Dark Confidant under New Penalty Guidelines

[Aardshark]

In competitive play under the new comprehensive rules, what penalty will be assessed if I simply draw my card for the turn with a dark confidant in play, forgetting to reveal a card with dark confidant? Specifically, will I receive a warning, or a game loss?

Dark Confidant   
Cost: 1B   
Card Type: Creature - Human Wizard 
P/T: 2/1 
Rules Text (Oracle):  At the beginning of your upkeep, reveal the top card of your library and put that card into your hand. You lose life equal to its converted mana cost. 

123. Game Play Error — Missed Trigger
Definition
A game event triggers, but the player controlling the trigger is unaware of its existence and/or forgets to perform the actions specified by the trigger.
Examples
A. In a Magic tournament, a player has Braids, Cabal Minion in play. After he has declared attackers, he realizes that he has failed to sacrifice a permanent to Braids' upkeep trigger.
B. In a Magic tournament, a player realizes that she forgot to remove the final counter from a Suspend spell.
C. In a Magic tournament, a player forgets to pay Cumulative Upkeep for a creature.
D. In a Dreamblade tournament, a player forgets to sacrifice a creature to the Appease ability of Eater of Hope when it was spawned.
Philosophy
Most games have "triggers" — actions that the game asks players to take as a result an event occurring. Because the representation of these triggers is invisible, players will miss them on occasion.

Penalty All Levels: Warning

If the trigger instruction is optional (“may”) and specifies no consequence for not doing it, assume that the player has chosen not to perform the instruction and issue no penalty.
If the trigger requires no choices to be made and has no effect on the visual representation of the game, assume the ability resolved at the appropriate time and issue no penalty. The visual representation consists of elements the players are able to see happening or in play, such as zone changes and adding counters to permanents, as well as life totals.

124. Game Play Error — Failure to Reveal
Definition
A player forgets to reveal information that they have been instructed to reveal by a game rule or effect.
Examples
A. A player in a Magic tournament plays Worldly Tutor and places the card he searched for on top of his library without revealing it.
B. A player in a Magic tournament resolves the trigger from his Dark Confidant., but puts the card directly into his hand.
C. At the end of a game in a Magic tournament, a player shuffles her morph card back into her library without revealing it.
Philosophy
Failing to reveal a card prevents opponents from verifying that an effect was played correctly. While the error is easy to make, the potential for abuse is high and the DCI wishes to track players who repeatedly commit this infraction.
Penalty

Regular: Warning
Competitive: Game
Professional: Game
Few of these errors can caught before the exact information and location of the unrevealed information is lost. If the card was ever in a position to be uniquely identified (such as on top of the player's library or the only card in hand), downgrade this penalty at Regular and Competitive RELs. If the card is still uniquely identifiable, reveal it to all appropriate players. Additionally, if not caught immediately, opponents and teammates should receive a Game Play Error — Failure to Maintain Game State penalty.

On the one hand, I have forgotten to resolve Dark Confidant's trigger.  Under Rule 123, the penalty for missing a trigger is a mere warning. (Whew!)

On the other hand, per Rule 124, I have "forgotten to reveal information" that I was "instructed to reveal by a game rule or effect." Ergo: Game Loss. (Ouch.)

It is clear from Example B of Rule 124 that the DCI had Dark Confidant specifically in mind when it increased the "Failure to Reveal" penalty.  I'd hazard to guess Dark Confidant is by far the most common cause of Failure to Reveal in tournament play, and perhaps the very reason the penalty was increased (if any card justifies this new arguably draconian penalty its Dark Confidant).  I believe that the DCI intended for a player forgetting to reveal a card for dark confidant to receive a game loss.  And that would seem to be the result under Rule 124 (which is of course inconsistent with the result under Rule 123).

Unfortunatley, the wording of Example B muddles the question rather than clarifying it.  It specifies that a player "resolves the trigger from his Dark Confidant, but puts the card directly into his hand."  But that's not how it works in the real world.  When's the last time you saw a player say "I'm resolving my Dark Confidant," but not revealed the card. I've certainly never done this, whereas (because I'm a bad player) I've spaced and drawn my card for the turn with Dark Confidant in play many times.

So, what's the result -- does Rule 123 or Rule 124 govern this situation?

[Clariax]

First off, we're talking new Penalty Guidelines, not Comprehensive Rules.  Comprehensive Rules are how to play the game.  They apply whether you're playing a tournament, a casual game against a friend, or some emporer game.  The Penalty Guidelines are a part of the tournament rules, along with the Universal Tournament Rules and the Magic Floor rules, these rules deal with mechanics of tournaments which don't exactly relate to how to play the game.

As for the situation presented, the infraction is Missed Trigger.  Failure to Reveal applies if you resolve the trigger, but simply put the card in your hand instead of revealing it first.  Transmuting a Tolaria West and putting the card in your hand witout revealing it would be an example of this.  As for Dark Confidant, if the person put a card in hand for Dark Confidant without revealing, then drew for turn, that would qualify as fail to reveal.  If he simply never deals with the card from Confidant at all, it's missed trigger.

[Aardshark]

First off, we're talking new Penalty Guidelines, not Comprehensive Rules.  Comprehensive Rules are how to play the game.  They apply whether you're playing a tournament, a casual game against a friend, or some emporer game.  The Penalty Guidelines are a part of the tournament rules, along with the Universal Tournament Rules and the Magic Floor rules, these rules deal with mechanics of tournaments which don't exactly relate to how to play the game.

As for the situation presented, the infraction is Missed Trigger.  Failure to Reveal applies if you resolve the trigger, but simply put the card in your hand instead of revealing it first.  Transmuting a Tolaria West and putting the card in your hand witout revealing it would be an example of this.  As for Dark Confidant, if the person put a card in hand for Dark Confidant without revealing, then drew for turn, that would qualify as fail to reveal.  If he simply never deals with the card from Confidant at all, it's missed trigger.

Thanks! (And sorry I misrepresented the source).

Follow up question.  I've seen a judge address this infraction before under the old penalty guideline, where a player had drawn his card for the turn, mixed it into his hand, and proceded with his turn, and the error was caught that same turn during the first mainphase, before any significant action was taken.

The ruling was that play was backed up to the upkeep step, the player was directed to reveal and take damage for the highest casting cost card in his hand (as determined by the judge), and the player allowed to proceed with his draw step.  I do not know the source of authority from which the judge based this ruling (e.g. the DCI Floor Rules, the judge's forums, or some other source), but I do not think it was his own on-the-spot ruling.

Would this still be the ruling the new rules/guidelines?

What if the failure to resolve dark confidant's trigger is not noticed until after:
(1) the player has played a land?   
(2) the player has cast a spell?
(3) his opponent has played a spell or ability (e.g. counterspell)?
(4) the player has attacked?
(5) the next turn?
(6) two turns later?

At some point will this penalty be upgraded into a game loss due to an uncorrectable game state? Or will the omission of the trigger become permanent (as when an illegal play had been made)?

I'm assuming that because Dark Confidant sees alot of tournament play, and missing its trigger happens fairly often, that there are either official rulings or unofficial consensus for dealing with these situations, but I wouldn't know where I'd find it.

Thanks again!
- Galen

[LotusHead]

[The ruling was that play was backed up to the upkeep step, the player was directed to reveal and take damage for the highest casting cost card in his hand (as determined by the judge), and the player allowed to proceed with his draw step.  I do not know the source of authority from which the judge based this ruling (e.g. the DCI Floor Rules, the judge's forums, or some other source), but I do not think it was his own on-the-spot ruling.

I belive that at the "GP, Qualifiers, whatever" T2 pro tour stuff that happened somewhere in NorCal, that was the ruling for sloppy play for Dark Confidants, and all the Judges did it that way, and I belive it happened right around the time you entered our Type 1 scene.  My FMN crew griped about it.

[Clariax]

The ruling was that play was backed up to the upkeep step, the player was directed to reveal and take damage for the highest casting cost card in his hand (as determined by the judge), and the player allowed to proceed with his draw step.  I do not know the source of authority from which the judge based this ruling (e.g. the DCI Floor Rules, the judge's forums, or some other source), but I do not think it was his own on-the-spot ruling.

Would this still be the ruling the new rules/guidelines?

What if the failure to resolve dark confidant's trigger is not noticed until after:

...

At some point will this penalty be upgraded into a game loss due to an uncorrectable game state? Or will the omission of the trigger become permanent (as when an illegal play had been made)?

The quoted ruling is how Dark Confidant used to be dealt with, under a previous version of the penalty guidelines.  The judge who ruled in that fashion was correct at that time, when due to inadequecies in the PG, there needed to be a special "fix" for Dark Confidant.  But, this isn't how it works now.

Regardless of how much time has passed since the error, the penalty is the same.  Anything you may believe, or have heard, about "uncorrectable game state," forget about.  That's a myth, it doesn't exist.  To upgrade a penalty based on how much later it's noticed would basically encourage the opponent to ignore some error for a number of turns until it's more advantageous for them to call a judge.  This is of course cheating, is Very Bad, and is certainly not the sort of behavior the Penalty Guidelines should, nor do, encourage.

While the penalty is the same regardless of when the infraction is noticed, the remedy, and also whether or not the opponent has also committed an infraction change.  If the opponent doesn't notice immediately, he's committed GRV-Failure to Maintain the Game State.  The remedy (what happens to the game state) for missed triggers varies based on when the infraction is noticed and also specifics of the trigger missed.  This is detailed extensively in the Missed Trigger section of the Penalty Guidelines.

[Aardshark]

Thanks. I think I understand. I realize that I was conflating the "Penalty" with the "Resolution", and these are distinct concepts.

One last example to confirm my understanding:

During my cleanup step, midway through discarding down to 7 cards (from a 9 card hand), I realize I forgot to resolve the trigger for my dark confidant that turn.

Penalty:
I will receive a warning for a missed trigger.  My opponent will recieve a warning for failure to maintain game state.

Resolution:
We remain in the cleanup step and back up only to the beginning of my discarding "action", and the dark confidant trigger is placed on the stack. If both I and my opponent then pass priority, the dark confidant trigger will resolve and I will reveal the top card and lose the approprite amount of life.  Since we are in the cleanup step, I will not receive priority (absent some other effect) and will resume discarding down to 7 cards. 

There is no longer any concern about what I "would have" revealed (e.g., even if I was at 4 life and had drawn Force of Will as my card for the turn, which would have killed me, I lose life only for the card actually revealed during my cleanup step).

Did I get this right?

Thanks again for the clarification!

[Glix]

What would happen if the player in error knew what was on his top (by sensei's divining top or some other means)?

[Jacob Orlove]

Then a judge would probably have to decide whether or not that player was Cheating.

[Aardshark]

Then a judge would probably have to decide whether or not that player was Cheating.

I think we all know the result if the player is deemed by the judge to have been cheating by intentionally missing his dark confidant's trigger (whether or not he knows the top card(s) of his library).

I'm assuming that the judge determines the player did not intentionally skip the dc's trigger.  And I'd be interested to know if the result could be different if a player knew/should have known the top card of his library.  My interpretation of the rules is that this knowledge of one's library does not matter (although as J.O. suggests it might be interpreted by the judge as evidence the players was cheating).

[Clariax]

Knowledge of the top card would contribute to the judge's investigation as to what the infraction is (missed trigger or cheating), but wouldn't change how the infraction is dealt with, once it's determined what infraction.

[Aardshark]

Knowledge of the top card would contribute to the judge's investigation as to what the infraction is (missed trigger or cheating), but wouldn't change how the infraction is dealt with, once it's determined what infraction.

This could create an interesting dilema for inattentive players. Say a player at four life with a DC on the board activates top, sees FoW and puts it on top of his library, and draws his card for the turn.  Midway through his turn, his opponent points out that he missed DCs trigger and asked what he would have revealed.  The inattentive player knows a judge has only 2 course of actions: (1) find that the error was unintenional and allow the inattentive play to profit from the missed trigger (that should have killed him), or (2) rule that the player was cheating, and DQ him.  The judge can no longer "split the baby" by simply issueing a game loss. 

He also knows that the judge cannot read his mind, and may well find that he was cheating under the (rather lax) "reason to believe" standard, rather than allow him to profit from his mistake.  It may be best to concede the game if doing so will avoid a judge being called over and risking a DQ, saying something like ("Oops, I forgot about that! FoW was on top, I'm dead! Game 2?"). 

That's ethical, right?

One last example to confirm my understanding:

During my cleanup step, midway through discarding down to 7 cards (from a 9 card hand), I realize I forgot to resolve the trigger for my dark confidant that turn.

Penalty:
I will receive a warning for a missed trigger.  My opponent will recieve a warning for failure to maintain game state.

Resolution:
We remain in the cleanup step and back up only to the beginning of my discarding "action", and the dark confidant trigger is placed on the stack. If both I and my opponent then pass priority, the dark confidant trigger will resolve and I will reveal the top card and lose the approprite amount of life.  Since we are in the cleanup step, I will not receive priority (absent some other effect) and will resume discarding down to 7 cards. 

There is no longer any concern about what I "would have" revealed (e.g., even if I was at 4 life and had drawn Force of Will as my card for the turn, which would have killed me, I lose life only for the card actually revealed during my cleanup step).

So did I get this hypothetical right?

Thanks again for all the help!

[Anusien]

This could create an interesting dilema for inattentive players. Say a player at four life with a DC on the board activates top, sees FoW and puts it on top of his library, and draws his card for the turn.  Midway through his turn, his opponent points out that he missed DCs trigger and asked what he would have revealed.  The inattentive player knows a judge has only 2 course of actions: (1) find that the error was unintenional and allow the inattentive play to profit from the missed trigger (that should have killed him), or (2) rule that the player was cheating, and DQ him.  The judge can no longer "split the baby" by simply issueing a game loss. 

He also knows that the judge cannot read his mind, and may well find that he was cheating under the (rather lax) "reason to believe" standard, rather than allow him to profit from his mistake.  It may be best to concede the game if doing so will avoid a judge being called over and risking a DQ, saying something like ("Oops, I forgot about that! FoW was on top, I'm dead! Game 2?"). 

That's ethical, right?

First off, judges aren't under the obligation to prevent players from benefiting from sloppy play.  It would be nice, but trying to correct for that creates too many special cases and issues where rulings are not consistent from judge to judge.

In your example, you're looking at the Penalty Guide (PG) as an penalty-driven document instead of an infraction-driven document.  Judges don't look at a situation and figure out the penalty they want to give; they look at the Penalty Guide to find the right infraction and then apply the correct penalty/solution.

In this case, it would be Missed Trigger which is a Warning at all Rules Enforcement Levels.  That is because a Warning is appropriate for the Penalty based on potential for abuse and disruption of the game state (as well as whatever factors).  Judges deciding on penalties to fit the situation instead of infractions leads to inconsistent judging.

As a judge, a player who intentionally scoops to avoid a judge call looks more suspicious than one who simply calls the judge.  Despite the "reason to believe", DQs are still relatively rare.  Keep in mind that only the Head Judge can disqualify anyone from a tournament.  I should add that conceding a game will not forestall the judge call.  In this case whatever penalty that would be assessed would be assessed in the current game: you cannot concede a game in order to avoid a penalty.  You can however scoop to try and earn a bigger penalty!