What a hectic month of judging I’ve had! Since we last chatted, I’ve judged at a Regionals in Cardiff, A GPT, a PTQ and a Regionals in Kent held on consecutive days, sleeping at the venue in between, a London Regionals, and a local Standard tournament to qualify for the Bath Invitational, not to mention playing weekly at the FNM. You would have thought with all that Magic the last thing I would want to do is write about judging, but far from it!
I’m also looking forward to the release of Duels of the Planewalkers on Xbox Live Arcade. My gamertag is paulsmithenator – if you fancy friending me up so we can do battle then please go ahead! Also, don’t laugh at the gamertag…
Last month I hinted that we would be talking about the learning process, but that article’s on hold momentarily. Meanwhile, an interesting discussion started up recently on the DCI Judge UK Forums about PG52, otherwise known as Out-of-Order Sequencing. Seems like as good a time as any to spotlight this reasonably recent addition to the PG.
Once upon a time there was Ruling by Intent. The DCI saw Ruling by Intent, and saw that it was good. But as time passed, the DCI realised that the original article was becoming less and less accessible by newer judges, and that this philosophy needed to be encoded into the actual rules. Meanwhile a pocket of rules regarding communication and shortcuts was growing in the front of the PG, and the DCI realised that Ruling by Intent had been a communication issue after all. More to the point, Ruling by Intent always seemed to refer to situations where what a player was physically doing, and what they wanted to achieve in game terms, suffered from a bit of a mismatch, because what they were physically doing was technically out of order.
So Out-of-Order Sequencing was born. For ease of reference, here it is in all its glory.
…
52. Out-of-Order Sequencing
At Regular and Competitive REL, it is acceptable for players to engage in a block of actions that, while technically in an incorrect order, arrive at a legal and clearly understood game state once they are complete.
All actions taken must be legal if they were executed in the correct order, and any opponent can ask the player to do the actions in the correct sequence so that they can respond at the appropriate time (at which point players will not be held to any still-pending actions).
Players may not try to use opponent’s reactions to some portion of an out-of-order sequence to see if they should modify actions or try to take additional ones. Nor may players use out-of-order sequencing to try to retroactively take an action they missed at the appropriate time. In general, any substantial pause is an indication that all actions have been taken, the sequence is complete and the game has moved to the appropriate point at the end of the sequence.
Players at Professional REL events are expected to play in a technically precise fashion and may not take actions out of order. They will be held to any consequences that result.
Examples
A. A player discards a card to pay for Masticore’s upkeep cost before untapping their land.
B. A player resolves Harrow and puts the card into their graveyard, then searches.
C. While resolving Restore Balance, a player discards before sacrificing lands and creatures.
D. A player with two creatures being put into the graveyard due to state-based effects resolves the leaves play trigger on one of them before putting the other creature in the graveyard.
E. A player declares a blocker, then activates a Treetop Village to block as well.
…
Wow, there’s a lot here. Let’s pick it apart, analyse the pieces, study the examples, and respond to some common criticisms.
First, did you read the original Ruling by Intent article? If so, you’ll remember two important tenets raised:
For ruling by intent to be the correct call, two conditions must be met:
– The intention of the player at the time when he could legally have made the decision must be clear.
– A player may gain no advantage because of his sloppy play.
You should use the intent philosophy only if both conditions are met.
At Regular and Competitive REL, it is acceptable for players to engage in a block of actions that, while technically in an incorrect order, arrive at a legal and clearly understood game state once they are complete.
The first thing to note here is that PG52 does not apply at the Professional level*. Second, we’re talking about a block of actions here. We’ll see later what exactly a block of actions entails, but to use shortcut terminology for a moment, it’s as if the entire block of actions is being performed at once. Of course this is impossible according to the rules of the game, but communication between players works on a higher level than the rules explicitly allow**. The only stipulation here is that you must ultimately arrive in a legal game state that both players understand. It’s as if, contrary to the proverb, the destination matters more than the actual journey.
This is really the first tenet of the ruling by Intent article in disguise – the intention of the player at the time when he could legally have made the decision must be clear.
All actions taken must be legal if they were executed in the correct order, and any opponent can ask the player to do the actions in the correct sequence so that they can respond at the appropriate time (at which point players will not be held to any still-pending actions).
So, PG52 isn’t allowing anyone to take actions that are actually illegal. That’s reassuring. Also, using an out of order sequence, much like using a shortcut, can be interrupted by your opponent. I’ll illustrate this in more detail when we study the examples.
Players may not try to use opponent’s reactions to some portion of an out-of-order sequence to see if they should modify actions or try to take additional ones.
No fishing! Here’s an example of a kind of play that apparently Mike Flores used to make: Play an Eternal Witness, then having confirmed that it will resolve, sacrifice a Sakura-Tribe Elder to fetch a land, using the Witness’s ability to return the Elder. It’s technically out of order, and your intent is pretty clear, but you’re fishing for a counterspell here. The only correct way to achieve this is to sacrifice the Elder before knowing whether or not the Witness will resolve. I won’t allow you to sacrifice the Elder after you’ve learned that the Witness will resolve.
The sharp-eyed amongst you will realise that this is the second tenet from the Ruling by Intent article.
Nor may players use out-of-order sequencing to try to retroactively take an action they missed at the appropriate time.
Or, to put it another way, you can’t claim that you intended to do something a minute ago and are doing it now, just out of order. If you forgot, then you forgot, and you don’t get a chance to go back. Judges beware – there’s a world of difference between “Play my Elvish Visionary, draw a card and untap my Nettle Sentinels,” and “Play my Elvish Visionary, draw a card… oh, and untap my Nettle Sentinels.” This is one of those lines that’s really quite difficult to describe, generally speaking you’ll know which side of the line you’re on.
The sharp-eyed amongst you will realise that this is another form of the second tenet from the Ruling by Intent article.
In general, any substantial pause is an indication that all actions have been taken, the sequence is complete and the game has moved to the appropriate point at the end of the sequence.
And here’s a best attempt at defining the difference between the above two scenarios. The key phrase is substantial pause. That’s quite a weighty word isn’t it? Substantial. Really roll it around your tongue. What exactly makes for a substantial pause? That’s somewhat subjective, and comes down to a matter of judgement. Lucky we have judges to make these judgement calls then, eh?
Players at Professional REL events are expected to play in a technically precise fashion and may not take actions out of order. They will be held to any consequences that result.
Here’s further clarification that this entire section just does not apply to you at Professional REL. An interesting side effect of this is that on Day 1 of a Grand Prix you can ‘get away’ with certain actions which you cannot get away with should you make it to Day 2. Is this a flaw in PG52, or in the crazy REL structure of GPs? I’m yet to be convinced on this one, and I haven’t seen Day 2 of a GP in a while, but it sounds like something that players need to be aware of, hence me calling it out here.
So, at the Pro Tour, “Play my Elvish Visionary, draw a card, untap my Nettle Sentinel” is not going to fly. Well, unless you have a particularly forgiving opponent of course. It’s worth pointing out here, just as with shortcuts with default meanings, they only really have wait when a judge gets involved, and a judge only really gets involved if the opponent makes the call. It’s entirely possible that some of the many Elfball players at PT: Berlin made this exact play, the opponent had no problem with it, and life continued as normal.
Examples
A. A player discards a card to pay for Masticore’s upkeep cost before untapping their land.
Enough theorizing, lets get into some examples! I think this is the most straightforward one of the bunch – a player resolving an upkeep trigger without actually doing the untap part of their turn first. Is it out of order? Yes, Untap obviously should come first. Is there any fishing here? No, players don’t get priority in the Untap step anyway. id the player just forget to untap? I doubt it, seeing as that’s mandatory.
B. A player resolves Harrow and puts the card into their graveyard, then searches.
I think this is the most classic example of Ruling by Intent there is, and probably the reason why the policy exists. Technically, it is possible to infer from the Harrow going to the graveyard that the player must have elected to fail to find their basic land. This kind of rules lawyering is precisely what RBI, and now PG52, are here to avoid. It’s obvious what the player is trying to do – in fact at his point the player probably has their deck in their hand. No fishing – the opponent can’t respond in the middle of the resolution of the spell anyway. Forgot to search a land? Unlikely, that is kind of the whole point of playing Harrow.
C. While resolving Restore Balance, a player discards before sacrificing lands and creatures.
This is simply a player ignoring the order that a card tells them to do things. It probably happens all the time – either players don’t realise that the steps are meant to be executed in the order written on the card, or perhaps they misremember what order the steps are meant to happen in, and don’t read the card to check. Is there a potential for fishing here? I’m not sure – maybe I can stretch to find a scenario in which by doing things out of order gives you some information during the resolution of Balance that you probably shouldn’t have, butI would have to stretch. Perhaps someone can educate me in the forums as to why a shady player might want to resolve Balance in the wrong order?
D. A player with two creatures being put into the graveyard due to state-based effects resolves the leaves play trigger on one of them before putting the other creature in the graveyard.
Now, here I can see potential advantage – someone might not realise that the second creature is dead, and make decisions based on it being in play. However, I think this is fairly innocuous. As an example, who knows precisely what happens when you play your 2nd Venser, Shaper Savant onto the field? If you get some of the steps out of order here, I don’t think it’s going to matter.
Of course, a Reveillark player will know what’s what here, as they’re probably used to reanimating a 2/2 that dies at the same time as the Reveillark itself. So, if you’re an opponent of someone who’s doing something a little confusing with their permanents, ask them what’s up. Or, if they don’t want to tell, ask a judge what’s up, and we’ll get to the bottom of the mess in no time.
E. A player declares a blocker, then activates a Treetop Village to block as well.
And finally, on to perhaps the most contentious issue of them all. I’ve had it expressed to me that this is a dangerous road to go down. Imagine player A attacking with some guys, all the while holding an Incinerate. The opponent blocks with a 6/6 and the freshly animated Treetop Village. Now, you know, and I know, that the Treetop Village must have been activated in the Declare Attackers step, before being declared as a blocker. That means there’s a window here for player A to burn the Treetop to a crisp before it’s declared as a blocker. The danger here is that by animating and declaring the Treetop Village in one move whilst declaring blockers, the attacker might not realise that Incinerating the Village is an option.
Of course, if Player B was forced to play properly, and animate the Village in the Declare Attackers step, before beginning to declare blockers, A might realise that the window of opportunity is there. Now, none of this means the Treetop cannot be burned. Of course it can, the rules say it can. In fact, if the attacker wants to play their Incinerate, we actually go back to before any blockers were declared, and take it from there. We do not hold B to their original choice of blocker, instead we make them do the declaration properly.
The trick is, does A realise that he can Incinerate the Treetop? A good player, well versed in the rules, will realise this and there’s no problem. A confused player who knows to call the judge will be told that yes, they can burn the Village before it blocks. Here’s some gold. A bad player who doesn’t call a judge over might mislead themselves into thinking that the Village cannot be burned, and lose out on a vital opportunity as a result. Now, let’s not beat about the bush here, I have no sympathy for players who accept what their opponent is indicating and don’t call a judge, and as far as I’m concerned, these are the only types of players who will lose out as a result.
Any more questions about PG52? If so, bring them up in the forums.
As has become customary, I end today’s column with a few questions for you. Once again, this comes courtesy of the dcijudge.co.uk forums, where it recently came to light that upgrading penalties in line with the PG is an area fraught with misconceptions. So, I present to you a list of infractions that a player commits. In all of these cases, the tournament is at Competitive REL, and the Head Judge sticks to exactly what the PGs say she should. The question is: what is the appropriate set of penalties for this set of infractions, if they were committed one after the other.
A) Game Rule Violation, Game Rule Violation, Game Rule Violation
B) Looking at Extra Cards, Looking at Extra Cards, Looking at Extra Cards
C) Game Rule Violation, Looking at Extra Cards, Game Rule Violation
D) Tardiness (5 minutes late to Round 1), Tardiness (5 minutes late to Round 3)
I think that’s enough homework for now. Join me next month when I talk about… well, the last time I told you what I would write about it didn’t end up happening, so let’s leave it as a surprise shall we? Do you like the treatment I’ve given to PG52 here? Would you like me to give a similar treatment to another part of the PGs, or the rules? If you don’t let me know in the forums, perhaps I’ll never find out…
…
* For what it’s worth, I believe PG52 is excellent policy, and I see no reason for it to not apply at Professional level. AFAIK, Ruling by Intent wasn’t fussy about REL. It may be that at the Professional level there’s mroe incentive to try and use PG52 to gain some kind of advantage, so to quash that possibility we force more technical play on the players. Pro Tours are often used as test bed for new policy – does anyone have any stories about PG52 from Honolulu?
** It’s been said many times, but have you ever tried to play a game of Magic without using any shortcuts whatsoever? Even Magic Online players use shortcuts, except they call them stops.