced person is teaching a lesson with their rules knowledge but the experienced person is not rules lawyering they are performing an illegal play. If the experienced player had cast O-Ring and the new person said "targeting ?" and then tried to counter it after the experienced player responded then the new player is making the illegal action and the play should NOT be redone.
I don't see any other way to rule it.
My 2 Cents.
I fail to see how any derived or free information is represented incorrectly. Player A casts O-Ring, with the intent to exile the Bears, and proposes a shortcut. Player N interrupts that shortcut, so Player A is no longer beholden to his shortcut [and, assuming Player N interrupted while O-Ring was still a SPELL, he can't legally target the Bear anyway].
This is not out of order sequencing, it's a proposed shortcut.
If Player A is proposing a shortcut what shortcut is he proposing? That O-Ring Resolves and he announces the Bear as the target. Player N is accepting the shortcut and then giving the bear pro white.
If the situation happened as presented above either Player A is proposing a shortcut that is accepted or they are performing an out of order sequence either way they are the person at fault. Not player N. If the above were the actual recorded events I don't see anyway player A should be rewarded for their actions.
If player N had said "Obviously it resolves because I have responded to the ability being put on the stack like you proposed in your shortcut and gave my creature protection" then the situation would be clearer. I interrupt the "??? Yes" as meaning that.
Interesting views from people on this. Some people are seeing this as the rightful use of superior rules knowledge and I am ok with people doing that but in this situation I think it is an illegal play that should be redone.
If Player A is proposing a shortcut what shortcut is he proposing? That O-Ring Resolves and he announces the Bear as the target. Player N is accepting the shortcut and then giving the bear pro white.
If the situation happened as presented above either Player A is proposing a shortcut that is accepted or they are performing an out of order sequence either way they are the person at fault. Not player N. If the above were the actual recorded events I don't see anyway player A should be rewarded for their actions.
If player N had said "Obviously it resolves because I have responded to the ability being put on the stack like you proposed in your shortcut and gave my creature protection" then the situation would be clearer. I interrupt the "??? Yes" as meaning that.
Interesting views from people on this. Some people are seeing this as the rightful use of superior rules knowledge and I am ok with people doing that but in this situation I think it is an illegal play that should be redone.
Thanks
And you are incorrect. This is -not- out of order sequencing. This is a shortcut. "I cast Oblivion Ring, and propose a shortcut where you do not respond, I choose your Runeclaw Bear as a target, and you allow the trigger to resolve and exile it". The shortcut was interrupted by "In response I cast Stave Off", which implies he's responding to the spell. Shortcut is interrupted, and Player A is no longer held to it, so he may [and if those are the only two nonland permanents, MUST] target another permanent.
Would you care to explain WHY you think it's out of order sequencing?
As for the original scenario, "I cast overrun for the game" isn't any established shortcut; unless it was mutually agreed upon between both of the players of the game prior. It is more a declaration of "I cast overrun, and I currently calculate I have enough power to kill you if I swing all out, would you like to scoop?" If he was fishing for information, there is nothing stopping you from bluffing that you had an out and didn't.
The O-ring scenario does fall within established shortcuts found in the tournament rules:
4.2 Tournament Shortcuts
...
Certain conventional tournament shortcuts used in Magic are detailed below. If a player wishes to deviate from these, he or she should be explicit about doing so.
...
If a player casts a spell or activates an ability and announces choices for it that are not normally made until resolution, the player must adhere to those choices unless an opponent responds to that spell or ability. If an opponent inquires about choices made during resolution, that player is assumed to be passing priority and allowing that spell or ability to resolve.
The reason for the O-ring stave off scenario is thus:
Player A casts O-Ring and shortcut declaring target to Runeclaw bears.
By casting stave off without stating when the Player N is doing so, Player N is rejecting the shortcut completely thus it rewinds to the next point Player N would receive priority, which is with spell O-ring on the stack. If Player N wished to deviate in the middle of the shortcut after O-ring resolves and the triggered ability is on the stack he must declare so
A player may interrupt a tournament shortcut by explaining how he or she is deviating from it or at which point in the middle he or she wishes to take an action.
And you are incorrect. This is -not- out of order sequencing. This is a shortcut. "I cast Oblivion Ring, and propose a shortcut where you do not respond, I choose your Runeclaw Bear as a target, and you allow the trigger to resolve and exile it". The shortcut was interrupted by "In response I cast Stave Off", which implies he's responding to the spell. Shortcut is interrupted, and Player A is no longer held to it, so he may [and if those are the only two nonland permanents, MUST] target another permanent.
Would you care to explain WHY you think it's out of order sequencing?
I think the problem is what shortcut was being proposed. You state a different shortcut then I do.
Like I said IF my shortcut is what was proposed, then the shortcut is valid and the play is valid and Player A can't retarget. If you shortcut is valid then as Befuddlement said it would go back to the last time you had priority which would be with the spell on ths stack.
As for out of order sequencing if they are proposing a shortcut it is NOT out of order sequencing. I just disagree with WHAT shortcut was being proposed.
Is the shortcut "I cast Oblivion Ring, and propose a shortcut where you do not respond, I choose your Runeclaw Bear as a target, and you allow the trigger to resolve and exile it"
or is the shortcut ""I cast Oblivion Ring, and propose a shortcut where you do not respond, I choose your Runeclaw Bear as a target"
In an REL level enforcement event I would disallow the entire shortcut and return Stave Off to Player N's hand and put Oblivion Ring back on the stack.
If you chose to interpret it the other way then it is open for interpretation depending on what you believe the shortcut proposed was. Either way I would inist that player do not use shortcuts with O-Ring again.
The shortcut proposed by the caster of Oblivion Ring is definitely "I cast Oblivion Ring, we both pass priority, I target your Runeclaw Bear with the triggered ability from Oblivion Ring, and we both pass priority."
There are two points in that shortcut where the caster of Stave Off could interrupt. By saying only "respond with Stave Off" (or similar) they are unclear about what it is exactly they are responding to; that is, about which point at which they would like to propose a new shortcut. The caster of Stave Off should be careful to propose the new shortcut "You cast Oblivion Ring, we both pass priority, you choose Runeclaw Bear as the target and pass priority, and I cast Stave Off targeting Runeclaw Bear and pass priority" by saying "in response to the trigger".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI Certified Level 1 Judge
Remember, kids: Never fight with Flashback, 'cause Flashback always wins.
The shortcut proposed by the caster of Oblivion Ring is definitely "I cast Oblivion Ring, we both pass priority, I target your Runeclaw Bear with the triggered ability from Oblivion Ring, and we both pass priority."
Interesting, I would not have thought that was the shortcut if someone had said that. I do agree with you that in Player N's spot I would have said, "After O-Ring's trigger is on the stack, I cast Stave Off"
The struggle I have is that this seems to be a situation where an experienced person is attempting to outwit an inexperienced person by giving them false information. I do not think that is within the spirit of the rules. Giving no information and hoping that a person doesn't understand the rules is one thing but giving false or misleading information is another. I have never experienced this situation but in an FNM I would not rule it that way, I would go back to the spell annoucement of O-Ring and make the players walk through the steps without a shortcut.
I disagree, the play was correct thus should be allowed. Player A did nothing wrong and the play was not illegal. Superior rules knowledge should be a determining factor on who wins the game. Player A gave no false information.
At FNM you might want to take the opportunity to educate player N about shortcuts and how to get the response he wants, but if that player ever encounters the scenario at a different event with a different judge, he will respond correctly.
This is no different than any other person who did not correctly understand the rules and played suboptimally. If he wants to Pithing Needle a Llanowar Elves; he did not do anything illegal, the game continues. You may want to educate them after the play, but rewinding the game is far too much hand-holding. We are hear to the judge the game while keeping the game fun. We aren't defenders of the inexperienced. The scenario you propose has happened several times, and I rule it the same way because I feel people remember better when they have a time when it was used against them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI Level 2 Judge
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
He did the following (as a side note, I was at 16 life): "I cast Overrun for game" and I said "Please tap the creatures and call combat as normal."
As soon as I said this, he put on a confused look, and instead only swung with the Mirran Crusader. I called judge for clarification of the following:
He said Overrun for game, and in doing so, didn't he put forth the shortcut to continue to pass priority until he could swing at me for exactly lethal damage, and also make the implication that he'd be swinging with both creatures?
In the same way people say Oblivion Ring your X, and then once O-Ring resolves they are beholden to still pick that same target, in this instance was my opponent beholden to a proposed shortcut to go into combat with BOTH of his creatures?
In general, when someone says "Such and such for game" aren't they then beholden to carry out that action, even if you respond later? As in: given that I didn't scoop outright to his Overrun for game statement, he therefore concluded I had tricks and therefore played more carefully, but isn't that illegal?
I'm Mike, from The Mana Pool.
Check out my Tapped Out profile and comment on my decks!
There isn't any particular shortcut that covers this. Absent a previously agreed-upon shortcut between the players, there isn't much a judge can do to force an attack. We shouldn't assume the player knows what he needs to attack with to deal lethal damage. Saying "cast Overrun for game" isn't an explicit announcement of declaring an attack. It could be the player was looking for a counterspell or some other response before attacking. Since there appears to be confusion between the players (and especially since this is Regular REL), the game should be backed up to the point of confusion. That would likely be the point at which Overrun is on the stack.
Also, even if it's determined that his statement was a proposed shortcut, you interrupted that shortcut by asking him to announce his steps. This starts when moving from main phase to beginning of combat, so he is free to make play decisions from that point.
This FAQ answers many of the common questions asked in the MTGS Rulings forum. Take a look!
I'm the editor/content manager of the Magic Rules Tips Blog - Bookmark this site for daily tips about game and tournament rules.
"Abstract concepts of perfect judging run headlong into the realities of how people play the game." - Toby Elliott (papa_funk)
My Type 4 Stack -- DCI Documents -- Comp Rules
EDH Decks
BGGlissa, the TraitorGB
URTibor and LumiaRU
WUBOloro, Ageless AsceticBUW
UBSygg, River CutthroatBU
RGXenagos, God of RevelsGR
UGVorel of the Hull CladeGU
GBSavra, Queen of the GolgariBG
URGMaelstrom WandererGRU
Usually this causes them to just explain explicitly what they mean without giving them a warning that maybe they're about to be surprised, which can mitigate attempts to back-pedal their intention based on information I accidentally give.
But I cannot help but make the observation that there is a tradition of exchanging the "I do this. Do I win nao?" question between players in endgame.
If "showing the card", as it were, can't be locked by this communication policy into being an actual specific game plan, then, that would have to be taken into account on ruling some particular act as being a "communication of intent" as used with the communication policy.
I, as a player, would be upset to find out that, among the stylistic variants of "hoping the game is over, and mumbling something to that effect", some of these actually commit me to a string of game actions, possibly beyond my ability to predict.
That's where I see player B coming from.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Unfortunately it does, just not in the rules text...
I think the op is just curious as to the ruling on similar situations and him holding his vengevine back wasn't actually relevant. It doesn't sound like a bitter post...
If he would have had to swing with both to win the game with overrun I think he does commit himself by saying "overrun for game" otherwise his proposed shortcut is cheating.
If I were in a situation where my opponent proposed a shortcut and by me slowing down the proedures gave away critical information I would choose my words very carefully, sometimes saying nothing and forcing him to move forward with the game is the right move. If he doesn't tap his creatures to attack scooping his cards will cause problems for him and is probably going to cost him a game. Other times I would call a judge before the game moved any further, especially in a critical turn when moneys on the line.
Hell you could even turn it all around on him and use a shortcut on your own and just bluff "I'm going to fog" and wait for it until he attacks.
The burden is on him to make a play to win the game so in no way should you be losing information based on his sloppy play.
Edit: It's important to note that if a player is doing this type of thing to cheat, well, he is cheating. A good judge will see that. If he's just being casual and using shortcuts because he's rushed or w/e they won't care too much about you not accepting it. Intent is very important.
Well, there's a misunderstanding here.
We only hold him to the target if you don't interrupt with anything else. If he says he's casting Oblivion Ring, and announces the target at the time of casting, and you say "OK, in response I'll Stave Off to protect my guy", then we don't hold him to that -- we'll let him choose the target he wants when the O-Ring's ability triggers and goes on the stack.
Which means that if you want to try to generalize that bit of the shortcut policy (which, per the Tournament Rules, only applies to making a choice at casting that's normally made later), you also have to generalize the "interrupt the shortcut and he's not stuck with the choice" bit
Also, in general the purpose of the shortcut policy is to provide convenience by letting the game go more quickly without the need to explicitly walk through all the technical bits every time you do something. It's not meant to be a trap you can use to get judges to force your opponents into bad plays, and attempts to use it that way probably won't turn out how you want them to.
----
Lightning Bolts don't kill creatures. State-based actions kill creatures.
Are you sure?
because the O-ring player used a shortcut actually saying, if my oring isnt countered it will exile permanent A. Then the non-active player responded to that by telling, im not countering, but im giving Permanent A protection. This wouldnt give the O-ring player the right to target someting else... At least, i would not rule such thing at a tournament, FNM nor Pro-tour...
Thank you for Heroes of the Plane Studios for this awesome sig.
Legacy:
Shardlessless BUG (active)
Shardless BUG (retired)
UW Stoneblade (retired)
Maveric (retired)
Thopters (retired)
Dark Horizons (retired)
Dreadstill (retired)
Armageddon Staxx (retired)
- You think it is over, but Ibraman has just begun...
- When it rains, women get wet.
EDIT: Of course, the player playing Stave Off may say "I meant to cast that in response to the triggered ability," in which case (assuming it's true that he did mean that and he's not trying to cheat now that he knows how the rules work) the O-ring player will be held to his shortcut. That's a separate issue, though.
Do we instruct player N about the rules regarding these shortcuts and tell them to be more careful/vigilant in the future? Do we rule against player A and tell him/her that player N would have played differently if he or she were more informed? Do we try to determine if player A was legitimately trying to game the system (rules lawyer) and if not allow the Oblivion Ring to resolve and "change" targets?
I am a new judge and making these "rough justice" rulings scare me a bit. I think I would lean on ruling in favor of player A and instructing player N on the hows and whys. I feel like in the end it is better for the game, but maybe not as good for the player environment. Either way I am not really sure.
So likely, I'd reverse everything back to the point where Oblivion Ring is on the stack, and explain to player A that this is FNM, not a PTQ, and that trying to capitalize on the ambiguity of what exactly is on the stack after one says "O-ring your bear" isn't going to fly at regular REL.
I absolutely would not do this; so long as it's clear the choice was made at casting, tournament rules -- which apply just the same at FNM as they do at PTQs -- say that responding allows a new target to be chosen.
We're OK with players who have superior knowledge of the rules being able to gain advantage from that knowledge (as I recall, something very like that statement is actually in the Tournament Rules). We're not OK with players trying to get judges to force their opponents into bad plays. That's the key difference here, as I see it.
----
Lightning Bolts don't kill creatures. State-based actions kill creatures.
In cases like these, call a judge over and he/she will listen to both people and make a decision.
Sig by Sioux Heroes of the Plane Studios
The following rules govern player communication:
An out-of-order sequence must not result in a player prematurely gaining information which could reasonably affect decisions made later in that sequence.
In the O-Ring Situation it would be my ruling that a player saying O-Ring X is performing an out of order sequence that is resulting in them prematurely gaining information. In the case presented the caster of the O-Ring is the person at fault and the actions should be reversed so that they do not gain from their misplay. Everyone seems to be saying that the New person in this situation has something to learn and that the experienced person is teaching a lesson with their rules knowledge but the experienced person is not rules lawyering they are performing an illegal play. If the experienced player had cast O-Ring and the new person said "targeting ?" and then tried to counter it after the experienced player responded then the new player is making the illegal action and the play should NOT be redone.
I don't see any other way to rule it.
My 2 Cents.
I fail to see how any derived or free information is represented incorrectly. Player A casts O-Ring, with the intent to exile the Bears, and proposes a shortcut. Player N interrupts that shortcut, so Player A is no longer beholden to his shortcut [and, assuming Player N interrupted while O-Ring was still a SPELL, he can't legally target the Bear anyway].
This is not out of order sequencing, it's a proposed shortcut.
The latest Comprehensive Rules are also good, and can be found here.
If the situation happened as presented above either Player A is proposing a shortcut that is accepted or they are performing an out of order sequence either way they are the person at fault. Not player N. If the above were the actual recorded events I don't see anyway player A should be rewarded for their actions.
If player N had said "Obviously it resolves because I have responded to the ability being put on the stack like you proposed in your shortcut and gave my creature protection" then the situation would be clearer. I interrupt the "??? Yes" as meaning that.
Interesting views from people on this. Some people are seeing this as the rightful use of superior rules knowledge and I am ok with people doing that but in this situation I think it is an illegal play that should be redone.
Thanks
And you are incorrect. This is -not- out of order sequencing. This is a shortcut. "I cast Oblivion Ring, and propose a shortcut where you do not respond, I choose your Runeclaw Bear as a target, and you allow the trigger to resolve and exile it". The shortcut was interrupted by "In response I cast Stave Off", which implies he's responding to the spell. Shortcut is interrupted, and Player A is no longer held to it, so he may [and if those are the only two nonland permanents, MUST] target another permanent.
Would you care to explain WHY you think it's out of order sequencing?
The latest Comprehensive Rules are also good, and can be found here.
The O-ring scenario does fall within established shortcuts found in the tournament rules:
The reason for the O-ring stave off scenario is thus:
Player A casts O-Ring and shortcut declaring target to Runeclaw bears.
By casting stave off without stating when the Player N is doing so, Player N is rejecting the shortcut completely thus it rewinds to the next point Player N would receive priority, which is with spell O-ring on the stack. If Player N wished to deviate in the middle of the shortcut after O-ring resolves and the triggered ability is on the stack he must declare so
I think the problem is what shortcut was being proposed. You state a different shortcut then I do.
Like I said IF my shortcut is what was proposed, then the shortcut is valid and the play is valid and Player A can't retarget. If you shortcut is valid then as Befuddlement said it would go back to the last time you had priority which would be with the spell on ths stack.
As for out of order sequencing if they are proposing a shortcut it is NOT out of order sequencing. I just disagree with WHAT shortcut was being proposed.
Is the shortcut "I cast Oblivion Ring, and propose a shortcut where you do not respond, I choose your Runeclaw Bear as a target, and you allow the trigger to resolve and exile it"
or is the shortcut ""I cast Oblivion Ring, and propose a shortcut where you do not respond, I choose your Runeclaw Bear as a target"
In an REL level enforcement event I would disallow the entire shortcut and return Stave Off to Player N's hand and put Oblivion Ring back on the stack.
If you chose to interpret it the other way then it is open for interpretation depending on what you believe the shortcut proposed was. Either way I would inist that player do not use shortcuts with O-Ring again.
There are two points in that shortcut where the caster of Stave Off could interrupt. By saying only "respond with Stave Off" (or similar) they are unclear about what it is exactly they are responding to; that is, about which point at which they would like to propose a new shortcut. The caster of Stave Off should be careful to propose the new shortcut "You cast Oblivion Ring, we both pass priority, you choose Runeclaw Bear as the target and pass priority, and I cast Stave Off targeting Runeclaw Bear and pass priority" by saying "in response to the trigger".
Remember, kids: Never fight with Flashback, 'cause Flashback always wins.
Interesting, I would not have thought that was the shortcut if someone had said that. I do agree with you that in Player N's spot I would have said, "After O-Ring's trigger is on the stack, I cast Stave Off"
The struggle I have is that this seems to be a situation where an experienced person is attempting to outwit an inexperienced person by giving them false information. I do not think that is within the spirit of the rules. Giving no information and hoping that a person doesn't understand the rules is one thing but giving false or misleading information is another. I have never experienced this situation but in an FNM I would not rule it that way, I would go back to the spell annoucement of O-Ring and make the players walk through the steps without a shortcut.
At FNM you might want to take the opportunity to educate player N about shortcuts and how to get the response he wants, but if that player ever encounters the scenario at a different event with a different judge, he will respond correctly.
This is no different than any other person who did not correctly understand the rules and played suboptimally. If he wants to Pithing Needle a Llanowar Elves; he did not do anything illegal, the game continues. You may want to educate them after the play, but rewinding the game is far too much hand-holding. We are hear to the judge the game while keeping the game fun. We aren't defenders of the inexperienced. The scenario you propose has happened several times, and I rule it the same way because I feel people remember better when they have a time when it was used against them.