I guess my first instinct as a rules lawyer and non-judge would be "aw, crap...okay guys just restart the game" haha. Unless someone did it on purpose of course.
🤣🤣🤣🤣 that disclaimer! I hope nobody went off on Judge Dave or something, although in this case it sounds like he's responding to people in other forums yelling at the judge from this event or something. I solemnly swear that while I am always right, all of my opinionated comments about how the rules should work are still open to disagreement or correction :)
While what the head judge did was by the book, I think it points to more of a gap in the book that needs to be looked at. Maybe there is no clean option and we're stuck with it, maybe there is a way to make a consistent ruling that works in the vast majority of cases.
Exactly. I have no issue with the judge's ruling here, but this seems at least partially solvable with a partial fix rule. It is ornery and requires official consensus, but I would think mis-tapping mana is common enough that even a partial fix would be desirable. But then I don't play above casual, so I'm just reacting blindly to these scenarios.
yes. If the book has no clear way of dealing with a situation like this, it needs to get updated to allow it to deal with these situations in the future. This should also be communicated as such, i.e. there should be an official statement that situations like these are being looked into, and ways on how to solve it are being discussed. This would prevent people from seeing this specific case and getting the impression that if the mess-up is complicated enough or you hurry your opponents along fast enough, no matter if it's intentional or by mistake, taking otherwise illegal game actions cannot be appropriately punished or reverted. It sets a precedent which I am sure we're all eager to avoid.
Yeah applying a universal rule for edge cases where it doesn't make sense is pretty awful. Apparently there's some discretion but not without huge flack. There should be language in the rules that lets judges apply a fix that makes sense and not a one size fits most application.
This case feel like another example of REL level forcing illegal game states. In Casual/FNM level, the fix would be to explain the mistake, fix the mana, then continue the game. Can you use Fellwar Stone to pay for it's own rhystic study tax (If your opponent misses the trigger?) These 'fixes' are extremely unsatisfying to viewers and casual players, who want the highest level of play to be held to a higher standard, not a lower one.
Rhystic study is a may effect so the player can simply not draw and that's generally a better fix than tapping mana from a rock for a trigger that goes on the stack and would resolve before it is cast. In my experience it is best to shortcut whether or not it's trigger get paid on resolution by audibly poking the mana source used to pay it in order to save notable time. Rhystic study is such a chore to track.
That's a very good take, about having a higher or lower standard. Although rather than redo the entire framework of partial fixes, it seems to me like they should just write an exception that says "when the player does have mana sources available with no permanent impact (so not treasures), change the board state as if they had paid the mana." We can test the original ruling by scaling up the infraction, too. What if a player forgot to tap a Gaia's Cradle for 7, which is now worth 9? The reset might be disruptive, but leaving it untapped is also highly disruptive and a "common sense" approach is clearly a higher, more accurate standard. It also places more responsibility on the player most directly responsible for the infraction, which is the one who did it. Leaving the mana untapped benefits the player, which sets a bad precedent in favor of "mistakes."
While this was in line with the policy, doesn't that indicate that the policy is a problem ? I mean if not, it's such an easy cheat with literally no repercussion (cause it would never look like cheating unless you get caught multiple times), I might even do it from now on ! (ok not really but you get my point)
On the surface it seems that way but I think in actuality this rule works as intended a lot more of the time than people think. It is technically the responsibility of both players to maintain a correct board state. And if the interacting player is playing in a way that attempts to obfuscate that, then I think any reasonable head judge would be able to interpret the intent as cheating and apply the appropriate penalty. Which following that logic, leads me to believe that the head judge here determined through investigation that this was not intentional. I will admit that there is basically no way to prove if the head judge was correct in that assumption. But a lot of people are using the accounts of the two involved players online to determine the intent, and then extrapolating that to the intent that was present in the game itself, which doesn’t really work as the players had much more time to talk with witnesses and bystanders before writing those posts.
@@Scarveilixin this particular case it seems the investigation was rushed cause they were 20 mins overtime. But yeah you're right, it's often working. But that doesn't mean it can't be better for when it doesn't (especially when it gained so much attention and I now for a fact more people are gonna do it now) I mean it's sooooo easy to make anything look innocent. Especially something like that.
@@Scarveilix The involved judge believing Amy (as per the problem statement in the video) on her word is the debatable thing here. Why would the judge take Amy's over Nick's word here?
@@Scarveilix wouldn't failure to tap mana lead to a warning at a minimum, though? Otherwise, I could just never going to tap mana and force my opponent to call me out every single time
@ I assume Both players got a warning for failure to maintain a proper game state. As that is part of penalty for the listed fixes. But neither player mentioned that in their documents because it doesn’t support the narrative itself
I'm not going to fault the judges for going by the book. They did everything as they should. I will fault a player for using resources they know that shouldn't be at their disposal outside of the windfall of a judge ruling to win the game afterward.
I’m not, because had a full re-wind been possible, it’s very likely the player who won wouldn’t have chosen to cast the first scrollshift, but saved their mana to cast the crucial one.
Why do partial fixes need to be uniform? Why not tap the land as a partial fix because it works in this situation. If it doesn't work in other situations, then you don't use it. You use some other fix. The "Correct" fix in this situation was easy, but it wasn't done because of some bullcrap idea that partial fixes have to be uniform.
The whole point of having rules is that the experiences from one game or one tournament is the same as another game or tournament. Consistency IS the point. We ONLY have deviations in the situation of exception. This situation was not exceptional.
@@zekebowl We can have consistency. When this situation comes up and it's this easy to fix it, FIX IT. Consistency. It makes no sense to say, "Well in some slightly different situation this fix wouldn't work, so we can't apply it here because reasons".
@@zekebowl the entire point of judges is to use their judgement to judge the situation. Algorithmic consistency should not take precedence over equity. It's what makes judges in the actual legal system so powerful; they are constrained in many ways but still have a lot of authority for justice in others because the details of reality matter.
I’m going to put a couple notes here. 1. Great video. As always the rules are clearly explained and I think avoiding too much speculation on intent is a good call when we simply don’t have information. 2. The judges applied the correct ruling. I’m going to nip this one in the bud here. 3. The player, ‘Amy’, did not, per say, do a cheat by the rules of the game. Yes I agree that it was unsporting and personally I would feel uncomfortable winning a game like this but they did do everything by the book. And finally 4. The book should be changed. I understand the desire is to have partial fixes be uniform and clean. But to put it simply it is unacceptable for a mistake to give one player a clear advantage over the other if the argument for giving both players a grv is that they are both at fault. Magic is far too complicated a game at this point for a single fix to always be the correct one and I think it is naive to continue that philosophy. When just tapping a land is such an obvious and clear way to mend the board state it seems ludicrous to me to not include that as a potential fix. Obviously it is not a fix that will work for every scenario but I think it should be clear that the current fix is also not working for most scenarios and is resulting in players getting an unfair advantage.
I disagree on point 4. In most scenarios, the rules as they are lead to a fair game experience. It is just the occasional counterintuitive ruling that stirs up internet controversy and makes it seem like the rules are failing
The other thing to note is the player also would’ve received a warning, which could then be used to establish a pattern of behavior in regards to future determinations of whether a thing is a mistake or cheating.
Based on my interpretation of the setup and the potential proposed solutions, they had at least one untapped land remaining after they finished their play, meaning that they did have enough mana available, they just did not produce it. In this case the play would have been possible, just not with the exact sequence of actions taken by "Amy". The "by the book ruling" resulted in Amy having at least one more available mana than would have been if play had proceeded according to the rules.
@@Debatra. After deciding to cast the first scrollshift with the belief that they would have enough mana to cast the second. It’s very likely they would have chosen not to cast the first one had the mistake been caught immediately and the land was tapped then.
This ruling isn't an invite to exploit this kind of "errors"? If your opponent doesn't notice it, you have an advantage. But also if your opponent notice it half turn later, is an advantage. If you aren't so blatantly in your "error", that may lead to a disqualify, it just have a positive outcome. IMHO Wizards should address this kind of ruling, even with a partial remedy that isn't always applicable (es. tap the land).
They have a quick summary on mtggoldfish but essentially the "Amy" player was able to play a free Hopeless Nightmare while their opponent was at low life then thanks to having that one extra mana was able to cast Scrollshift twice to win.
From reading the account of both players it really didn't seem like there were any kind of investigation into the GRV-infraction (potentially cheating). I know that you don't seek to comment on that as per the video, but that's the only part of this that I would take issue with, from the judge POV.
So quick question. In the original story, it was said by both players that the pixie player did not pay for hopeless nightmare the previous turn. How was that proven? What if it was stated that the pixie playing payed only 2 for scrollshift? That means it is still in the same turn and not many actions has been taken. Would that have changed the ruling?
Regardless of the current by-the-book procedure, this is terrible precident stating if you don't want to pay for a spell, you can just hope your opponent doesn't notice until their draw step and then you claim it was a mistake and get off scott free.
Thanks for the clear explanation! I have a question: would the judges consider the outcome in their decision? I’m not referring to ruling a cheat/DQ conclusion, but to the mere fact that a player would instantly win a game due to the illegal board state of their own creation.
That’s a bit of a slippery slope. What if the faulty board state allows the player to win but not until their next turn? or if it just gives them a big advantage? Should the judge not roll the game back if the opponent has a counterspell to stop the winning play?
In the IPG, it's made clear that you make the ruling based on the infraction, not taking into account other parts of the game. This is essential because it creates consistency and avoids difficult judgement calls on who stands to gain from the error. Game state and other player information IS taken into account for investigations: for example, if an experienced player makes a rookie mistake ONLY when they're about to lose, and it makes them win instead, that may be part of the evidence that leads to a Cheating DQ
@@OceanicBacon I agree that there would also be scenarios with less obvious outcomes. In the particular case (if I understood correctly) there would be no clean way to return the board state to the last legal config. The main question that remains for me is wether the corresponding land should or not be tapped to compensate for the misconfigured board state and if the immediate outcome would be considered by the judges.
@@ThePauliwrath Fully agree with the need for consistent judging. Considering both players’ perspectives and accepting the incorrect board state was the result of an honest mistake, we also must accept misplays are an unfortunate part of the game - in this case, the losing player not tracking the board state is a critical misplay, especially in a competitive environment. Players’ takes on misplays vary a lot too - the MH3 PT top 8 match between Javier Domingues and Simon Nielsen shows just that.
What if Amy had scrollshifted a Beza for life and Nick responded with a bolt for lethal? Would the choice still be to back up to the casting of scrollshift now with the knowledge of Nicks bolt?
Wasn’t there something at the end that said “when no other option exists”. While this might have not been a rare situation, it is one without a fix. We should have some room for a judge to use critical thinking and administer reasonable fixes to situations like this. It clearly has caused a stir and needs to be addressed.
I disagree. It shouldn’t be on judges to have to decide when to apply the rules and when not to. The policy being consistent is more important imo, even if it leads to some counterintuitive rulings like this one
I mean, it's Nicole though and she has a pretty long track record of questionable ethics. I think you're right in reading that it was premeditated. While this ruling was by the books, I think the known history of the player should've played a hand in reading intent.
Couldnt the rule just be that in cases like this, if it is possible to pay for the spell at the point of the judge call that the player is forced to do so at that point? That way they ar least dont gave excess mana they shouldnt have had
It sounds like a lot of people want to see this added as a new partial fix. I think it would be an interesting discussion to figure out how such would ideally work. Here are some of my ideas, and thoughts on their efficacy. Feel free to post yours. "If a player performed an action that required a cost (such as casting a spell) without paying any part of its cost, put a trigger onto the stack with "That player pays that cost now or else loses the game. This ability can't be countered or exiled." This effectively puts an uncounterable "pact trigger" onto the stack. The benefit of this approach is that it allows the player to use any methods they know of to pay for such a cost, including lands, mana abilities, fetchlands, rituals from hand. The downside is that it does provide a very harsh penalty - a Game Loss - for failing to pay costs. IMO its fine to have harsh penalties in specific cases where things are hard to resolve (like how the fix for Hidden Card Error being a full thoughtsieze) but I understand why this might not fit with the partial fixes. This partial fix also doesnt address situations where part of the cost was paid (for instance, if you paid the wrong colors) which honestly is probably more common than just forgetting. Another issue is that if a full turn has passed, it is possible for someone to transfer a forgotten cost through their untap step. This is probably just going to have to be fune as its still a betrer fix than them just getting the action for free.
My less harsh modification to your proposal would be if you're tapped out, you're tapped out, and you can't use any more mana abilities until your next untap phase, but no game loss. The goal would be that you can't pay for more stuff, which IMO is the egregious part of this scenario people are outraged about, but we can allow one you already cast if nobody spotted the problem and it can't be backed up, which is similar to how many other gameplay mistakes would be resolved. Similarly, mismatched colors can be fixed on the spot if possible or else treat outstanding costs as generic.
Very clever btw using a trigger rather than just "do it right now" to mitigate the possibility of a game loss - they have some options. But yeah game loss still feels too harsh for an honest mistake. Also agree with you perfection is the enemy of the good in this case. Better to have a somewhat limited scope partial fix for many situations than to do nothing and resolve it as it had to be here. So the "Nick might've not played something because he thought Amy had open mana" gets a "too bad" from me - clearly he would still prefer she doesn't get a free mana.
@@jerodast I like the idea of just disabling their mana abilities. But I think I have an even better way of doing this. "If a player cast a spell or activated an ability without paying the full cost, calculate the part of the cost that was unpaid. That player gains the continuous effect "You may not cast spells or activate abilities that are not mana abilities. You can pay [the unpaid cost] at any time as a special action to stop this effect permanently." This makes sure the player must pay the cost before doing anything else (effectively putting them "in debt") but never leads to a scenario where they just lose - if the mistake went on so long that they couldnt pay the remainder of the cost this turn, it will happen next turn. Of course the disadvantage is that you'd still get the freedom of paying that cost at a later date, if you got away with it. However I think theres no real way around that other than an auto game loss if it happened more than a turn ago. In the case of mismatched colors, the unpaid cost would be just the colored pips. So if I pay 3W for Wrath of God, I'll need to pay a second white at some point before casting other spells.
Hey, I really appreciate your content, and I have a question. I cast Ever After, targeting Body Double and Grizzly Bears in my graveyard. Can I choose to have Body Double enter as a copy of a Grizzly Bears? Is Grizzly Bears still technically in a graveyard as I choose an object which's copy Body Double will be?
Similar to the Eldrazi from a bit ago, since it (and the grizzle bears) enter directly from the graveyard, body double still ‘sees’ both of them as being there for body double to pick from. Another similar one to these is Golgari Grave-Troll which enters with a +1/+1 counter for each creature in your graveyard, and if brought directly from graveyard to battlefield will still count itself as being in the graveyard for its replacement etb
The opening makes me glad I left Twitter and Reddit. Thank you for presenting facts. Having someone just answer the question from the judge perspective is nice
What's the judge policy on strongly suggesting a non-required fix? Could the head judge have said to Amy "You should have tapped an additional land to pay for one of your spells, I strongly suggest you tap a land that can produce a black mana, and then not use that mana before the phase ends"
I mean what does a "strong suggestion" mean. If "Amy chooses not to take the suggestion" means she's considered a cheater, then that's just a roundabout way of requiring the fix. If there's no consequence, it's not relevant to any official policy. And of course "Amy" already had the option of simply not using extra mana that turn if "she" wanted to avoid the social/community consequences of appearing to cheat.
This feels not fair and I don't think it is the intention of the partial fix rule. Without being rude, tgis feels like a sleazy lawyers interpretation of a law that was made to avoid corner cases, but this is no corner case
I get it that it was by the book ruling, but i don't understand why deviating and simply tapping a land isn't a simple fix. The board state was very clear, the casting of the seek the beast isn't really relevant, it doesnt affect any decision basically. Why couldn't they rewind? He had no cards and what he drew was known information. As a long time magic player and organizer I find it absurd that sloppy (or borderline cheating) play can be rewarded to this extant. It can open a can of worms with other players trying to mask cheating as honest mistake and claiming that it's too late to rewind so I guess they win now
The headjudge COULD have done it. They chose not to. Both is valid. One of the players in that even suggested after the judge left to do exactly that, tap the lands down, but to demand that from a player is putting all the blame on them, if your opponent asks anything of you that results in them winning and you losing, thats just stupid either way ... If anything if the head judge makes that call and asks the players "Hey it would be more fair if we tap the lands down, is that ok for both of you ?" , would already do the trick most of the time ; if the player that did the mistakes "insists" not to, that would probably have an impact for a cheating investigation, why that player so badly wants to keep that advantage from that "mistake".
The rewind would require undoing random elements as stated in the video. The fact that the random elements were possibly inconsequential in this specific case is irrelevant because you could easily create a situation in which they were consequential I'll also add that a game rule violation is not "getting away with cheating", and I can assure you that those two players paid very close attention to their available mana for the rest of that match :^) it's not exactly possible to "cheat" like this unless your opponent is inattentive in the first place
@@ausiidnd which random element? He had no cards in hand in the beginning of the turn and drew one card. The top of the library won't change if they rewind. The only new information is that she'll know he draws the druid, so what? Her knowing that won't change what she can or can't do. I'm not suggesting this should be the fix always, but in this scenario I don't see why fixing the board state to reflect the correct situation is an issue. There is no hidden information or random elements involved
@@almogdovThe player who drew Questing Druid casted Seek the Beast, exiling two cards from the top 2 cards of their library face up. This is hidden information being revealed and could have an effect on plays in many other circumstances
@MeaCulpa2018 but we're not talking about other circumstances. I'm talking about this specific scenario im which all that is irrelevant. He had lethal on board. Those cards have no effect on any decision.
I find it incredible that the fix of tapping the mana is so unacceptable. I mean, ok in other circumstances as you mentioned this fix may not be possible, but if it was possible I don't see why not.
The official policy should be consistent and applied in the exact same way every time. The fact that the proposed fix of “just tap the land” wouldn’t work in every situation is the reason that “just tap the land” isnt the official policy. The judges aren’t in the business of deciding whether they think the official policy is the most perfect solution to any specific scenario, they are just supposed to apply the policy as accurately as possible.
Thank you! You are a silver lining in a world full of unsubstantiated indignation. I prefer content that presents facts and substance over emotion and outrage.
It's not exactly unsubstantiated if someone violating game rules allows them to win a game because the enforcement rules were unable to handle the situation. I would certainly endorse "misdirected indignation" though - sometimes there isn't a clear and fair way to fix situations, and justified indignation should not be unloaded blindly.
@jerodast I mostly had the "bad judge call" commentators in mind. Its very much like people critizing the outcome of a court case based on the litigation PR they consumed.
The reasoning for not allowing a backup here is pretty terrible. There is no random or unknown elements. Player N is hellbent at the time of the hopeless nightmare. This is a terrible ruling. A simple backup forcing player A to tap mana for their spell has ZERO influence on the decisions made going forward. In addition, there is zero mention of the lack of investigation that occurred. Is that intentional? Fail grade here.
The idea of tapping the lands down is that its the least disruptive action that actually does put the game in the state it "legally" would be. So thats pretty much the perfect way to handle it for the head judge. In general, if a fix is that "trivial" for everyone involved and all players agree its fine to do so, that would be much more preferable than the disruptive action of keeping an illegal play as is ; as that changes the outcome of the game, and that ALWAYS leads to social media aftershocks that are even more troubling for the competitive game, if players feel they got ruled out of the game, thats never good. ---- Cheating investigation in that particular case for basically skipped, nonexistent and probably because it was already in overtime the tournament pushed that direction even more ; adding a bunch of spectators in the mix just makes that worse to handle.
In the situation described, many people believe that is exactly what _should_ have happened -- there was no game rule that would have prevented the offending player from tapping the required land and not using the mana generated. Doing so would have resulted in the player losing, and she decided not to do that. This is the controversy -- all the players *didn't* agree that the fix (tapping the land) was appropriate.
@ Less the "fear" more that if some rulings result in that kind of controversy, maybe the rules are just not properly formulated to deal with these situations. If rulings result in social media "feedback", you cant just ignore it, it clearly is trying to tell you something that isnt working in the eyes of the people you are judging for (aka the players). The problem is, the decision of the judge does introduce more disruption then the more obvious solution would ; that requires to take into account that some actions are inconsequential, and to make that decision it cant be standardized ; which is the entire point that people argue the "proper" fix would not be standardized.
Noted, as long as I make sure my opponent doesn't notice in time, I'm allowed to cast spells without tapping mana. Can't wait to implement this new judge endorsed strategy at FNM from now on
I am sure - no, certain - that the fact that the vast majority of game rule violations committed at tournements are in the infracting player's favour, is a complete coincidence.
It's not simple and efficient though, nor is it reasonable. Anybody suggesting we just game loss everyone who makes an error that can't be reversed isn't interested in keeping the game fair, or even enjoyable, they just want to punish people regardless of impact. Two examples where this solution doesn't work. First, the situation that actually happened. Amy didn't actually create the irreversible game state, technically Nick did by casting Seek the Beast. Amy's actions are simply why we want to reverse it in the first place. But she never did anything that's stopping a judge from fixing her error. Second, you forgot to discard down to hand size three turns ago, leaving you with one extra card for just a couple turns. As a result, your opponent's The Rack deals one less damage, one time, and it's likely that is the only real impact your missed discard would ever have on the game. That's also considered an irreversible game state, and would be absolutely asinine to give a game loss over.
@@euclidofkekistan6071 I can promise you that if they made every mistake a game loss if it took more than a turn cycle or two to notice, sanctioned competitive Magic would be dead tomorrow. Nobody wants to play a game where a tiny, irrelevant, accidental mistake not getting caught quick enough ruins your chances of making it to the end of the event. People love to talk like this would make things better, but it would actually cause a lot more people to hate playing and find it completely miserable, on top of every match going to time because everybody is going to slow play trying to be sure everything is always perfect no matter. The competitive community would despise this if it actually went into effect. And no, not because they want to get away with stuff.
@@euclidofkekistan6071uh, its not a crime. Its a game. The player made a mistake. How many games would you have instantly lost had you made a mistake and someone imposed this standard on you? Prolly a couple. No fun.
Please do a video on exceptional circumstances! Like what does happen if a table collapses?
I guess my first instinct as a rules lawyer and non-judge would be "aw, crap...okay guys just restart the game" haha. Unless someone did it on purpose of course.
You cry
my favorite DDR episodes are still "what is the proper infraction, penalty, and fix?"
A clear, measured, unbiased explanation of the event and the reasonings why the "obvious" fix isn't a rule is nice to see.
I loved the comment about ethics experts. As always, great content.
🤣🤣🤣🤣 that disclaimer! I hope nobody went off on Judge Dave or something, although in this case it sounds like he's responding to people in other forums yelling at the judge from this event or something. I solemnly swear that while I am always right, all of my opinionated comments about how the rules should work are still open to disagreement or correction :)
Plebbit
While what the head judge did was by the book, I think it points to more of a gap in the book that needs to be looked at. Maybe there is no clean option and we're stuck with it, maybe there is a way to make a consistent ruling that works in the vast majority of cases.
Exactly. I have no issue with the judge's ruling here, but this seems at least partially solvable with a partial fix rule. It is ornery and requires official consensus, but I would think mis-tapping mana is common enough that even a partial fix would be desirable. But then I don't play above casual, so I'm just reacting blindly to these scenarios.
yes. If the book has no clear way of dealing with a situation like this, it needs to get updated to allow it to deal with these situations in the future. This should also be communicated as such, i.e. there should be an official statement that situations like these are being looked into, and ways on how to solve it are being discussed. This would prevent people from seeing this specific case and getting the impression that if the mess-up is complicated enough or you hurry your opponents along fast enough, no matter if it's intentional or by mistake, taking otherwise illegal game actions cannot be appropriately punished or reverted. It sets a precedent which I am sure we're all eager to avoid.
Yeah applying a universal rule for edge cases where it doesn't make sense is pretty awful. Apparently there's some discretion but not without huge flack. There should be language in the rules that lets judges apply a fix that makes sense and not a one size fits most application.
Agreed tbf.
Dave - you are simply the best. Thank you.
Great to hear this explained from the judge side
This case feel like another example of REL level forcing illegal game states. In Casual/FNM level, the fix would be to explain the mistake, fix the mana, then continue the game. Can you use Fellwar Stone to pay for it's own rhystic study tax (If your opponent misses the trigger?)
These 'fixes' are extremely unsatisfying to viewers and casual players, who want the highest level of play to be held to a higher standard, not a lower one.
Rhystic study is a may effect so the player can simply not draw and that's generally a better fix than tapping mana from a rock for a trigger that goes on the stack and would resolve before it is cast.
In my experience it is best to shortcut whether or not it's trigger get paid on resolution by audibly poking the mana source used to pay it in order to save notable time.
Rhystic study is such a chore to track.
That's a very good take, about having a higher or lower standard. Although rather than redo the entire framework of partial fixes, it seems to me like they should just write an exception that says "when the player does have mana sources available with no permanent impact (so not treasures), change the board state as if they had paid the mana."
We can test the original ruling by scaling up the infraction, too. What if a player forgot to tap a Gaia's Cradle for 7, which is now worth 9? The reset might be disruptive, but leaving it untapped is also highly disruptive and a "common sense" approach is clearly a higher, more accurate standard. It also places more responsibility on the player most directly responsible for the infraction, which is the one who did it. Leaving the mana untapped benefits the player, which sets a bad precedent in favor of "mistakes."
While this was in line with the policy, doesn't that indicate that the policy is a problem ? I mean if not, it's such an easy cheat with literally no repercussion (cause it would never look like cheating unless you get caught multiple times), I might even do it from now on ! (ok not really but you get my point)
On the surface it seems that way but I think in actuality this rule works as intended a lot more of the time than people think.
It is technically the responsibility of both players to maintain a correct board state. And if the interacting player is playing in a way that attempts to obfuscate that, then I think any reasonable head judge would be able to interpret the intent as cheating and apply the appropriate penalty.
Which following that logic, leads me to believe that the head judge here determined through investigation that this was not intentional. I will admit that there is basically no way to prove if the head judge was correct in that assumption. But a lot of people are using the accounts of the two involved players online to determine the intent, and then extrapolating that to the intent that was present in the game itself, which doesn’t really work as the players had much more time to talk with witnesses and bystanders before writing those posts.
@@Scarveilixin this particular case it seems the investigation was rushed cause they were 20 mins overtime.
But yeah you're right, it's often working. But that doesn't mean it can't be better for when it doesn't (especially when it gained so much attention and I now for a fact more people are gonna do it now)
I mean it's sooooo easy to make anything look innocent. Especially something like that.
@@Scarveilix The involved judge believing Amy (as per the problem statement in the video) on her word is the debatable thing here. Why would the judge take Amy's over Nick's word here?
@@Scarveilix wouldn't failure to tap mana lead to a warning at a minimum, though? Otherwise, I could just never going to tap mana and force my opponent to call me out every single time
@ I assume Both players got a warning for failure to maintain a proper game state. As that is part of penalty for the listed fixes. But neither player mentioned that in their documents because it doesn’t support the narrative itself
I'm not going to fault the judges for going by the book. They did everything as they should.
I will fault a player for using resources they know that shouldn't be at their disposal outside of the windfall of a judge ruling to win the game afterward.
I’m not, because had a full re-wind been possible, it’s very likely the player who won wouldn’t have chosen to cast the first scrollshift, but saved their mana to cast the crucial one.
This is why I like Arena. Don’t have to argue rules with people who don’t know how the game works and it won’t let people underpay for spells etc
Meanwhile, Frostpyre Arcanist...
Why do partial fixes need to be uniform?
Why not tap the land as a partial fix because it works in this situation.
If it doesn't work in other situations, then you don't use it. You use some other fix.
The "Correct" fix in this situation was easy, but it wasn't done because of some bullcrap idea that partial fixes have to be uniform.
The whole point of having rules is that the experiences from one game or one tournament is the same as another game or tournament. Consistency IS the point. We ONLY have deviations in the situation of exception. This situation was not exceptional.
@@zekebowl We can have consistency.
When this situation comes up and it's this easy to fix it, FIX IT.
Consistency. It makes no sense to say, "Well in some slightly different situation this fix wouldn't work, so we can't apply it here because reasons".
@@zekebowl the entire point of judges is to use their judgement to judge the situation. Algorithmic consistency should not take precedence over equity. It's what makes judges in the actual legal system so powerful; they are constrained in many ways but still have a lot of authority for justice in others because the details of reality matter.
I’m going to put a couple notes here.
1. Great video. As always the rules are clearly explained and I think avoiding too much speculation on intent is a good call when we simply don’t have information.
2. The judges applied the correct ruling. I’m going to nip this one in the bud here.
3. The player, ‘Amy’, did not, per say, do a cheat by the rules of the game. Yes I agree that it was unsporting and personally I would feel uncomfortable winning a game like this but they did do everything by the book. And finally
4. The book should be changed. I understand the desire is to have partial fixes be uniform and clean. But to put it simply it is unacceptable for a mistake to give one player a clear advantage over the other if the argument for giving both players a grv is that they are both at fault. Magic is far too complicated a game at this point for a single fix to always be the correct one and I think it is naive to continue that philosophy. When just tapping a land is such an obvious and clear way to mend the board state it seems ludicrous to me to not include that as a potential fix. Obviously it is not a fix that will work for every scenario but I think it should be clear that the current fix is also not working for most scenarios and is resulting in players getting an unfair advantage.
I disagree on point 4. In most scenarios, the rules as they are lead to a fair game experience. It is just the occasional counterintuitive ruling that stirs up internet controversy and makes it seem like the rules are failing
So if I'm understanding correctly, a by the book ruling allowed for a player to make an impossible play that they did not have mana for?
Or alternative headline: A mistake was made and neither player noticed until it was too late
The other thing to note is the player also would’ve received a warning, which could then be used to establish a pattern of behavior in regards to future determinations of whether a thing is a mistake or cheating.
Based on my interpretation of the setup and the potential proposed solutions, they had at least one untapped land remaining after they finished their play, meaning that they did have enough mana available, they just did not produce it. In this case the play would have been possible, just not with the exact sequence of actions taken by "Amy". The "by the book ruling" resulted in Amy having at least one more available mana than would have been if play had proceeded according to the rules.
And then proceeded to use that one extra mana as the deciding factor to win the match in question.
@@Debatra.
After deciding to cast the first scrollshift with the belief that they would have enough mana to cast the second.
It’s very likely they would have chosen not to cast the first one had the mistake been caught immediately and the land was tapped then.
What a thoughtful and excellent interpretation of the situation.
As a judge, I'd love to see more MTR/IPG videos! Thanks for sharing this one!
This ruling isn't an invite to exploit this kind of "errors"?
If your opponent doesn't notice it, you have an advantage.
But also if your opponent notice it half turn later, is an advantage.
If you aren't so blatantly in your "error", that may lead to a disqualify, it just have a positive outcome.
IMHO Wizards should address this kind of ruling, even with a partial remedy that isn't always applicable (es. tap the land).
I agree this is the biggest problem, in this instance of cheating there is no downside to attempting it.
After watching a lot of JFtW videos I've come to realize that more times than not, this Amy gal is the one giving trouble to judges, smh
Yeah, you'd think she'd have established enough of a pattern to get barred from events by now. 😜
I wonder how the notable Magic streamer named Amy feels about being blamed for everything all the time 🤣
I feel like I just walked into a room only to find an immense, smoking crater. What HAPPENED?
They have a quick summary on mtggoldfish but essentially the "Amy" player was able to play a free Hopeless Nightmare while their opponent was at low life then thanks to having that one extra mana was able to cast Scrollshift twice to win.
From reading the account of both players it really didn't seem like there were any kind of investigation into the GRV-infraction (potentially cheating). I know that you don't seek to comment on that as per the video, but that's the only part of this that I would take issue with, from the judge POV.
So quick question. In the original story, it was said by both players that the pixie player did not pay for hopeless nightmare the previous turn. How was that proven? What if it was stated that the pixie playing payed only 2 for scrollshift? That means it is still in the same turn and not many actions has been taken. Would that have changed the ruling?
Well the entire game was livestreamed so that's how it's proven.
You are going to need a new shelf reaaaaallllllll soon.
Regardless of the current by-the-book procedure, this is terrible precident stating if you don't want to pay for a spell, you can just hope your opponent doesn't notice until their draw step and then you claim it was a mistake and get off scott free.
Thanks for the clear explanation! I have a question: would the judges consider the outcome in their decision? I’m not referring to ruling a cheat/DQ conclusion, but to the mere fact that a player would instantly win a game due to the illegal board state of their own creation.
That’s a bit of a slippery slope. What if the faulty board state allows the player to win but not until their next turn? or if it just gives them a big advantage? Should the judge not roll the game back if the opponent has a counterspell to stop the winning play?
In the IPG, it's made clear that you make the ruling based on the infraction, not taking into account other parts of the game. This is essential because it creates consistency and avoids difficult judgement calls on who stands to gain from the error.
Game state and other player information IS taken into account for investigations: for example, if an experienced player makes a rookie mistake ONLY when they're about to lose, and it makes them win instead, that may be part of the evidence that leads to a Cheating DQ
@@OceanicBacon I agree that there would also be scenarios with less obvious outcomes. In the particular case (if I understood correctly) there would be no clean way to return the board state to the last legal config. The main question that remains for me is wether the corresponding land should or not be tapped to compensate for the misconfigured board state and if the immediate outcome would be considered by the judges.
@@ThePauliwrath Fully agree with the need for consistent judging. Considering both players’ perspectives and accepting the incorrect board state was the result of an honest mistake, we also must accept misplays are an unfortunate part of the game - in this case, the losing player not tracking the board state is a critical misplay, especially in a competitive environment. Players’ takes on misplays vary a lot too - the MH3 PT top 8 match between Javier Domingues and Simon Nielsen shows just that.
You would think they would at the very least not want to reward the player making the mistake.
What if Amy had scrollshifted a Beza for life and Nick responded with a bolt for lethal? Would the choice still be to back up to the casting of scrollshift now with the knowledge of Nicks bolt?
Wasn’t there something at the end that said “when no other option exists”. While this might have not been a rare situation, it is one without a fix. We should have some room for a judge to use critical thinking and administer reasonable fixes to situations like this. It clearly has caused a stir and needs to be addressed.
I disagree. It shouldn’t be on judges to have to decide when to apply the rules and when not to. The policy being consistent is more important imo, even if it leads to some counterintuitive rulings like this one
I mean, it's Nicole though and she has a pretty long track record of questionable ethics. I think you're right in reading that it was premeditated.
While this ruling was by the books, I think the known history of the player should've played a hand in reading intent.
Couldnt the rule just be that in cases like this, if it is possible to pay for the spell at the point of the judge call that the player is forced to do so at that point? That way they ar least dont gave excess mana they shouldnt have had
It sounds like a lot of people want to see this added as a new partial fix. I think it would be an interesting discussion to figure out how such would ideally work.
Here are some of my ideas, and thoughts on their efficacy. Feel free to post yours.
"If a player performed an action that required a cost (such as casting a spell) without paying any part of its cost, put a trigger onto the stack with "That player pays that cost now or else loses the game. This ability can't be countered or exiled."
This effectively puts an uncounterable "pact trigger" onto the stack. The benefit of this approach is that it allows the player to use any methods they know of to pay for such a cost, including lands, mana abilities, fetchlands, rituals from hand. The downside is that it does provide a very harsh penalty - a Game Loss - for failing to pay costs. IMO its fine to have harsh penalties in specific cases where things are hard to resolve (like how the fix for Hidden Card Error being a full thoughtsieze) but I understand why this might not fit with the partial fixes. This partial fix also doesnt address situations where part of the cost was paid (for instance, if you paid the wrong colors) which honestly is probably more common than just forgetting.
Another issue is that if a full turn has passed, it is possible for someone to transfer a forgotten cost through their untap step. This is probably just going to have to be fune as its still a betrer fix than them just getting the action for free.
My less harsh modification to your proposal would be if you're tapped out, you're tapped out, and you can't use any more mana abilities until your next untap phase, but no game loss. The goal would be that you can't pay for more stuff, which IMO is the egregious part of this scenario people are outraged about, but we can allow one you already cast if nobody spotted the problem and it can't be backed up, which is similar to how many other gameplay mistakes would be resolved.
Similarly, mismatched colors can be fixed on the spot if possible or else treat outstanding costs as generic.
Very clever btw using a trigger rather than just "do it right now" to mitigate the possibility of a game loss - they have some options. But yeah game loss still feels too harsh for an honest mistake.
Also agree with you perfection is the enemy of the good in this case. Better to have a somewhat limited scope partial fix for many situations than to do nothing and resolve it as it had to be here. So the "Nick might've not played something because he thought Amy had open mana" gets a "too bad" from me - clearly he would still prefer she doesn't get a free mana.
@@jerodast I like the idea of just disabling their mana abilities. But I think I have an even better way of doing this.
"If a player cast a spell or activated an ability without paying the full cost, calculate the part of the cost that was unpaid. That player gains the continuous effect "You may not cast spells or activate abilities that are not mana abilities. You can pay [the unpaid cost] at any time as a special action to stop this effect permanently."
This makes sure the player must pay the cost before doing anything else (effectively putting them "in debt") but never leads to a scenario where they just lose - if the mistake went on so long that they couldnt pay the remainder of the cost this turn, it will happen next turn.
Of course the disadvantage is that you'd still get the freedom of paying that cost at a later date, if you got away with it. However I think theres no real way around that other than an auto game loss if it happened more than a turn ago.
In the case of mismatched colors, the unpaid cost would be just the colored pips. So if I pay 3W for Wrath of God, I'll need to pay a second white at some point before casting other spells.
Hey, I really appreciate your content, and I have a question. I cast Ever After, targeting Body Double and Grizzly Bears in my graveyard. Can I choose to have Body Double enter as a copy of a Grizzly Bears? Is Grizzly Bears still technically in a graveyard as I choose an object which's copy Body Double will be?
Similar to the Eldrazi from a bit ago, since it (and the grizzle bears) enter directly from the graveyard, body double still ‘sees’ both of them as being there for body double to pick from.
Another similar one to these is Golgari Grave-Troll which enters with a +1/+1 counter for each creature in your graveyard, and if brought directly from graveyard to battlefield will still count itself as being in the graveyard for its replacement etb
@@fhortedakwhil Ok, thank you very much
The opening makes me glad I left Twitter and Reddit. Thank you for presenting facts. Having someone just answer the question from the judge perspective is nice
What's the judge policy on strongly suggesting a non-required fix? Could the head judge have said to Amy "You should have tapped an additional land to pay for one of your spells, I strongly suggest you tap a land that can produce a black mana, and then not use that mana before the phase ends"
I mean what does a "strong suggestion" mean. If "Amy chooses not to take the suggestion" means she's considered a cheater, then that's just a roundabout way of requiring the fix. If there's no consequence, it's not relevant to any official policy. And of course "Amy" already had the option of simply not using extra mana that turn if "she" wanted to avoid the social/community consequences of appearing to cheat.
This feels not fair and I don't think it is the intention of the partial fix rule. Without being rude, tgis feels like a sleazy lawyers interpretation of a law that was made to avoid corner cases, but this is no corner case
But what do I do if a booster contains a card from different set?
I get it that it was by the book ruling, but i don't understand why deviating and simply tapping a land isn't a simple fix.
The board state was very clear, the casting of the seek the beast isn't really relevant, it doesnt affect any decision basically. Why couldn't they rewind? He had no cards and what he drew was known information.
As a long time magic player and organizer I find it absurd that sloppy (or borderline cheating) play can be rewarded to this extant. It can open a can of worms with other players trying to mask cheating as honest mistake and claiming that it's too late to rewind so I guess they win now
The headjudge COULD have done it.
They chose not to.
Both is valid. One of the players in that even suggested after the judge left to do exactly that, tap the lands down, but to demand that from a player is putting all the blame on them, if your opponent asks anything of you that results in them winning and you losing, thats just stupid either way ...
If anything if the head judge makes that call and asks the players "Hey it would be more fair if we tap the lands down, is that ok for both of you ?" , would already do the trick most of the time ; if the player that did the mistakes "insists" not to, that would probably have an impact for a cheating investigation, why that player so badly wants to keep that advantage from that "mistake".
The rewind would require undoing random elements as stated in the video. The fact that the random elements were possibly inconsequential in this specific case is irrelevant because you could easily create a situation in which they were consequential
I'll also add that a game rule violation is not "getting away with cheating", and I can assure you that those two players paid very close attention to their available mana for the rest of that match :^) it's not exactly possible to "cheat" like this unless your opponent is inattentive in the first place
@@ausiidnd which random element? He had no cards in hand in the beginning of the turn and drew one card. The top of the library won't change if they rewind. The only new information is that she'll know he draws the druid, so what? Her knowing that won't change what she can or can't do. I'm not suggesting this should be the fix always, but in this scenario I don't see why fixing the board state to reflect the correct situation is an issue. There is no hidden information or random elements involved
@@almogdovThe player who drew Questing Druid casted Seek the Beast, exiling two cards from the top 2 cards of their library face up. This is hidden information being revealed and could have an effect on plays in many other circumstances
@MeaCulpa2018 but we're not talking about other circumstances. I'm talking about this specific scenario im which all that is irrelevant. He had lethal on board. Those cards have no effect on any decision.
I find it incredible that the fix of tapping the mana is so unacceptable. I mean, ok in other circumstances as you mentioned this fix may not be possible, but if it was possible I don't see why not.
The official policy should be consistent and applied in the exact same way every time. The fact that the proposed fix of “just tap the land” wouldn’t work in every situation is the reason that “just tap the land” isnt the official policy. The judges aren’t in the business of deciding whether they think the official policy is the most perfect solution to any specific scenario, they are just supposed to apply the policy as accurately as possible.
Thank you!
You are a silver lining in a world full of unsubstantiated indignation.
I prefer content that presents facts and substance over emotion and outrage.
It's not exactly unsubstantiated if someone violating game rules allows them to win a game because the enforcement rules were unable to handle the situation. I would certainly endorse "misdirected indignation" though - sometimes there isn't a clear and fair way to fix situations, and justified indignation should not be unloaded blindly.
@jerodast I mostly had the "bad judge call" commentators in mind.
Its very much like people critizing the outcome of a court case based on the litigation PR they consumed.
PleasantKenobi actually released a video covering this story yesterday. It's a good watch.
The reasoning for not allowing a backup here is pretty terrible. There is no random or unknown elements. Player N is hellbent at the time of the hopeless nightmare. This is a terrible ruling. A simple backup forcing player A to tap mana for their spell has ZERO influence on the decisions made going forward. In addition, there is zero mention of the lack of investigation that occurred. Is that intentional? Fail grade here.
The idea of tapping the lands down is that its the least disruptive action that actually does put the game in the state it "legally" would be.
So thats pretty much the perfect way to handle it for the head judge.
In general, if a fix is that "trivial" for everyone involved and all players agree its fine to do so, that would be much more preferable than the disruptive action of keeping an illegal play as is ; as that changes the outcome of the game, and that ALWAYS leads to social media aftershocks that are even more troubling for the competitive game, if players feel they got ruled out of the game, thats never good.
----
Cheating investigation in that particular case for basically skipped, nonexistent and probably because it was already in overtime the tournament pushed that direction even more ; adding a bunch of spectators in the mix just makes that worse to handle.
Fear of social media outrage should not be the deciding factor for a judge trying to apply rules policy
In the situation described, many people believe that is exactly what _should_ have happened -- there was no game rule that would have prevented the offending player from tapping the required land and not using the mana generated.
Doing so would have resulted in the player losing, and she decided not to do that. This is the controversy -- all the players *didn't* agree that the fix (tapping the land) was appropriate.
@ The judge did not ask them, it was the opponent who asked, and yea, if your opponent asks you anything the usual answer is "no".
@ Less the "fear" more that if some rulings result in that kind of controversy, maybe the rules are just not properly formulated to deal with these situations.
If rulings result in social media "feedback", you cant just ignore it, it clearly is trying to tell you something that isnt working in the eyes of the people you are judging for (aka the players).
The problem is, the decision of the judge does introduce more disruption then the more obvious solution would ; that requires to take into account that some actions are inconsequential, and to make that decision it cant be standardized ; which is the entire point that people argue the "proper" fix would not be standardized.
In which round did this happen?
round 5 I believe
@Jessalakasam thanks.
All the drama makes it seem like it happened during the finals.
Are there tournaments that have their own policy guide that overrules the official one? If not, could such a thing exist?
Noted, as long as I make sure my opponent doesn't notice in time, I'm allowed to cast spells without tapping mana. Can't wait to implement this new judge endorsed strategy at FNM from now on
Just fyi if you do it intentionally it is still cheating
I am sure - no, certain - that the fact that the vast majority of game rule violations committed at tournements are in the infracting player's favour, is a complete coincidence.
Oh hell nah😂🤣😭
You don’t need to be an ethics and morality expert to understand cheating is wrong
She cheated.
If you take an illegal game action which results in an irreversible game state then you should lose the game. Simple and efficient.
It's not simple and efficient though, nor is it reasonable. Anybody suggesting we just game loss everyone who makes an error that can't be reversed isn't interested in keeping the game fair, or even enjoyable, they just want to punish people regardless of impact. Two examples where this solution doesn't work.
First, the situation that actually happened. Amy didn't actually create the irreversible game state, technically Nick did by casting Seek the Beast. Amy's actions are simply why we want to reverse it in the first place. But she never did anything that's stopping a judge from fixing her error.
Second, you forgot to discard down to hand size three turns ago, leaving you with one extra card for just a couple turns. As a result, your opponent's The Rack deals one less damage, one time, and it's likely that is the only real impact your missed discard would ever have on the game. That's also considered an irreversible game state, and would be absolutely asinine to give a game loss over.
@@Ahayzo You are absolutely right but they should still lose.
When you dont police, crime goes up.
@@euclidofkekistan6071 I can promise you that if they made every mistake a game loss if it took more than a turn cycle or two to notice, sanctioned competitive Magic would be dead tomorrow. Nobody wants to play a game where a tiny, irrelevant, accidental mistake not getting caught quick enough ruins your chances of making it to the end of the event. People love to talk like this would make things better, but it would actually cause a lot more people to hate playing and find it completely miserable, on top of every match going to time because everybody is going to slow play trying to be sure everything is always perfect no matter.
The competitive community would despise this if it actually went into effect. And no, not because they want to get away with stuff.
@@euclidofkekistan6071 boy, would I give out many game losses then.
@@euclidofkekistan6071uh, its not a crime. Its a game. The player made a mistake. How many games would you have instantly lost had you made a mistake and someone imposed this standard on you? Prolly a couple. No fun.