Welcome back to another edition of Knowledge Pool! This week we have a silver scenario, which I will remind us once again means that it's aimed at level 1 judges and L2+ judges please wait a few days before chiming in. Feel free to check us out at the blog below:

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/?p=1119

Arthur and Mr. Nigma are back at it again, playing in a Sealed GPT. On Arthur’s turn, he draws Bolt of Keranos. Mr. Nigma has been pumping out an army of chump blockers with Elspeth, Sun's Champion, which is currently at 3 loyalty. Arthur triumphantly Bolts Elspeth down to 0, scrys a card to the bottom of his library, then passes the turn.

While Mr. Nigma is untapping and taking stock of what he has left in play, he realizes he controls Aegis of the Gods. He has hexproof. That Bolt of Keranos could never have hit Elspeth! JUDGE!

Assuming the investigation does not lead us to believe that Arthur was cheating.

Warning for GPE - GRV for Arthur. He incorrectly attempted to cast Bolt of Keranos (illegal target). He won't be getting LEC, because a previous infraction caused him to do so.
Warning GPE - FtMGS for Mr. Nigma for not catching the mistake right away.

For the fix, we're going to need to get a rewind authorized.

First, we're going to shuffle Arthur's deck, to undo the fact that he knows a location of a card. This assumes that he nor his opponent doesn't ALREADY know the location of a card in his deck (previous scrying and whatnot.) Then we'll return Elspeth to the battlefield with 3 loyalty counters. Then we will untap all mana used to cast Bolt of Keranos and return it to Arthur's hand. Because he chooses a target for the spell during the process of casting the spell, he will not be “forced” to choose one of the Elspeth tokens. He will be able to choose at that time whether to cast it again with a legal target, or not to cast it.

Edited Dustin Jones (July 30, 2014 01:49:40 PM)

This looks like a pretty clear GRV which was discoverd some game time later. Even if Nigma controls the Aegis, the GRV is not an action that was called for by an effect from Nigma. Therefore I would give GPE-GRV Warning to Arthur and GPE-FtMGS Warning to Nigma.
The next question is whether we can rewind: I would say yes, because there were neither a lot of information gained nor big decisions done. Therefore Nigma puts a random card back to the top of the library, Elspeth returns to the battlefield and Bolt of Keranos goes back to Arthurs hand. Besides I would shuffle the scryed card back into the library (remembering to not shuffle any other known cards at the top or bottom of the library) Technically I would rewind to the moment when targets are chosen for the Bolt of Keranos, but if Arthur can decide to pay no mana to get the same result.

EDIT: Whoops, Somehow I misread that part were Nigma untaps his lands as that he has already drawn a card… In this case retapping the lands instead of a random card to the top of course ^^"

Edited Markus Dietrich (July 30, 2014 03:49:09 PM)

Arthur: Game Play Error - Game Rule Violation. Penalty is a Warning.
Mr. Nigma: Game Play Error - Failure to Maintain Game State. Penalty is a Warning.

Arthur committed a GRV because he chose an illegal target (Mr. Nigma) with the Bolt of Keranos.
Mr. Nigma receives his penalty because he allowed Arthur to perform an illegal action and did not catch it immediately.

The most appropriate additional remedy is to back up to the point before Bolt of Keranos was cast. This includes tapping whatever lands Mr. Nigma has untapped, shuffling Arthur's deck (minus known cards, but including the one he scryed to the bottom), untapping the mana for the Bolt, returning the Bolt to Arthur's hand, and giving Arthur priority during whichever main phase he originally cast the Bolt. Note that this rewind also requires checking with the HJ.

What we have here is a example of GPE-GRV. The error isn't covered by any other part of the IPG, therefore we use the “Catch-All” infraction. The penalty for GRV is a Warning for Arthur, and since Mr. Nigmadidnt bring the error to the Judge's attention immediately, he commitet GPE-FtMGS which will also get him a Warning.

Now we have to fix the situation, and the first question is: Rewind Yes or No? I'm going with the Yes (if i'm the HJ, if not i'm asking him for allowence) here by:

- first confirm then tapp the lands Mr. Nigma's was untapping
- shuffle Arthur's library (we also have a L@EC here so we apply that additional remedy) taking into account the known portion of the librarby
- put Elspeth back on the battlefield with 3 loyality counter on her
- put Bolt of Keranos back on Arthur's hand and
- untap the lands that was used to pay for Bolt of Keranos

The games continues from that point. One reminder for both players to play more carefully and the back to business.

Before reading other responses:

Arthur took an illegal game action, and Mr. Nigma allowed it to happen. I'm assuming the investigation finds that both the illegal action and the allowing it to happen were done accidentally, not intentionally (since it wasn't pointed out in the scenario). Arthur receives a GPE - GRV and a warning, and Mr. Nigma gets a GPE - FtMGS and a warning.

As an additional remedy, we have the option of rewinding to the point of the error. The original point of error was casting Bolt of Keranos “targeting elspeth” (shortcut for targeting Mr. Nigma, redirecting to Elspeth). The situation seems simple enough to rewind, especially since Nigma hasn't drawn for the turn yet. With the head judge's permission -

• 1) re-tap all of Mr. Nigma's tapped permanents.
  
• 2) Take the scry'd card from the bottom of Arthur's library, and shuffle it into the unknown portion of the deck. (keeping in mind any known scry'd cards on the bottom of library)
  
• 3) Return Elspeth to the battlefield with 3 counters, Bolt to Arthur's hand, and untap the relevant lands for Arthur. We're in Arthur's Main Phase (or wherever Arthur was in his turn), with Arthur's priority.
  

If we choose not to rewind, the game continues from where it is, in Mr. Nigma's upkeep.

Once we have rewound (or chosen not to rewind), caution the players to play carefully, and continue the game. If necessary, give a time extension.

After reading other responses:

pretty much the same over all. A nice straightforward scenario :)

GRV for Arthur, FtMGS for Nigma. No cards have been drawn, no game actions except for the scry have been made, so assuming there aren't further complications due to past Scrying in this game, we shuffle Arthur's deck, tap Nigma's permanents, and rewind to Arthur's main phase, whichever main phase it was when he cast the Bolt.

This one seems pretty cut and dried.

Gotta agree with everyone so far.

A- GRV
N- FtMGS

Warning for both (assuming this hasn't been a recurring problem). If we do a rewind, then we need to see if A has any portion of the deck known so far (as he could have been Scrying before this). If he's scry'd some stuff to the bottom, we find out how many give a few for variance to make sure and then randomize the rest. In accordance with the rest of what has been said so far.

GPE-GRV for Arthur
GPE-FtMGS for Nigma

Reversing the game play would put us right before Arthur started to cast Bolt of Keranos.
Requiring the undoing of the untap of Nigma's permanents and the placement of Elspeth in the yard, returning Bolt of Keranos to Arthur's hand and undoing Arthur's scry.
Presumably, leaving us in either Arthur's draw step or main phase or possibly later on Arthur's turn.

However, undoing the scry gives Arthur knowledge of the top card of his library when we start from the point of error which he wouldn't otherwise have known and could affect his play going forward. Nothing in GRV policy allows us to shuffle the scryed card into the library.

Reversing and leaving the card on top as policy requires would constitute a sufficiently complex issue to proceeding with the reversal in my opinion.

Therefore I'd leave the game state as is and apply the ‘fix’ as allowed - which in this case would amount to nothing.

Alternatively, I'd propose the deviation to shuffle the scryed card into the library as part of the reversal to the Head Judge and let him deviate if he sees fit.

Edited Todd Bussey (July 30, 2014 06:14:12 PM)

Pretty obvious GRV for Arthur and FtMGS for Nigma. This is not a double GRV due to the recent changes in the GRV rules.

The fix would be to back up, with head judge permission. Have Nigma retap his cards. Pull the scryed card from the bottom leaving any other scryed cards there. Shuffle the deck and back up to the point before Arthur cast Bolt of Keranos with Arthur untapping those lands. Put Elspeth back on the battlefield at 3 loyalty.

Without reading the other replies:

GRV for Arthur and FtMGS for Nigma.
Additional remedy: get permission from the head Judge to back-up.
The backup will consist of
- Returning tapped permanents of Nigma to the tapped positions.
- Return elspeth to play with 3 counters
- Shuffle the deck except for known cards from previous scrying. (so the information from scrying off the bolt is invalidated)
- Return Bolt of Keranos to Arthurs hand
- Untap lands tapped for casting the bolt.

After reading the other replies: hey we all agree :-)

Without reading other replies:

Arthur has commited a GRV for choosing an illegal target for the Bolt and will receive a Warning. Nigma will receive a Warning for FtMGS because he didn't call for a judge right away.

Since almost nothing has happened since the illegal action, this seems easy enough to rewind: Nigma will tap all permanents that were tapped before his untap step, Elspeth will be on the battlefield with 3 loyalty counters, Bolt of Keranos will go back to Arthus hand, the scried card from the bottom of Arthurs library will go back on the top, and the lands (or other permanents) he used to pay for Bolt will be untapped. Arthur will have priority and then the game continues.

After reading other replies:

To shuffle or not to shuffle? After thinking about it, Arthur has also commited L@EC, so the remedy for this infraction will also be applied. Since the root cause for the GRV and the L@EC are the same (illegally casting Bolt of Keranos) only the more severe penalty is applied (1 Warning). Of course check with both players if there are known cards in Arthurs library before shuffling (from earlier scries).

I would rule as follows:

GPE - L@EC (or GPE-GRV) for Arthur
GPE - FtMGS for Nigma

As HJ, I would rewind all actions to before Bolt was cast + including the remedy for L@EC => shuffle Arthur's library, making sure no other cards in the library were legally known.

Here I have a question: GRV and L@EC have the same penalty, so which one do we record? Is it the more recent one? Is it the more specific one? Personally I would go for L@EC, but I'm curious what others have to say. I'm pretty sure though that Arthur's library has to be shuffled.

PS: I was too lazy writing down the rewind steps, but others did that pretty well

Edited István Fejér (July 31, 2014 09:10:01 AM)

Originally posted by István Zoltán Fejér:

Here I have a question: GRV and L@EC have the same penalty, so which one do we record? Is it the more recent one? Is it the more specific one? Personally I would go for L@EC, but I'm curious what others have to say. I'm pretty sure though that Arthur's library has to be shuffled.l

The scrying off the bolt is what caused the L@EC. He wouldnt have been able to scry if he had not illegally cast the bolt. So the warning is given for the first action that could not legally occur, and any actions taken after that (assuming it's a safe enough time to rewind) should be rewound and the penalty for the illegal action is what's given.

Originally posted by Elliot Garner:

So the warning is given for the first action that could not legally occur, and any actions taken after that (assuming it's a safe enough time to rewind) should be rewound and the penalty for the illegal action is what's given.

I don't see this anywhere in the IPG, IPG only states that

Separate infractions committed or discovered at the same time are treated as separate penalties, though if the root cause is the same, only the more severe one is applied. If the first penalty would cause the second one to be inapplicable for the round (such as a Game Loss issued along with a Match Loss), the more severe penalty is issued first, followed by the less severe penalty in the next round.

I apologize if this is not the place to discuss this, but the severity of the two infractions committed here is the same. Why do we apply the first one?

Edited István Fejér (July 31, 2014 09:24:43 AM)