text:
Am I obligated to identify cards owned by an opponent?
Nathan controls Jeskai Infiltrator. His deck has green sleeves. Anthony controls three Mountains. His deck has blue sleeves. Anthony casts and resolves Act of Treason, gaining control of Infiltrator. He attacks Nathan, deals combat damage, and triggers and resolves Infiltrator's ability. Anthony now controls two manifested permanents: Jeskai Infiltrator and a random card from the top of his deck.
Two questions:

Can Anthony desleeve both manifested cards, or otherwise manipulate them so that they cannot be differentiated?
Assume the cards are not sleeved to begin with, or Nathan is colorblind, so that Nathan is unable to differentiate between the two face down cards. Is Anthony obligated to tell Nathan which card is the card that he owns?

It seems to me that, depending on the answer, Jeskai Infiltrator's ability might not work the way it was intended. If Nathan knows which card is which, then shuffling them is pointless.
I am looking for a rules based answer if one exists. The Release Notes for Fate Reforged say the following:

A card's owner is public information at all times. If the two cards you exile are owned by different players (perhaps because you gained control of a Jeskai Infiltrator owned by your opponent), which card is which is no longer hidden from your opponent. That player will know which face-down creature he or she owns.

However, it does not provide rules to back this up. I checked the Tournament rules on Free, Derived, and Private information, but I found no mention of this. If the answer depends on what Rules Enforcement Level you are playing at, please describe the rule as it applies to each level.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

I too was unable to find anything in either the CR or MTR defining this, so I asked Matt Tabak, current Rules Manager of Magic and he said:

I just assumed that was self-evident. Like, if you get up from the table, you should know which cards to take with you.

And a Level 2 Judge I asked said:

From a practical standpoint, you’re going to be using different sleeves from your opponent 95% of the time. Even if the sleeves are the same, you have a right to your property, so you have the right to know which cards you own.

If you get up from the table, then the game must have ended. All manifested permanents should have been revealed when the game ended, and so you should automatically know which cards are yours. It appears as though Matt Tabak chose not to take the question seriously. That said, I have to give you a +1 because what Matt Tabak says is pretty much the rule, whether he chooses to explain it properly or not.

@Rainbolt but what if you are in a multiplayer game and an opponent took your Infiltrator? If you left you would have to know what card was your to take with you. I do agree it isn't really the most useful answer though. I also asked a L2 Judge so we can see if she gives us anything more useful.

I can see the need to know which card is yours. It does not follow that your opponent must satisfy that need. Anyway, I don't mean to take this out on your answer. I'm mostly just annoyed by Matt Tabak's "Because I said so." response. Hence my upvote.

@Rainbolt It would be nice if the MTR could just add "Ownership of a card" to the section on Free Information.

@diego It does say "Free information is information to which all players are entitled access" - it seems like even without making it explicit, we should probably understand that players are entitled to know which cards are theirs.

@Jefromi I agree that it makes sense that you know what permanents are yours, but Magic doesn't usually leave things to common sense, it usually explicitly says them.

I suppose the rules do leave the door open for it to be derived information. But it's a pretty big leap, given that control and zone are free information. And online, cards get the owner clearly marked if they're not controlled by their owner. I guess the rules don't say one way or another, but at least it's pretty easy to see from the rules which way it'd go if they made it explicit.

I don't think Tabak truly grasped your plight as it relates to Jeskai Infiltrator.

@corsiKa Considering that the ruling in question covers precisely the scenario that the question is about, I suspect that Tabak understood the situation perfectly well.

Considering he only talked about what cards you own when leaving the game as opposed to identifying to your opponent which cards are his during the game, I don't believe he did. He treated the question as though it was obvious when it is not necessarily obvious given the context of the question.

I'm talking about the ruling in this question. diego asked him to justify a ruling that covers exactly the scenario this question asked about. The fact that, as he says "To be clear, I totally answer real questions with snark when I feel like it. This tumblr is like a minefield," doesn't mean that he didn't understand the issue.

"From a practical standpoint, you’re going to be using different sleeves from your opponent 95% of the time." I don't get this... perhaps it's true in the tournament scene... but among casual players, I doubt sleeves are as common. Almost everyone in my playgroup plays with cards unsleeved. And even if multiple players are using sleeves, surely some brand/color combinations are more popular than others?

@GendoIkari I think it's a lot more true in tournaments, which is the presumably context that judge was assuming. (Judges are unlikely to show up at your kitchen table!) There are definitely some common brands/colors, but at the same time, the cost of sleeves is relatively small compared to the cost of the cards for a competitive deck, so it's not crazy to spend a bit of money to get ones in your favorite color or with your favorite clan symbol/planeswalker/whatever on the back. If you use plain black, 95% is probably an exaggeration, but if your sleeves are at all unique, probably not!

You cannot obscure information about face down cards.

707.6. If you control multiple face-down spells or face-down permanents, you must ensure at all times that your face-down spells
  and permanents can be easily differentiated from each other. This
  includes, but is not limited to, knowing the order spells were cast,
  the order that face-down permanents entered the battlefield, which
  creature attacked last turn, and any other differences between
  face-down spells or permanents. Common methods for distinguishing
  between face-down objects include using counters or dice to mark the
  different objects, or clearly placing those objects in order on the
  table.

One could probably argue that since the list of differences isn't limiting, ownership of a card would be something that would differentiate the cards from each other.

This answers one of two questions, and the question it did answer is not the one in the title. Can you expand?

@Rainbolt  I admit this answer is not complete, but is all I know about the topic and felt it was too much of an answer to post only as a comment.

@Rainbolt One could probably argue that since the list of differences isn't limiting ownership of a cards would be something that would differentiate the cards from each other.

@diego I added that because it makes the answer complete. And it seems logical.

@Rainbolt I'll do some research later to find the exact ruling that applies, but ownership of a card is public knowledge at all times, no matter the status of the card or the zone that it is in. So in answer to the question, yes, you are obligated to identify which facedown card is owned by your opponent.

While I can't find that the ownership itself is a property you're obligated to notify, the second question is answered by this answer: there must be some sort of way of clearly and effectively conveying which face-down spell or permanent is attached to which event, whether it's the order, or a post-it, or counters/dice. Assuming Nathan isn't limited in his ability to remember or record the actions, rule 707.6 mandates that some system be established to correlate the various actions to their resulting face down spells or permanents.

@corsiKa When cards get shuffled, as Jeskai Infiltrator requires you to do, their final order must be random by definition. Sticking a post-it note on the card breaks randomness.

Oh. This is what happens when your wife schedules a cruise (a treasure cruise?) for the weekend of a prerelease! I see now the true dilemma - the whole point of the ability is to obscure which one is the infiltrator and which one is the random card off the top. Revealing ownership screws that right up.

The crux of this question comes from the fact that Jeskai Infiltrator has you shuffle it, and another face down card so that (if they were both owned by the same person), the opponent would know know which one was the infiltrator.  This answer does not address that point of confusion.

@corsiKa Rainbolt said the problem is breaking randomness, but they could be random yet known. The issue is that the rules for shuffling say "no player knows their order". In practice, it seems pretty clear that ownership is supposed to be public and thus shuffling in that sense is impossible, so when the card says to do it you just don't do it. (Kinda like if a card said to shuffle two facedown permanents but one of them had a +1/+1 counter on it.) But that's apparently not actually written in the rules.

@Jefromi If what you say is true, then no player could shuffle a 1 or 0 card deck, but clearly we know they can. Regardless, it still works: no player knows their order during the shuffling process - immediately after the shuffling process, however, all public information just as public as it was before.

@corsiKa Before I deleted it, my answer said exactly that. Nathan loses track of which card he owns momentarily during the shuffling process. After shuffling, because Matt Tabak and the Fate Reforged notes said so, and not because the rules say so, Anthony is obligated to identify which card Nathan owns. I think that if you posted your own conclusions as an answer, it might be better received than mine was.

@corsiKa Getting a bit far afield here, but arguably in a 0 or 1 card deck there is no order to know, so it's just vacuously true that you've shuffled. But even if you say it's impossible it doesn't cause problems, I don't think - nothing says "Shuffle your library. If you do, ..." Either way, no one is going to expect you to wave your one card around and say you're shuffling, same as (assuming ownership is public) no one is going to expect you to shuffle two obviously distinct face down creatures.

Of course they wouldn't: 716.1: The rules for taking shortcuts are largely unformalized. As long as each player in the game understands the intent of each other player, any shortcut system they use is acceptable. Both players know the outcome of shuffling a 0 or 1 card deck, or a pile of 2 distinguishable cards, and therefore would have no problem "skipping the shuffle". The game doesn't skip the shuffle though, and that's the only thing we care about.

The game might skip the shuffle if, say, shuffling were deemed impossible by other game rules.

@corsiKa Exactly, as Rainbolt says - if cards tell you to do something impossible, you don't. And it's not much of a reach for this to be impossible. The definition of shuffling mentions library and face-down cards, and assumes that it's possible for them to end up with no player knowing the order - essentially it's assuming they're indistinguishable. If that were an explicit prerequisite, it'd be actually impossible to shuffle here, not just a shortcut.

@Jefromi Super pedantic counter-argument: I have zero cards left in my library. Every turn, I cast Beacon of Immortality to stay alive. If you play Cosi's Trickster, it will get counters. If you play Psychic Surgery, it will trigger and eat my Beacon.

The ruling in question is an official ruling on the workings of the card on the official Magic website. Like any ruling, it clarifies the rules with regards to a particular interaction. In this particular case, the rule regarding free information says "Free information includes:" followed by a list of information. The ruling quoted in the question says that free information also includes the owner of any object.
In addition, rule 108 defines what a card is, and rule 108.3 says

The owner of a card in the game is the player who started the game with it in his or her deck. If a card is brought into the game from outside the game rather than starting in a player's deck, its owner is the player who brought it into the game. If a card starts the game in the command zone, its owner is the player who put it into the command zone to start the game.

I would argue that this means that "ownership" is a fundamental property of a card, and that each card's owner must be known at all times. That implies that you must make it clear which player owns which card in both situations.
As another data point, the card Conjured Currency says

At the beginning of your upkeep, you may exchange control of Conjured Currency and target permanent you neither own nor control.

This card does not work unless ownership is public information.

Jeskai Infiltrator moves from the battlefield to exile before he gets shuffled. He's also face up when he leaves the battlefield. Do you still think 707.9 is applicable?

If you read the sentence after the rule quote, you will see that I was quoting it not for the direct meaning but for the implication of the bolded text. If the owner reveals any face down card when it leaves the battlefield, then the owner must know that they own it while it is still on the battlefield.

@murgtroid99 The card was already revealed when it left the battlefield. It leaves face up. Then, it gets shuffled. Then, it enters face down. At what point in this sequence does 707.9 apply?

That's not what I'm talking about. After the Infiltrator and the other card are manifested, their owner has to know who owns which because when they next leave the battlefield, the owner has to reveal them.

@murgtroid99 I understand now. That rule serves to establish a need. But it does not follow that where a need exists, that need will be satisfied. You can't say "Because the rules require me to know, you are required to tell me."

I fundamentally disagree with that last sentence. If the rules say that someone is obligated to have information, and you have that information, then you are obligated to share. That's the only way an obligation to have information could possibly make sense.

We can agree to disagree on that point. The first half of the answer has my upvote, because if "ownership" is a fundamental property of a card, then it should behave similarly to "commanderness". It has been established that "commanderness" is public information even if its identity would otherwise be hidden.

How about this: the first half of my answer applies to both bullet points in your question (by analogy to commanderness), so I'll delete the other half.

@murgatroid99 re "obligation" - seems pretty reasonable. The rules do say "Free information is information to which all players are entitled access" and that it "includes" a list of things (but not that it's limited to that list). Surely anything else the rules say all players should know would also be free information, which you're required to accurately report if your opponent asks.

@Rainbolt by that same logic, you could never ask your opponent for number of cards in hand or their life total, because if you were keeping track of all in game decisions, you would never need to ask, right? But we know that isn't the case: you have to give your life total or card count if someone asks. This would be no different.

However, I'm stuck wondering if, even though ownership of the card is known at all times, you may choose to use the manifest 'tokens' (i know, not actual tokens) instead of the actual card - in this case, would you be forced to reveal the ownership of the card to which the manifest 'token' belongs to.

@corsiKa Player life total is explicitly listed as free information. The number of cards in your hand is derived information (• The number of any type of objects present in any game zone.). You don't actually have to tell someone how many cards are in your hand, but if you do, you must answer truthfully. I usually answer, unless I have a large number of cards in my hand and I don't want to accidentally miscount, because making my opponent count is a pain.

@Rainbolt It is explicitly stated in the Fate Reforged FAQ "A card's owner is public information at all times." It is quoted and sourced in the OP.

@Rainbolt I added a point about the ruling itself.

Consider the question Is there any point in time at which someone can not identify which cards they own? The problem with words is that they need definitions. So let us be very clear about two different definitions of the same word that are tricking us up.

Time: the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole. Typically measured in seconds, minutes, or hours.

Clearly, a "point in time" is therefore defined as the instant in time corresponding to some measurement. For example, January 25, 2015 AD 10:45:12.134 AM or something like that. But I would like to propose an alternative definition of time: instead of measuring it in minutes, we measure it in terms of the game state.
It takes seconds or minutes to shuffle a deck, but in terms of the game state it is an instantaneous action. So if players did not use sleeves, or used the same sleeves, there may indeed be few seconds where it was unknown which card a player owned. I suppose you could Act of Treason another Jeskai Infiltrator, and you both use the same sleeves, and they're both in mint condition. But realistically, a simple inspection of the cards will quickly reveal ownership regardless of what sleeves there are.
Because it is an instantaneous game action, there is no point in the game where a player cannot readily identify what cards are owned by what players.
So let us focus on the questions being asked:

Can Anthony desleeve both manifested cards, or otherwise manipulate them so that they cannot be differentiated?

Answer: cards may be desleeved with the owner's permission, but they must be able to be identified by all players who the owner is. So if you want to desleeve for purposes of obfuscating the owner, that would not be okay. If you desleeve for some other reason (I don't know what) I suppose it's no different than any other time. (Maybe you're alergic to Ultra Pro sleeves or something?) But if you remove that differentiating factor, you must provide some other differentiating factor.
Next question:

Assume the cards are not sleeved to begin with, or Nathan is colorblind, so that Nathan is unable to differentiate between the two face down cards. Is Anthony obligated to tell Nathan which card is the card that he owns?

This is appears to be up in the air, but I assure you it is not. The tournament rules specifically state:

If a player is ever unable or unwilling to provide free information to an opponent that has requested it, he or she should call a judge and explain the situation.

While ownership of the card is not explicitly listed as free information, the definition of free information is

information to which all players are entitled access without contamination or omissions made by their opponents.

Now, I believe it is clear that "public" information means "free" information. I cannot imagine any definition otherwise. And as we know, ownership of a card is "public" information. The only logical conclusion is that it is a form of "free" information that the guide simply has not provided.
Specifically, we know it cannot be private information, because that public is the opposite of private and that would just be absolutely silly, and that would make the only other alternative derived information. This is defined as

Information to which all players are entitled access, but opponents are not obliged to assist in determining and may require some skill or calculation to determine.

Because the shuffling should have randomized the cards, you have no actual way of knowing by simply calculating and inspecting the visible game state which card is yours. (Especially if you do the unsleeving, or you don't play with sleeves, or you play with identical sleeves.) Derived information, by definition, can be calculated without the assistance of your opponent and merely by inspection of the game state. So this information (ownership) does not meet the qualifications of derived information. If it is not derived or private, it must be free. It's the only type of information that meets all the criteria, and is in line with the Fate Reforged FAQ.
Further evidence, which has that "Because Tabak said so", is taken from this question:

Jeskai Infiltrator's release notes state "A card's owner is public information at all times." Is public information in this context the same as "Free Information" as described in MTG-TR 4.1 Player Communication?

With the ever snarky answer:

Sure, why not? If, for some reason, you’re trying to split hairs here, stop. :)

So while we're not trying to split hairs (but rather, trying to make sure that other's don't try to split hairs) it's pretty clear that he means to include card ownership in Free Information and just apparently never bothered to update the TR.
Answer: if you are unwilling to give your opponent the ownership information of the cards exiled by Jeskai Infiltrator, you should immediately call a judge and explain the situation.

I find it hard to believe that the tournament rules incompletely list what information is Free. According to this answer, we are considering all phrase synonyms of "free information" to be an extension of that list. This is unusual for Magic rules, as they generally aren't left up to interpretation.

Listed under free information is The physical status (tapped/flipped/unattached/phased) and current zone of any object. Compare this to the definition of "Characteristics", An object’s characteristics are name, mana cost, color, color indicator, card type, subtype,
supertype, rules text, abilities, power, toughness, loyalty, hand modifier, and life modifier. (...) Any other information about an object isn’t a
characteristic. For example, characteristics don’t include whether a permanent is tapped, a spell’s
target, an object’s owner or controller, what an Aura enchants, and so on.

You do realize that you just quoted a rule that says that an object's owner is not a characteristic of the card?

"a simple inspection of the cards will quickly reveal ownership"... lots of the discussion here seems to assume this as fact, but it's not true at all. What if the top of your own deck was another Jeskai Infiltrator? Then both cards will be a copy of Jeskai Infiltrator, and if both decks are unsleeved, then it will be impossible to tell which card was which. Not only for in-game purposes, but in actual life as well... both players will end up leaving with a card that has a 50/50 chance of not being the same one they came with.

@Rainbolt yes, I definitely do: "object owner" falls in the same category as tapped permanent, controller, and attached aura, all of which are explicitly listed as free information. I agree that this is an unusual case, but the evidence is clearly pointing toward the conclusions in the answer.

@GendoIkari But it is true, because all players have an obligation to maintain that information at all "times". It might get lost to some players in the midst of a a shuffle, but as soon as that shuffle is over, he had better have a way to differentiate them or he is committing a violation exactly the same as if he failed to reveal his life total.

@corsiKa But the player cannot legally look at both cards before shuffling them, so he can't even know that he's actually shuffling 2 identical cards.

He doesn't need to. He knows which card came from the library (and that gets some kind of denotation as being his) and which card came from the battlefield (which he knows is the Infiltrator belonging to his opponent).

@corsiKa I don't understand what you're saying... are you implying that the player can't legally shuffle the cards, because there's a chance that the 2 cards are identical?

No, I'm saying that even though he has to shuffle them, he still must make the ownership of the cards identifyable regardless of the shuffle. If I took ten of your cards and ten of my cards and shuffled them together, I would need to be able to say which ten were mine and which ten were yours at all times. Or rather, at all "times" (individual game states.) In this case it's not ten and ten, it's one and one. They still get "shuffled" (although keen players may agree to skip the useless "shuffle" as a shortcut.)

@corsiKa I don't see how that's different than not shuffling, or deciding that shuffling is impossible. The very definition of shuffling includes making it unknown which card is which without looking at the front, and in this case, doing so would be illegal as it would involve losing track of ownership. Nothing in the game before this has ever made you try to shuffle 2 cards of different owners together.

Tabak is probably being snarky/unworried because honestly, if anyone ever tries to tell a judge "but ownership isn't free information, see the list?" they're just going to get shot down. Trying to defeat that kind of rules lawyer by rules laywering back even harder here might be a bit of a fool's errand.

I don't think that's the reason: I think it's just the persona he uses to answer questions. The name of the blog is even "Snarkham Asylum".

@corsiKa He's not equally snarky about everything - some questions do get straight-up answers. But yes, he's pretty often snarky, especially about questions he doesn't see a whole lot of value in devoting serious effort to... see above. Anyways, whatever his reasons, the bit about rules lawyering stands: if you're worried about someone telling you "ha ha I stole your card and won't tell you which is which", just plan on calling a judge, don't worry about trying to find a rule to quote at them. Someone who does that kind of thing isn't going to be swayed by "but 8362.72a says..."

(On that note, I did already upvote your answer, especially because of the "call a judge" part. I wasn't complaining about the answer as a whole, just responding to the "because Tabak said so" sentiment going around, and perhaps the "trying to make sure that other's don't try to split hairs" idea.)

Answer to the first question is no and two reasons as to why it is no.
In the MAGIC: THE GATHERING® TOURNAMENT RULES
section 3.3 Authorized Cards

Players may use cards from the Alpha printing only if the deck is in opaque sleeves

If the card that was manifested is an Alpha card (or other card with a distinct backing) then it would be in violation of that rule
section 3.9 Card Shuffling

The opponent may then shuffle it additionally.
  Cards and sleeves must not be in danger of being damaged during this process.

If there is a rule about not damaging opponent's cards during the shuffling processing then it would be no difference about damaging them during play and when removing card from a sleeve the chance of it being damaged is increased and it is possible to break the sleeve when removing the card.
As for the second question there is no question that the color of the card sleeve is public knowledge and while I don't have a rule to back it up I am sure it wouldn't be legal to deny someone public knowledge because of a disability such as color blindness.
Another way to look at the second question is if a player who has no knowledge of what has happened walks up to observe and is able to rapidly determine which card belongs to which player then it is not knowledge that can be hidden.

What if neither deck is sleeved?

@Rainbolt If you're also interested in the unsleeved scenario, please mention it in your question. Extending the scope of the question in comments is a form of chameleon question behaviour, i.e. not good: if it wasn't in your question it shouldn't need to be answered, so put it in there.

@Rainbolt Not sure what you mean by neither deck being sleeved. If neither deck is sleeved then there should be nothing different about either card to determine the difference in who owns them other then what order they where manifested in.

@doppelgreener Oh please. I did ask the question but instead of saying the decks were unsleeved, I just made Nathan colorblind. The effect is the same: Nathan is unable to tell the difference. And murgatroid went ahead and edited the question for me.

@Rainbolt You are missing the difference still, if the cards are unsleeved there should be no difference in color between the backs of the cards and no reason that being color blind will matter. When the cards are sleeved with different opaque backs that is very public knowledge about who owns them, when they are not sleeved that knowledge is not there and the players memory is more important.

@Rainbolt I didn't see the color blind bit on account of looking for something about being unsleeved. Anyway, the principle is: don't surprise people with extra questions outside the original question scope, it's unreasonable to expect them to answer, especially if you are directing it at that author and only that author. So, no, you didn't ask the same thing. But now with the edit you are and all is well. Also, mind the courteousness of your responses, as I try to do the same for you. (i.e. Don't respond with a condescending "oh please".)

@doppelgreener I apologize. When I explained the intent of the question, I got a lecture in scope creep. I should have ignored it instead of responding negatively. Anyway, if the answer doesn't hold for all scenarios, it doesn't hold at all. It is perfectly reasonable for me to question the validity of an answer by testing it against new test cases. The author is welcome to explain to me how they do not apply.

@Rainbolt No, man, what you need to do is work on your politeness with fellow site members. You got a reminder about scope creep because you engaged in scope creep. You dismissed my concerns condescendingly, then just now suggested the appropriate action would be ignoring me. This isn't cool or helpful! Many of us are generally trying to be courteous and cooperative: you need to do the same with us, but your behaviour is generally unnecessarily aggressive and dismissive of others' concerns, which prevents us from interacting with you constructively.

@doppelgreener Let me explain why I was not engaging in scope creep. He answered "Am I obligated to identify ownership of a sleeve?" I asked "Am I obligated to identify ownership of a card?" I edited the question to clarify, not to expand scope.

The owner of a permanent is free information, by desleeving a card you are intentionally trying to obscure that fact.
Additionally nothing in the tournament rules allows you to desleeve your opponents cards, which are their property and you are only allowed to manipulate them while following the rules of magic (which don't mention sleeves and therefore do not affect them).

Why is ownership classified as free information? I am not saying that your answer is wrong. I just want to know if you can qualify that statement.

@Rainbolt: Oddly enough the rules don't call out the owner as free information. However they also don't call out the controller as free information, so I don't believe it is meant to be a completely inclusive list. There is certainly no way that the rules of magic would allow you to conceal the legal owner of the card, which is normally derived from the owner of the card within the game.


text:
Penalty For Skipping Priority
Sometimes when I pass my turn, my opponent simply untaps and, if nothing triggers during upkeep, they draw. This can be a major headache for me when I want to cast Mana Short after my opponent untaps but before he or she draws a card.
What is the penalty for skipping priority at competitive REL? At a regular REL event?
Assume that

The card was drawn and has already touched the players hand, such that no judge could tell it apart from the cards already in that player's hand
My last spoken words were "Pass turn"
I had 2-3 seconds of time between untap and draw during which I could have said something but failed to do so

The situation is frustrating because I do not want to tell my opponent, "Hey, I have something to do during your upkeep. Now I pass my turn." That gives away my plan.
If the answer is "You should speak up faster!" that's fine, as long as the answer contains a respectable source (a judge's ruling, the comprehensive rules, etc.).

If this happens a lot, seems like you might want to get used to saying something ("upkeep?" or "in your upkeep" or even just "wait") a bit sooner - when your opponent is finishing untapping or first reaching to draw a card.

Tough situation... do you think your opponent should ask if you have anything you'd like to do each time they untap, before they draw? This would slow down the game a lot. I would expect normally the player who wants to do something should speak up if they see their opponent reaching for the draw pile.

@AlexP I suspect "at a tournament" meant competitive, and "an REL event" meant regular.

@John Which is why that was a comment, not an answer - the point is that if it happens a lot, you can perhaps avoid it by planning ahead, paying attention and erring on the side of announcing early, rather than thinking of it as needing to be fast.

The assumptions are kinda weird for this question: knowing you had something to play, why would to let your opponent assimilate the drawn card into his had. As soon as he touched the top card of his deck to draw, you should have interrupted his action.

Why can't you at the start of the game inform your opponent that you might want to do something during one of their upkeeps. His way you don't hint when you are going to Mana Short them, and they have to explicitly pass priority to go to their Draw Step.

@John in a sense, yes, it does.  If you've been playing the game for many turns at a particular pace and not asking your opponent to slow down or be explicit about the upkeep step, you can't really expect him or her to be penalized for carrying on playing at the same pace with the same shortcut that you didn't previously say anything about?

You know he's about to draw when you say you turn's over, so you should be ready to say "wait!" as he reaches for the deck to draw. (Assuming normal non-existent or trivial upkeeps.)

One of my friends got a game loss for that at a SCGO(except the opponent did say "ok")

@SamIam Can you expand on that? Was your friend the one skipping upkeep or was he the one that called the judge after it happened? What did he say "OK" in response to?

@John actually, my friend didn't skip upkeep, he didn't even skip priority.  There was action during the upkeep, and after my friend assumed it was over, he asked "draw" and the opponent said "ok"  This was actually a fairly big deal in our area.  people were mad

Nothing/Warning for both you and your opponent at a Competitive REL or Regular REL event.
The rules at Regular Rules Enforcement Level (REL) events (such as Friday Night Magic, Game Days, and Prereleases) has a more relaxed/friendly atmosphere, and does not use the Infraction Procedure Guide. The Infraction Procedure Guide has no Game Play Errors that match your situation and the closest matching Common Issue from the Regular REL is:

A player makes an in-game error not mentioned above - This will cover the bulk of player errors, and we will usually leave the game as it is. Fix anything that is currently illegal (e.g. an Aura enchanting an illegal permanent) and continue the game. If the error was caught quickly and rewinding is relatively easy, you may choose to undo all the actions back to the point that the illegal action happened. This can include returning random cards from the hand to the library to undo card draws (though don't shuffle the library if you do this) and reversing various other actions (such as untapping permanents and declaring attackers or blockers). Don't go crazy with this!

In general, they just leave the game as it is. It is probably fairly common that people just skip upkeep when nothing triggers during the upkeep. In the relaxed environment, judges are there to be friendly and educate, not to hand out violations. At the Competitive level though, if any violation occurred, it would have to be the generic ones Game Play Error/Failure to Maintain Game State, and both you and your opponent are guilty of each one respectively.

Now, within "game errors" there are four specific categories of warnings that the offending player can get. However, because bothplayers are now responsible for maintaining a legal game state, if one player gets a warning for one a game error, the opponent will receive a warning from the special fifth group, which is "Failure to maintain game state." [...]

Game Play Error - This is the "everything else" category, so any game errors that don't fall under the first three categories land here. So this is where we're talking about things like accidentally playing a card for the wrong mana cost, forgetting to attack with a creature that must attack each turn, etc.

Failure to maintain game state - This is the special fifth group, which is the warning a player gets for not noticing that the opponent made a game error.

The MtG Tournment Rules note the following regarding shortcuts:

Tournament Shortcuts

A tournament shortcut is an action taken by players to skip parts of the technical play sequence without explicitly announcing them. Tournament shortcuts are essential for the smooth play of a game, as they allow players to play in a clear fashion without getting bogged down in the minutia of the rules. Most tournament shortcuts involve skipping one or more priority passes to the mutual understanding of all players; if a player wishes to demonstrate or use a new tournament shortcut entailing any number of priority passes, he or she must be clear where the game state will end up as part of the request. [...]

A player is not allowed to use a previously undeclared tournament shortcut, or to modify an in-use tournament shortcut without announcing the modification, in order to create ambiguity in the game.

You opponent used a Tournament Shortcut that was previously undeclared. They should have informed you that they wished to proceed to the Draw Step, possibly by saying, "Draw step? I wish to skip the Upkeep Step and proceed to the Draw Step." You failed to maintain the game state, by not being quick enough to interrupt your opponents draw in the time your opponent untapped and waited an additional 2-3 seconds.

A player may not request priority and take no action with it. If a player decides he or she does not wish to do anything, the request is nullified and priority is returned to the player that originally had it.

You should not request priority during your opponents Upkeep unless you plan to take an action.

Certain conventional tournament shortcuts used in Magic are detailed below.

The statement "Go" (and equivalents such as "Your turn" and "Done") offers to keep passing priority until an opponent has priority in the end step. Opponents are assumed to be acting then unless they specify otherwise.

A judge could issue you both a Warning. Your opponent needs to explain that they want to proceed to the Draw Step. You need to maintain the game state so your opponents errors are caught early before they can give you/him an advantage. Additional remedies are also a possibility.

Additional Remedies

If the error was discovered within a time frame in which a player could reasonably be expected to notice the error and the situation is simple enough to safely back up without too much disruption to the course of the game, the judge may get permission from the Head Judge to back up the game to the point of the error. Each action taken is undone until the game reaches the point immediately prior to the error. Cards incorrectly placed in hand are returned to the location in the zone from which they were moved (if the identity of the incorrectly drawn card is not known to all players, a random card is returned instead). Once the game is backed up, it continues from that point.

In the future, you might want to take a little longer before you announce, "Your Turn," until you have decided whether you want to play Mana Short next turn during your opponent's Upkeep. This way you can interrupt them when they reach for their deck, and not give them any advantage (if they have a Split Second card) nor you an advantage if a judge decides to return a random card to the top of their library (possibly a Counterspell). Repeatedly receiving warnings for the same violation (skipping an upkeep, or failing to maintain the game state by not interrupting a draw) can result in an upgraded penalty.

-1. Judges don't issue warnings for "not being quick enough" to interrupt your opponent's gameplay error.  It is not a reaction-time game.

@SamIAm He did point out at the end that if the error was discovered within a reasonable time frame, they might not issue a warning. It appears that the judge gets to determine what is reasonable, so while the ruling could be questionable, this answer seems pretty sound.

@SamIam, it isn't reaction based, but the rules indicate if a warning is issued for Game Play Error, the other player receives a Failure to Maintain Game State. I would guess if you reacted fast enough that the opponent couldnt put the early draw in their hand your warning could be reduced.

@user1873 There are 2 problems with this.  The assumption is that the player does call a judge after his opponent made the communication error.  You are not expected to prevent the error before it happens, rather, you're expected to identify it when it happens, and then call a judge.  Secondly a communication error, is a different sort of error than a game play error, and doesn't result in an incorrect game state, and "failure to maintain game-state" doesn't deal with communication errors.

Assuming that there aren't any unusual circumstances in play, that e very worst that can possibly happen to the OP is that the judge decides that he missed his chance during upkeep.

I think the most important part here is recognizing that skipping the upkeep stage is a shortcut most players implicitly use, and if you wanted to do something at upkeep you should announce it either before or as you pass turn. "Go, and during your upkeep, I ..." as he can be assumed to have passed priority to you as part of the shortcut.

@user1873, FtMGS only gets issued if the player who didn't make a game play error doesn't notice it in a reasonable fashion. It usually happens if a game play error happened, some significant game actions occurred, and then one of the players notices the error and calls a judge. This is what the Infraction Procedure Guide actually says (emphasis mine): "Additionally, for most Game Play Errors not caught within a time that a player could reasonably be expected to notice, teammates and opponents receive a Game Play Error — Failure to Maintain Game State penalty."

The other answers to this question are very detailed calling on the comprehensive rules and are quite clear. I have had this problem in a tournament situation, and a judge was called to resolve the situation, Obviously this is anecdotal evidence but the judge was a level 2 and quite experienced running tournaments, so I would be surprised if their decision was incorrect.
The Situation
It was a competitive REL legacy tournament, I was playing Goblins (probably badly), My opponent was playing an early incarnation of an esper stoneblade deck (this was around the time Jace the Mindsculptor got banned in standard, people werent sure Stoneblade was good enough for legacy yet). The game was going long, We each had large amounts of mana and I was trying to preserve my resources as much as possible as Pernicious Deed was on the field. As such I was using my Rishadan Port every turn to try and limit my opponent's choices.
My opponent had a nasty habit of not giving me much time to interrupt the start of his turn to tap one of his lands. Eventually we got into the situation where he managed to draw his card before I had an opportunity to activate my ability. This was problematic for obvious reasons, I don't want him to be able to use that mana to cast the card he just drew. A judge was called and the situation was explained to them from both of our perspectives. I made clear that this was something I had been doing numerous times, and that I felt I didn't have enough time between untap and draw to announce my ability.
The Resolution
The judge decided that what had occurred was a case of Out Of Order Sequencing. As such, the resolution was to tap his land, he was not permitted to tap it to generate mana to cast any instants.
The Answer
Taking the above as evidence, I would expect in a similar situation, you may well get the same result. I don't remember either of us getting any kind of warning, but obviously all of this is contingent on the judge on the day, who could make a very different decision from the one the judge made in this situation.

I looked up Out Of Order Sequencing. An out-of-order sequence can’t result in any player prematurely gaining information that would reasonably affect decisions later in that sequence. In this situation, my opponent drew a card, and therefore had information he wouldn't have otherwise had. Still, +1 for not just saying "you should have done this" like everyone in the question comments.

"As such, the resolution was to tap his land, he was not permitted to tap it to generate mana to cast any instants." That seems odd to me. Assuming he had waited to draw a card and did pass priority, he could have always tapped the land in response. Why would the judge rule this way?

If the judge can fix the game state, than they will, but in some scenarios, like that the OP described, the drawn card has already been put into one player's hand, and that is unfixable

I'm not in the judges head so I can only presume. The point where he could have responded had passed as he had drawn his card, there was no way to verify which card was drawn so it was safest to prevent the mana from being used for any spell. I would probably expect the same ruling even if he had seen the card but not yet added it to his hand, as the knowledge of what he was about to draw might inform his decision to cast a spell or not

@user1873 This situation is a bit different than the OP's: the opponent basically knew he needed to let something happen, because something had been happening during every one of his upkeeps. Presumably the judge took that into account. It doesn't seem that unreasonable to rule that, by skipping ahead to draw, with full knowledge that a land was likely going to get tapped during his upkeep, he was acknowledging that he wouldn't do anything during upkeep, especially in response to the Port ability (or alternatively, trying to cheat out of getting the land tapped).

Wizards acknowledges this as a valid game shortcut (for non tournament play at least):
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=judge/article/20050204a

Game Fluidification” shortcuts: not letting the opponent know about
  skipping a phase or step (for instance, drawing right after untapping)
  or not passing priority whereas you should (when opponent is all
  tapped…)

What you should do as follows:
While your opponent is untapping you should say, you want to play something. In the case they have nothing to untap, wait until they verbally or non-verbally communicate that they are about to start their turn then interupt them saying "wait a second I have something to play during your upkeep".
Further:
Wizards admits that their list of common shortcuts is not exhaustive but when miscommunication or a player uses a previously undeclared shortcut they can be issued a warning for 'Communication Policy Violation'.

A player is not allowed to use a previously undeclared shortcut, or
  to modify an in-use shortcut without announcing the modification, in
  order to create ambiguity in the game.
Until you establish a shortcut, there is no shortcut. And again, once
  you establish a shortcut, you stick with it – until you say otherwise.
  But even more important: in order to create ambiguity in the game –
  that's the key concept in our first "Thou shalt not!" Players use many
  bluffs to try and gain advantage. We acknowledge that's part of the
  game, and Section 50 of the PG addresses many of the boundaries (as
  explained in Toby Elliott's article). What we're trying to say here is
  that players should not mess with shortcuts to confuse their opponents
  (nor themselves, for that matter).
Now, what to do with such a player? Apply the new penalty from the new
  Guide? Well, there isn't one. We added a new penalty because of
  Section 50:
137. Tournament Error – Player Communication Violation

and the definition of that new penalty includes:
A player unintentionally violates the Player Communication guidelines (see section 50).

No mention in there at all of section 51 and these Shortcuts. A
  further search of the whole Penalty Guide doesn't refer to Shortcuts.
  So what is the penalty for violating this?
Let me repeat: there is none. It's enough to explain to the player
  that their intent to create ambiguity via shortcut shenanigans is
  unacceptable – and to refrain from doing so again. (If they continue
  to ignore that last instruction, then you may have an instance of
  Unsporting Conduct.)

This can result in rolling back the state of the game, until before the error occurred.
For your specific case, consult the Magic infractions procedure guide

If the situation is simple enough to safely back up
  without too much disruption to the course of the game, the judge may
  get permission from the Head Judge to back up the game to the point of
  the incorrect information. Each action taken is undone until the game
  reaches the point immediately prior to the error. Cards incorrectly
  placed in hand are returned to the location in the zone from which
  they were moved (if the identity of the incorrectly drawn card is not
  known to all players, a random card is returned instead). Once the
  game is backed up, it continues from that point.

Now my interpretation of the situation:
on previous turns you established a shortcut with your opponent by not insisting on him not skipping the declaration he was moving from untap to upkeep to draw without taking any actions (or by skipping the declarations yourself). Your time to act and terminate the shortcut was during that pause between when he untapped and when he drew.

The problem with this shortcut is that it gives your opponent a chance to play something in response to you saying you have something you want to play.. before you actually cast it. I suppose that's not normally an issue, because in general it's better to cast your instants after your opponent has cast his... but it could matter, especially if he has something with Split Second that he wasn't going to play until you said you wanted to play something.

Re "While your opponent is untapping you should say, you want to play something", that reveals your intentions before you need to. I would not want to do that.

@ikegami, sure it reveals some information, but you don't really have a choice if you have already established the shortcut. Since there was a pause in this hypothetical, that would be the best time to interrupt.

Not sure what you mean. No shortcut has been proposed yet. The pause would be the right time to get ready, but I wouldn't interrupt until he actually reaches to draw, or else he could say I don't have priority and do something first.

The last paragraph makes no sense. You didn't specify what shortcut would have been established on the previous turn, but I can't think of any that would help. Any shortcut that has him do nothing in his upkeep can be shortened by him doing something in his upkeep.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
MOTO Acronym for MTG Online
Some people refer to Magic: The Gathering Online as "MOTO" or "MODO". None of them can tell me what it stands for, so at first, I thought they just got the acronym wrong. It turns out to be pretty popular, that's all I've been able to find out. The term is not in the Magic Jargon article, and not one person in this thread spelled it out.
What does MOTO stand for? Is it different from MODO?

Wikipedia claims that this is an acronym from earlier in its development which was later discontinued:

WotC was sufficiently convinced and contracted LLS to develop the
  service, which was then known as Magic Online with Digital Objects
  (MODO). Initially, the idea of charging for virtual goods, as opposed
  to a subscription model with unlimited access, was greeted with
  skepticism. Additionally, concerns were floated over how solid the
  server and trading code would be;[6] if exploits were found, the
  entire economy could easily be destroyed. After a period of
  beta-testing, the game became available to the general public in June
  2002. The name was changed from MODO to its final commercial title, Magic: The Gathering Online (MTGO).

The game apparently gained some notoriety during its development under this name, which may have caused it to stick.  It's likely that this is simply an affectionate hold-over nickname from a time when this old name was relevant.

It's also easy to say, rather than spell. "Moh-doe," versus "Em-tee-gee-oh."

@Brian I believe the proper way to say it is "Mo' Dough" as in "It's another way for Wizards to extract mo' dough from our wallets"

In addition to all of this, it's worth noting that the acronym was used to name the original executable; the actual program that was run on players' systems was modo.exe .  That's where most folks' exposure to the name came from.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
If a single effect would destroy a permanent multiple times, can regeneration replace it?
Nancy controls a Runeclaw Bear enchanted by Hyena Umbra. Hyena Umbra has a regeneration shield, granted by Reknit. Anthony casts Planar Cleansing. This causes two replacement effects to apply. According to rule 616, Nancy gets to choose the order in which they apply.

616.1. If two or more replacement effects are attempting to modify the way an event affects an object, the affected object's controller chooses one to apply [...]

616.1d Once the chosen effect has been applied, this process is repeated [...]

If Nancy chooses to apply Totem Armor first, and then Regeneration Shield, does Hyena Umbra survive?

Choosing the same target twice for Decimate might have been a simpler example. :)

Nancy gets a warning for trying to cast a sorcery on Anthony's turn and the game state is reverted to before the illegal action. :)

@Affe I can't believe I messed that up. I was trying to start a thing where people on this site speak in terms of active and non-active player, just like the judge tests, and completely botched it. Oh well. It's fixed now.

I don't quite understand the situation asked in this post, but this ruling on Austere Command may be useful regarding one effect causing destruction multiple times: "If the first and third mode are chosen, an artifact creature with converted mana cost 3 or less would be destroyed twice by this spell. It would have to be regenerated twice to survive. (A similar thing happens with most of the other combinations)"

@Kevin Austere Command is different, modal spells are kinda funny.  It created two effects that you execute in the order printed on the card.  "Destroy all artifacts.  (then) Destroy all enchantments."  It's not the same as, e.g., "Destroy all artifacts and enchantments" which is a single effect applying twice (that gets converted to a single destruction by rule 400.6).

I copied the answer from here, where a similar question was answered by Daniel Kitachewsky. Daniel is a high-level Judge from France, and the goto-guy when judges don't know the answer.

Planar Cleansing resolves and destroys all creatures, artifacts and enchantments.
  I have a Runeclaw Bears enchanted with Boar Umbra.
The replacement effect of the totem armor saves the Bears, but if I have a way to regenerate the totem armor, will I have to regenerate it once or twice?

If there are two regeneration shields, the Bear Umbra is regenerated no matter what.
If there's only one regeneration shield on it, it gets more complicated:
- If the same player controls Runeclaw Bear and Bear Umbra, that player may choose whether the Bear Umbra is destroyed or not.
- If the active player controls Runeclaw Bear and the nonactive player controls Bear Umbra, the Bear Umbra is regenerated.
- If the active player controls Bear Umbra and the nonactive player controls Runeclaw Bear, the Bear Umbra is destroyed.
Now for more detail:
What happens is that we have an event that's trying to move objects from one zone to another, and some replacement effects trying to change that event. Moreover, when two effects try to do mutually exclusive things to an object, such as destroying it twice, only one of these effects continues to exists, before being modified by further replacement effects.
A. In the scenario where one player controls both Runeclaw Bear and Bear Umbra, the event looks like this:
A1. Destroy Runeclaw Bear, destroy Bear Umbra
Two things try to replace this, regenerating the Bear Umbra and replacing destroying Runeclaw Bear by destroying Bear Umbra. The controller chooses which replacement effect to apply first; we'll see later if the other effect is still applicable.

If the controller chooses to apply regeneration first, we get
A2a. Destroy Runeclaw Bear, tap Bear Umbra
replaced thanks to totem armor by
A3a. Destroy Bear Umbra, tap Bear Umbra
ultimately destroying Bear Umbra.
If the controller chooses to apply totem armor first, we get
A2b. Destroy Bear Umbra, destroy Bear Umbra
modified into
A3b. Destroy Bear Umbra
because destroying an object twice is impossible, then replaced by
A4b. Tap Bear Umbra
And it's not destroyed!
B. If Runeclaw Bear and Bear Umbra are controlled by different players, we fall into one of the scenarios above, but we don't choose which one.
The active player applies the replacement effect trying to replace the event that affects the object he contols first, then the nonactive player gets to have his replacement effects.
So:
If the active player controls Runeclaw Bear and the nonactive player controls Bear Umbra, we first apply totem armor, then remove one of the "destroy Bear Umbra" effects, then regenerate it.
If the active player controls Bear Umbra and the nonactive player controls Runeclaw Bear, we first regenerate Bear Umbra, then apply totem armor, thus destroying Bear Umbra.

Bear Umbra? is that a typo or a different card?

@Pow-Ian It's a different card. I don't understand "When two effects try to do mutually exclusive things to an object, such as destroying it twice, only one of these effects continues to exist, before being modified by further replacement effects." Where did the part in bold come from?

CR 400.6. "that object’s controller—or its owner if it has no controller—chooses which effect to apply"

Ok, expanding on the line of reasoning from Ikegami in that other question, the events produced by Planar Cleansing:

Destroy all nonland permanents

are effectively

Destroy Runeclaw Bear and destroy Hyena Umbra

Totem armor can replace the first event:

(Remove all damage from Runeclaw Bear and destroy Hyena Umbra) and destroy Hyena Umbra.

but the lone regeneration shield can only replace one of the "destroy Hyena Umbra" events. It doesn't matter which. The result then becomes:

Remove all damage from Runeclaw Bear and remove all damage from Hyena Umbra and tap it and destroy Hyena Umbra.

So Hyena Umbra is destroyed.
If you aren't convinced that the two destruction events are treated separately, rule 400.6 clearly states that they are:

Note that multiple instances of the same thing may be mutually exclusive; for example, two simultaneous “destroy” effects.

For some reason, I got it in my head that "Destroy Hyena Umbra and Destroy Hyena Umbra" would collapse into a single event since you can only logically destroy something once.

@Rainbolt - I'm pretty sure there are no comp. rules about simplifying effects using Boolean logic. ;)

But this is exactly my point. How did you know there were two separate effects to begin with? You used Boolean logic to explain your case, and then disqualified my response on the basis of using boolean logic!

@Rainbolt I think the idea is that the steps in the explanation are how you know there are two. Before applying the totem armor replacement effect, there are two things happening: the Bear is being destroyed, and the Umbra is being destroyed. After applying it, the former is replaced with the Umbra being destroyed - there are still two, unless the rules provide some way to simplify things.

@Jefromi You're right. I removed my counterexample since it was incorrect.

I finally found a relevant rule at the bottom of this thread and added it to your answer. The Level 3 judge in that thread who posted comment #20 seems to disagree with this answer, and that makes me uneasy. If nothing new comes up in the next week, and you haven't made any more sarcastic retorts, I'll probably accept this answer.

@Rainbolt - Kitachewsky's answer from that thread should be correct. He's actually Level 4 now and is one of the sources for "official" judge rulings. You should write up a new answer and accept that one.

Hao Ye, I have changed the answer to which you linked based as a result of my answer in the thread Rainbolt linked. I was actually thinking of that very thread when I made my comment in the answer you linked, but I remembered the conclusion incorrectly.

@ikegami So what is the verdict? I'm not sure that after all of this discussion, a clear outcome has been reached. Believe me, I read that entire thread, and was left wondering why it conflicted with the rule you quoted. Perhaps it doesn't conflict because that rule isn't applicable to this situation? I just can't copy the L4 judge's answer without reconciling it with what I already know first.

If I understand correctly comment #20 of that other thread is actually the most complete and correct answer. And rule 400.6 is actually the reason why it becomes only one destruction event and not two.

Yes.
Planar Cleansing will try to destroy everything at the same time. Hyena Umbra gets two destroy effects from Planar Cleansing.
However, these both happen at the same time (not one after the other), and Regeneration is the next TIME this permanent would be destroyed. Once regeneration has saved it, both destroy effects have passed because they both tried to destroy it at the same time.
If the destroy effects were one after the other, then you would need more regeneration shields.

Hyena Umbra actually gets one destroy effect from itself and one from Planar Cleansing. Bear lives - Hyena dies.

Yeah but they happen at the same time.

Cameron, actually they would go on the stack in the order chosen by the controller of Hyena Umbra.

Effects (and, in particular, replacement effects) don't go on the stack. In some cases they get applied in an order chosen by the controller, but that's not the same.


text:
Communication - Saying "Draw"
My opponent was in his second main phase, sitting silently for about a minute. He finally gestured towards me and said, "Draw." I drew. My opponent then shouted, "Judge!" and told the judge that I drew a card on his turn. The judge listened to my side of the story. The judge asked, "Did the card that you drew touch your hand?". I said, "Yes." The judge subsequently gave me a game loss for drawing an extra card.
This occurred at a Competitive REL Standard event in late February of 2014. I did not appeal the ruling with the floor judge. I should have, but I was in shock and there was so much blood rushing to my head that I wasn't thinking clearly.
Should I have been given a game loss for drawing? Does "Draw." constitute a shortcut for "I would like to pass all priority until the next Draw step"?

What was your opponent's side of why he said "draw"? I'm confused; do you think he said "draw" on purpose to trick you into an infraction, or did he have some other meaning/reason behind saying "draw"?

@Gendolkari I think he said "Draw" specifically to trick me. He was playing the typical (for February of 2014) G/R Monsters deck, which does not have a way to draw unless they +1 Domri Rade, and Domri was not on the field. I have no way to objectively determine what his intent was, and I am biased because it cost me a match. I could have misunderstood both his word and his gesture.

did the judge not ask him to explain what he meant by "Draw"? I would have thought that would be an obvious question to ask. He'd either have to say "I meant to pass priority until his next draw step", or "I just said it in hopes that he would draw even though I wasn't passing priority, to win on a technicality"... in either case, you wouldn't lose; in the second case, he would probably be given a warning at the least.

@Gendolkari The judge didn't ask what he meant.

that just seems like bad judging... whether the final outcome was correct or not; I'd have to think that the correct first action is to get each person's side of the story... at least ask your opponent if what you said about him saying "draw" was true or not. Very strange.

I agree, from the information given here, the judge seems to have decided prematurely and without the proper investigation process. You should try to get in touch with said judge, remind him of the case, ask what his reasoning was and give him the opportunity to understand his mistake without making him look or feel stupid. Judges are also just human beings after all, they make mistakes and hate to admit it.

The rules are not definitively on your side but you definitely should have appealed the ruling. According to the MTG Infraction Procedure Guide section 2.3, the default penalty for drawing an extra card is a game loss. However, it also says:

If the player received confirmation from his or her opponent before drawing the card (including confirming the number of cards when greater than one), the infraction is not Drawing Extra Cards.

and your opponent's saying "Draw" and pointing to you arguably counts as confirmation that you should draw for your next turn. This argument might be difficult to make though because "Draw" is not listed explicitly in the Tournament Rules list of shortcuts (section 4.2) for passing priority until your opponent's turn.
However, there is another argument to be made that you should not have lost. The Infraction Procedure Guide Drawing Extra Cards section says

A player illegally puts one or more cards into his or her hand and, at the moment before he or she began the instruction or action that put a card into his or her hand, no other Game Play Error or Communication Policy Violation had been committed.

One relevant piece of free information (as specified in section 4.1 of the Tournament Rules) is "The current step and/or phase and which player(s) are active", and the Infraction Procedure guide says in the Communication Policy Violation section:

Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly

I would argue that your opponent did just that when they said "Draw", which means that the judge should have followed the procedure in this section instead:

If the situation is simple enough to safely back up without too much disruption to the course of the game, the judge may get permission from the Head Judge to back up the game to the point of the incorrect information. Each action taken is undone until the game reaches the point immediately prior to the error. Cards incorrectly placed in hand are returned to the location in the zone from which they were moved (if the identity of the incorrectly drawn card is not known to all players, a random card is returned instead). Once the game is backed up, it continues from that point.

I have never heard of someone saying "Draw" to mean the same thing as "pass turn" or the like.
It is typically used as confirmation that you will be drawing a card. For example, one might say "Draw" after casting a card draw spell, for example "Draw 2" while resolving Divination. This is to protect yourself from receiving a game loss if you are somehow mistaken about the amount of cards you should be drawing (or whether you should be drawing) since, as another answer posted:

If the player received confirmation from his or her opponent before drawing the card (including confirming the number of cards when greater than one), the infraction is not Drawing Extra Cards.

Your opponent then has the opportunity to correct your mistake, whereas if you just drew you might draw the wrong number of cards.
"Draw" is also commonly used during upkeep to mean "go to my draw step".
The important distinction in all of these cases is that the player saying "draw" is confirming that HE will be the one drawing.

Re "I have never heard of someone saying 'Draw' to mean the same thing as "pass turn" or the like." That's because it doesn't mean that. See my earlier answer.

@ikegami Yes, your answer was correct and very good! I just wanted to provide some context as to why someone might say "draw".

I was just commenting on the part I quoted, not the answer in general. You've indeed provided some useful info.

[ Just answering the question that hasn't been answered yet. ]

Does "Draw." constitute a shortcut for "I would like to pass all priority until the next Draw step"?

No. Not unless you and the other players had previously come to an agreement.
The following are the officially recognized shortcuts according to the  Tournament Rules:

Certain conventional tournament shortcuts used in Magic are detailed below. They define a default communication; if a player wishes to deviate from these, they should be explicit about doing so. Note that some of these are exceptions to the policy above in that they do cause non-explicit priority passes.

If the active player passes priority with an empty stack during their first main phase, the non-active player is assumed to be acting in beginning of combat unless they are affecting whether a beginning of combat ability triggers. Then, after those actions resolve or no actions took place, the active player receives priority at the beginning of combat. Beginning of combat triggered abilities (even ones that target) may be announced at this time.

If the active player passes priority with an empty stack during their second main phase, or uses a phrase such as “Go” or “Your Turn” at any time, the non-active player is assumed to be acting in the end step unless they are affecting how or whether an end of turn ability triggers. End of turn triggered abilities that do not target resolve after the non-active player passes priority.

Whenever a player adds an object to the stack, they are assumed to be passing priority unless they explicitly announce that they intend to retain it.

If a player adds a group of objects to the stack without explicitly retaining priority, they are assumed to be adding them to the stack individually and allowing each to resolve before adding the next. If another player wishes to take an action at a point in the middle of this sequence, the actions should be reversed to that point.

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.

A player is assumed to have paid any cost of 0 unless they announce otherwise.

A player who casts a spell or activates an ability that targets an object on the stack is assumed to target the legal target closest to the top of the stack unless the player specifies otherwise.

A player is assumed to be attacking another player with their creatures and not any planeswalkers that player may control unless the attacking player specifies otherwise.

A player who does not scry/surveil (or look at the top card of the library after taking a mulligan) when instructed to is assumed to have not looked and chosen to leave the cards in the same order.

In the Two-Headed Giant format, attacking creatures are assumed to be attacking the head of the defending player sitting directly across from their controller, unless the creature’s controller specifies otherwise.

I would think that "Draw" fits within "equivalents such as 'your turn'..."

@Gendolkari, Look where that shortcut ends. Drawing would be illegal there too.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
When is a battalion trigger considered "missed" at Competitive REL?
At exactly what stage of combat would a Competitive REL judge change his ruling from "The trigger happens" to "Your opponent decides" to "The trigger was missed"?

The trigger happens -> Your opponent decides -> The trigger was missed

To help answer this question, I have enumerated a few stages of combat. Feel free to reference these in your answer. Please assume a clean slate - no judge warnings, no prior history of poor conduct, and a generally positive but strict attitude from both players involved.
Declare Attackers Step

My opponent declares Ash Zealot, Ash Zealot, and Legion Loyalist as attackers
My opponent pauses for five seconds
My opponent passes
I pass

Declare Blockers Step

I block Legion Loyalist with Elvish Mystic
My opponent pauses for five seconds
My opponent passes
I pass

Combat Damage Step

My opponent assigns first strike damage from the two Ash Zealots. He neglects to assign Legion Loyalist's damage.

I shouldn't need to continue. Once we arrive at the combat damage step, the trigger has clearly been forgotten. If for some reason the trigger could still be "remembered" after first strike damage has already been dealt, please explain why.
In a real game, players generally do not explicitly pass priority. Generally, one of the players will simply offer "Declare blockers?" If this would have an effect on the judge's ruling, please explain. I suspect that explicit priority passes would be more incriminating than shortcuts.
Why am I asking this question?
When I declare blockers, I need to determine if the trigger occurred without reminding my opponent while he still has a chance to "remember" it.

Even though you are asking for an objective judgement that will be consistent in future games, the body of your question seems to be soliciting opinions. I would suggest editing that part out because it might make some people think the question is opinion based and vote to close it.

@murgatroid99 Can you edit the paragraph you are concerned about? I'm the last person who will be bothered by aggressive edits made in good faith. If there was something in that paragraph that might be still relevant to the question, try to see if it can be salvaged. (This is my way of saying I don't know which paragraph you are referring to, but I trust your judgement)

At the risk of being pedantic about MTG rules on the internet (...) your question is phrased a bit backward.  The trigger happened, the rules of the game are unwavering on this point.  What you're trying to do is get a read on your opponent to determine how likely he or she is to make a play error in the future.  There is no aid for you here in the mechanics of the game.  This is about social card-sharping skills.

@Affe My question is not about whether my opponent is "likely to make an error in the future". Did I say something that made you believe that I was asking for gambling advice?

@Rainbolt Well, I suppose that given the answer to the question, you do end up in the situation of trying to guess whether your opponent will mess up, since the trigger can't be considered missed until the first strike damage step, so at the time you're trying to declare blockers, you don't know whether it's going to be missed or not. But obviously you had to ask the question to find out that the rules work that way.

The DCI Infraction Procedure Guide, describes very specifically how the judge should rule various infractions, and section 2.1 covers missed triggers. It describes both when a trigger is considered to be missed and what the penalty should be. In your case, Legion Loyalist's Battalion ability changes the game state in non-visible ways by giving abilities to creatures. Therefore, according to that document, its controller has to mention it the first time it would affect visible state or it is forgotten. In this particular case, that means that the trigger is considered forgotten if the player doesn't mention it by the time Legion Loyalist would deal first strike damage.
When this happens, the judge is instructed to issue a warning only if the triggered ability's effect would be detrimental to its controller. Otherwise, they are not supposed to intervene unless they think the player is intentionally missing the triggers. This is one of those non-intervention casees.
If a judge does intervene, the Additional Remedy subsection at the end of the missed triggers section describes how the game state may be corrected. In this case, the ability does not "specify a default action associated with a choice made by the controller" and is not "a delayed triggered ability that changes the zone of an object". The triggered ability creates an effect (granting abilities) so if that effect's "duration has already expired" (at the end of that player's turn), then play continues and the ability is ignored. Otherwise, the judge follows the final paragraph of that subsection and

the opponent chooses whether the triggered ability is added to the stack. If it is, it’s inserted at the appropriate place on the stack if possible or on the bottom of the stack.

The overall effect of this is that if a judge is called over in regards to this missed trigger, then if it is still the same turn, then the ability's controller's opponent (you) chooses whether the ability goes on the stack. Otherwise, you ignore it and move on.

I am having trouble relating your answer to the official Missed Trigger Guide for Gatecrash. For Legion Loyalist, it says: "If the duration of "until end of turn" has expired, instruct the players to continue playing. Otherwise, if within a turn of the missed trigger, opponent chooses whether it goes on the stack." This implies that, at some point in the game, the opponent has the option to allow the trigger to be placed onto the stack. When is this taken into account?

@Rainbolt I didn't include the Additional Remedies because your question specifically asks when the trigger is considered to be missed, and I answered that. Additional Remedies covers correcting the game state after the trigger has been missed. And remember that the guide you linked is about how to judge, so if a judge comes over to deal with the problem, if it is during the same turn they will ask the opponent (you) whether or not the trigger resolves.

It depends on whether the trigger is important for the game state. I suggest reading the DCI Infraction Procedure Guide, section 2.1 about missed triggers, for specific triggers you could have in mind. Summarily, if the game state is no longer restorable, the trigger will either be resolved in a delayed manner or not be resolved at all, depending on what the trigger does.
In the case of your example, whether the trigger is remembered or not changes nothing to the game state in the end, since your opponent will probably assign Legion Loyalist's damages at the second combat damage step. In the end, the result will be the same, so if a judge comes after that, he would let it pass. The first strike is not detrimental to your opponent, so the judge will assume it was not intentional to forget it, and no one gets a warning. Both players continue to play as if the trigger wasn't forgotten.
If the judge was there from the beginning, well, I guess it's his job to see the forgotten trigger.
But let's say you have something to play at the end of the first combat damage step. In that case, from the moment you do that "something", the trigger will be considered missed since the game will no longer be in restorable state (example: casting an instant to destroy the legion loyalist).

Your last paragraph is completely wrong. Section 2.1 of the Infraction Procedure guide specifically says "Failure to Maintain Game State penalties are never issued to players who did not control the ability."

This is refering to the "Failure to Maintain Game State" penalty, not the "Unsporting Conduct - Cheating Infraction" which can still be applied. That is, if both player UNINTENTIONALLY forgot the trigger, the player who didn't control that trigger can't get a "Failure to Maintain Game State" penalty if the game state is in a non-restorable state. The "Unsporting Conduct - Cheating Infraction" penalty however, can still be issued (in the case you intentionally omitted the advantageous trigger).

Only the owner of the trigger can be punished for forgetting it. See section 4.4 of the Tournament Rules, which says: Triggered Abilities
Players are not required to point out the existence of triggered abilities that they do not control

@Rainbolt: as long as it doesn't make the controller of the trigger do a Game Play Error, that is.

@user8111 Section 2.6 clearly says "Not reminding an opponent about his or her triggered abilities is never Failure to Maintain Game State or Cheating."

Doesn't that contradict "A player allows another player in the game to commit a Game Play Error involving an effect or action that he or she does not control, and has not pointed it out immediately."? I would assume the passage you quoted is refering to generally reminding the opponent, when not doing it would not lead to Game Play Error on the opponent's part.

@user8111 Can you actually like to the places you are quoting, like I did, so that we can see exactly how old the information is that you are quoting and whether you may have taken it out of context?

It is taken out of the definition of the section 2.6 "Failure to Maintain Game State", first line. Version from February 7, 2014.

@user8111 As Murgatroid99 pointed out, that very section literally says "Not reminding
an opponent about his or her triggered abilities is never Failure to Maintain Game State or Cheating." You shouldn't view this as a "contradiction". You should view it as an "exception".

Yeah, I guess you are right, since by thinking in an opposite manner, if this wasn't an exception, it would mean that the passage is only refering to the specific action of "not reminding the trigger", which would lead to Failure to Maintain Game State. But since "Failure to Maintain Game State penalties are never issued to players who did not control the ability.", this means the last passage is rightfully comprising Cheating penalties. Removing the last paragraph.

MtG history lesson! : google "Charles Gindy Worlds 2009" and "Brian Kibler Angel of Despair Trigger" to see why those rules were reworked to their current wording :)

@Affe: your comment made me remember that First Strike is not a triggered ability, but a static ability. Also, the article about Charles Gindy here http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcoverage/worlds09/disqualifications makes a simple example with Veteran Armorsmith of how the opponent must remind the player of a static ability as well. Still not sure, but I guess the "exception" is not affecting the example with first strike after all, so it seems you can't conceal something like that after all.


text:
When must one communicate denial of a shortcut?
Anthony begins his turn by drawing a card. He then immediately turns his creatures sideways and declares "I attack with Runeclaw Bear and Alpine Grizzly."
Anthony's opponent, Nathan, has 6 life. Nathan has Crippling Chill and Kill Shot in hand, and the mana available to cast either but not both. He has not yet acknowledged Anthony's shortcut to move to combat, nor has he denied it.
Which of the following is true?

Nathan must immediately deny Anthony's shortcut.
Nathan may deny the shortcut after pausing to think about what he wants to do.

I am specifically interested in two cases: Regular REL and Competitive REL. If the answer depends on which one is in effect, please cover both. I am not interested in casual play, but you can certainly cover that if you want to.

In competitive REL, this is not a valid shortcut. Anthony should call a judge.

@bengoesboom, How so?

@ikegami Probably because it isn't defined in the MTR as a default shorcut

@diego, A list of predefined shortcuts doesn't make other shortcuts invalid.

@ikegami I'm aware, thus why I didn't mention calling a judge in my answer, but I'm assuming that is bengoesboom's reasoning

@bengoesboom This is a perfectly valid shortcut.

Just to be clear, proposing a shortcut and acting on it by turning your creatures sideways are two different things. The proposed shortcut was valid. The actions taken in addition to that by Anthony were sloppy and would be reversed if the shortcut was denied.

Is this question about Nathan hiding information from Anthony? I could envision a situation where I don't want to interrupt my opponent immediately because I don't want to reveal unecessarily that I have some instant effect I could play in response to his attack.

@Hackworth Exactly. The end result is that Nathan is/isn't required to spill information about his hand.

The reason I said this is not valid is that it was not proposed. Anthony's opponent moved past any sort of proposal directly into acting, preventing Anthony from ever acting when he would have priority. At this point, the game state has reached a state (presumably Nathan passing priority in the "declare attackers" phase) in an invalid way. To correct the game state, you should call a judge.

@bengoesboom That is a good point. Calling a judge is always the right choice, but in my experience players often correct the game state on their own when it is as trivial as undeclaring an attack. However, I have seen bullies reply "But I already declared my attacks. It's too late." and that is when I see judges called over to correct the situation.

@Rainbolt And that is the correct time to call a judge.

Regarding shortcuts, the relevant rules for this scenario are:

716.1a The rules for taking shortcuts are largely unformalized. As long as each player in the game understands the intent of each other player, any shortcut system they use is acceptable.

as well as

716.2a At any point in the game, the player with priority may suggest a shortcut by describing a sequence of game choices, for all players, that may be legally taken based on the current game state and the predictable results of the sequence of choices. This sequence may be a non- repetitive series of choices, a loop that repeats a specified number of times, multiple loops, or nested loops, and may even cross multiple turns. It can’t include conditional actions, where the outcome of a game event determines the next action a player takes. The ending point of this sequence must be a place where a player has priority, though it need not be the player proposing the shortcut.
716.2b Each other player, in turn order starting after the player who suggested the shortcut, may either accept the proposed sequence, or shorten it by naming a place where he or she will make a game choice that’s different than what’s been proposed. (The player doesn’t need to specify at this time what the new choice will be.) This place becomes the new ending point of the proposed sequence.
716.2c Once the last player has either accepted or shortened the shortcut proposal, the shortcut is taken. The game advances to the last proposed ending point, with all game choices contained in the shortcut proposal having been taken. If the shortcut was shortened from the original proposal, the player who now has priority must make a different game choice than what was originally proposed for that player.

Regarding this specific question, when a player is proposing to do an action that can only be taken in a certain step that would occur after the player's last known step, it is a well-known shortcut that the player is going to change phases until the first phase where they can take that action. In this case, after drawing for Draw Phase, Anthony is proposing a shortcut to get to Combat phase, ending Draw phase and ending First Main phase without doing anything in either. This is a perfectly valid shortcut.
Once Nathan proposes this shortcut, Nathan is then allowed to propose a shortened shortcut, where he will make a game choice that's different than what Anthony proposed. In this particular case, the most likely proposal from Nathan would be to go until the 'Beginning of Combat Step'. This is a normal decision in the course of a game, and thus Nathan can take his time to decide on this proposal, within reason of course. This is the same at both Regular REL and Competitive REL. If Nathan takes an action before proposing a shortened shortcut, such as casting a spell or activating an ability, it is assumed that he is accepting the shortcut that Anthony proposed.
Note: Once Nathan proposes a shortened shortcut, Anthony is not then allowed to instead do something in his First Main phase; he has to go with the shortened shortcut. In this case, that would be advancing to end of his First Main phase and passing priority.

FYI - You have the names of the players flipped. Anthony is the active player, and the one proposing the shortcut.

@Rainbolt Fixed, not sure why I didn't catch that XD

Awesome. Now I have a tough choice between your answer and Diego's. I usually wait a couple of days before accepting one, so we'll see where the voting goes.

Strategy nit: Nathan is better off letting it go to the Beginning of Combat Step so Anthony doesn't get another chance to play Sorceries.

@ikegami Good catch. Mind if I edit my answer with that?

Of course not. Go right ahead

It might be worth noting that the fact Nathan's opponent leaked information (what creatures are attacking) in declaring his shortcut is not Nathan's fault, and has no impact on the legality of shortening the shortcut.

@Patters It does not have an impact on the legality of shortening the shortcut, however, Anthony is not required to keep the same attackers once in declare attackers if Nathan does propose a shortening to before declare attackers.

agreed, I just wanted to mention the above because I have seen people object in the past, I have also seen people object to changing attackers after a shortcut is shortened, so if one is included in the answer, both should be!

@Patters To be fair, doesn't make sense to include either, since if arguing is happening between players, a judge should be called over, instead of the players trying to police other players.

There is nothing in the Magic Tournament Rules about timing when interrupting a shorcut. All it says is "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." So there is no reason you wouldn't be able to have a moment to think about it.
Obviously if you do anything that acknowledges the attack as being valid like casting your Kill Shot or otherwise using or passing priority it is too late to deny them their shortcut. Anytime prior to this point though should be fine, as long as you don't fall into Slow Play territory.
Personally, if I were Nathan what I would do in this situation is when Anthony declares attackers say "Wait, I might have something before declare attackers" and then once I have taken a moment to decide what to do either say "Ok, go ahead" or "Before declare attackers I..."