I witnessed this happen a couple of weeks ago at a casual sanctioned draft, and am curious what other judges think the call should be.
Player A has one creature on the board (I don't remember for sure what it was, but it in no way effects the situation).
It's Player B's turn, and he asks Player A what the toughness of his creature is (it has some tokens on it and such). Player A replies "four".
Player B then proceeds to Ground Assault the creature for 4 damage. Player A puts the creature into his graveyard, and Player B ends his turn.
Player A starts his turn, draws from his library, and then says "Oh, I just realized I was wrong - my creature actually had a toughness of five, it should still be alive."
This was Regular REL? Remind both players to be careful and move on.
Competitive REL, it's more complicated. Off the top of my head, I'd put the creature back in play, give player A a game rule violation and player B a failure to maintain game state violation. But I'd want to check my IPG before I judged a comp level tournament again. I get those confused, so maybe a level 2 can check me.
In a situation like this where there was a communication error I see two options for the judge:
1) Back the game up to the point of the error, in this case it's where the opponent stated their creature had 4 toughness when it actually had 6. Put all cards back in the correct zones, and restore the board to the same state it was at the point of the error.
2) If it's too complicated to back up, leave the game state as is and continue playing.
A judge should be called to the table then to make a ruling. At casual, there are no penalties unless we suspect someone of cheating, but it doesn't sound like that's the case here, it sounds like an honest mistake.
The judge would then have the discretion to either leave the game state as is and instruct the players to be more careful and play on as it stands, or rewind the game back to the point before Ground Assault is cast. If we're rewinding, it's a random card from Player A's hand that goes back on top of his library, even if he swears it was a perticular one that he drew.
This was Regular REL? Remind both players to be careful and move on.
Competitive REL, it's more complicated. Off the top of my head, I'd put the creature back in play, give player A a game rule violation and player B a failure to maintain game state violation. But I'd want to check my IPG before I judged a comp level tournament again. I get those confused, so maybe a level 2 can check me.
Remember, at Competitive REL, a Judge cannot "partially rewind" or "partially fix". The ONLY possible fix in this scenario would be to fully rewind the game state to the point right before the Assault was cast (when the opponent did not recognize the correct toughness of his/her creature). This can be done solely at the discretion of the Head Judge.
The only other possible fix would be to leave the game state as is. Regardless, each player should be getting a Warning, the Assault player for Failure to Maintain, and the other player for Game Rule Violation.
There is actually a short list of allowed "partial fixes" that can be used if not backing up. One of them is "If an object is in the wrong zone, the identity of the object was known to all players, and it is within a turn of the error, put the object in the correct zone." The only question is which fix (partial fix, or back up) would cause more disruption. It seems less disruptive to simply back up to the point of the Tournament Error - Communication Policy Violation that was the cause of the error (player incorrectly represented Derived Information about his creature's toughness). Player B would get no penalty, Player A would get a warning.
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)
Thanks for the replies. I was mostly curious whether or not the creature should have stayed in the graveyard or not, since the turn was passed before Player A noticed his error. A rewind is what did happen, to right before the assault was cast. I believe Player A put the card he had just drawn on top of his library.
I'm really curious why many of you feel that the Assault player deserved a warning. How is asking your opponent a question about the game state, and then acting on that information, a failure to maintain it? The opponent would be well within his rights to insist he figure out the toughness of the creature for himself, but that seems needlessly douchey and is not what happened at any rate.
I don't personally feel that either player did anything wrong here (the mistake was genuine) I was just curious about the adjudication.
At Regular REL, we fix if it's not too disruptive/caught quickly. At Competitive and Professional, it's a Tournament Error -- Communication Policy Violation, issue a Warning, and the Head Judge can (but does not have to, depending on circumstances) authorize rewinding the game to the point of the error, or leave the game as-is. No "partial fix" is permitted.
Thanks for the replies. I was mostly curious whether or not the creature should have stayed in the graveyard or not, since the turn was passed before Player A noticed his error. A rewind is what did happen, to right before the assault was cast. I believe Player A put the card he had just drawn on top of his library.
I'm really curious why many of you feel that the Assault player deserved a warning. How is asking your opponent a question about the game state, and then acting on that information, a failure to maintain it? The opponent would be well within his rights to insist he figure out the toughness of the creature for himself, but that seems needlessly douchey and is not what happened at any rate.
I don't personally feel that either player did anything wrong here (the mistake was genuine) I was just curious about the adjudication.
Player B does not receive a warning. For some penalties the player could receive a failure to maintain game state. However that penalty only applies to game play errors, in this case the error was a communication policy violation which is a tournament error so FTMGS doesn't apply. Again this is only for Competitive and Professional REL tournaments.
Also if this was a casual event and it was sanctioned it was most likely sanctioned at regular REL. At regular REL all derived information is considered free information. So if asked what the power and toughness of one of your opponents creatures, they must answer truthfully and completely.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI Level 2 Judge
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Player A has one creature on the board (I don't remember for sure what it was, but it in no way effects the situation).
It's Player B's turn, and he asks Player A what the toughness of his creature is (it has some tokens on it and such). Player A replies "four".
Player B then proceeds to Ground Assault the creature for 4 damage. Player A puts the creature into his graveyard, and Player B ends his turn.
Player A starts his turn, draws from his library, and then says "Oh, I just realized I was wrong - my creature actually had a toughness of five, it should still be alive."
What should happen next?
Competitive REL, it's more complicated. Off the top of my head, I'd put the creature back in play, give player A a game rule violation and player B a failure to maintain game state violation. But I'd want to check my IPG before I judged a comp level tournament again. I get those confused, so maybe a level 2 can check me.
In a situation like this where there was a communication error I see two options for the judge:
1) Back the game up to the point of the error, in this case it's where the opponent stated their creature had 4 toughness when it actually had 6. Put all cards back in the correct zones, and restore the board to the same state it was at the point of the error.
2) If it's too complicated to back up, leave the game state as is and continue playing.
The judge would then have the discretion to either leave the game state as is and instruct the players to be more careful and play on as it stands, or rewind the game back to the point before Ground Assault is cast. If we're rewinding, it's a random card from Player A's hand that goes back on top of his library, even if he swears it was a perticular one that he drew.
[[b]B]DCI Level 2 Judge[/B][/b]Remember, at Competitive REL, a Judge cannot "partially rewind" or "partially fix". The ONLY possible fix in this scenario would be to fully rewind the game state to the point right before the Assault was cast (when the opponent did not recognize the correct toughness of his/her creature). This can be done solely at the discretion of the Head Judge.
The only other possible fix would be to leave the game state as is. Regardless, each player should be getting a Warning, the Assault player for Failure to Maintain, and the other player for Game Rule Violation.
GX Tron XG
UR Phoenix RU
GG Freyalise High Tide GG
UR Parun Counterspells RU
BB Yawgmoth Token Storm BB
WB Pestilence BW
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
I'm really curious why many of you feel that the Assault player deserved a warning. How is asking your opponent a question about the game state, and then acting on that information, a failure to maintain it? The opponent would be well within his rights to insist he figure out the toughness of the creature for himself, but that seems needlessly douchey and is not what happened at any rate.
I don't personally feel that either player did anything wrong here (the mistake was genuine) I was just curious about the adjudication.
----
Lightning Bolts don't kill creatures. State-based actions kill creatures.
Player B does not receive a warning. For some penalties the player could receive a failure to maintain game state. However that penalty only applies to game play errors, in this case the error was a communication policy violation which is a tournament error so FTMGS doesn't apply. Again this is only for Competitive and Professional REL tournaments.
Also if this was a casual event and it was sanctioned it was most likely sanctioned at regular REL. At regular REL all derived information is considered free information. So if asked what the power and toughness of one of your opponents creatures, they must answer truthfully and completely.