The current IPG no longer has the language for the downgrade that some previous versions have had, which, if I recall correctly, talked about whether the card was ever uniquely identifiable. The philosophy was that a player should not be able to gain an advantage, after an infraction has been committed, by waiting to call a judge until the game state has made it harder to fix the problem.

Nonetheless, I would still apply the same principles here. Arjun could easily have called a judge when Nadia drew a card off Electrolyze. His explanation that he though she was drawing the card for her turn seems frankly implausible to me. Arjun is playing a card in his deck with tricky interactions, and I would expect him to show a little more care in resolving those interactions. In this case, where the resolution depends on the subtle timing of when Spirit of the Labrynth leaves the battlefield, claiming that he assumed it was just OOS seems more like an angle shot than fair play.

I would rule that Nadia has committed DEC and that Arjun has committed FtMGS. I would downgrade the DEC to a Warning because the card was placed in an empty hand. I would return a random card from Nadia's hand to the top of her library and then shuffle the randomized portion of her library. The fact that the returned card might be the first card she drew rather than the second is still minimal disruption to the game state, so I do not believe this is a deviation.

Originally posted by Oren Firestein:

The current IPG no longer has the language for the downgrade that some previous versions have had, which, if I recall correctly, talked about whether the card was ever uniquely identifiable.

You mean from the GRV section? It's still there.

“If the information needed to verify the legality was ever in a uniquely identifiable position (such as on top of the library or as the only card in hand) after the infraction was committed, do not upgrade the penalty and reveal the information if possible.”

Hi there, folks! It's time to wrap this one up.

To determine the infraction, we need to figure out which illegal actions occurred. The rules say that Arjun should take 1, his Spirit of the Labyrinth should die, and that these should be the only results of resolving Electrolyze. Arjun performed all the actions he was supposed to. In addition to her legal actions of recording a life total change and putting her spell in the graveyard, Nadia drew a card. That card draw is the only illegal action taken, so we will issue the infraction associated with that action.

That infraction is Drawing Extra Cards, and it carries the normal penalty of a Game Loss. Looking at the Philosophy of Drawing Extra Cards:

Originally posted by IPG 2.3:

Though this error is easy to commit accidentally, the potential for it to be overlooked by opponents mandates a higher level of penalty. If the… card… was placed into an empty hand, and the card can be returned to the correct zone with minimal disruption, do so and downgrade the penalty to a Warning.

Even though Nadia initially drew a card into an empty hand, we can no longer return that card to the top of her library with minimal disruption. There are two cards in Nadia's hand by the time the error is detected, so we cannot put back a card we are certain was the one that was incorrectly drawn.

Arjun pointed out the error as soon as he had the opportunity to become aware of it, so no infraction for him.

It's also good customer service at this point to tell Nadia that she is encouraged to confirm card draws with her opponent to avoid these types of easy mistakes leading to game losses.

Thanks to everyone for the great discussion, and we will be back tomorrow with another scenario!

I still have a question remaining. It is not exactly described when Electrolyze actually went to the graveyard.

Would it still be a GPE - DEC if Electrolyze was still sitting on the table when Nadia drew a card and after that she puts it into her graveyard? Had Arjun been able to become aware of the error at this time?

Originally posted by Thomas Ludwig:

I still have a question remaining. It is not exactly described when Electrolyze actually went to the graveyard.

Would it still be a GPE - DEC if Electrolyze was still sitting on the table when Nadia drew a card and after that she puts it into her graveyard? Had Arjun been able to become aware of the error at this time?

I think the situation you are describing falls under out-of-order sequencing (MTR 4.3). It's similar to when players mark the life loss from Thoughtseize before choosing a card. The spell resolves once all parts of it are completed (dealing 2 damage and drawing a card, though the game is supposed to stop the card draw), then it goes to the graveyard (CR 608).

When exactly a spell is put into the graveyard is not a thing we worry about in terms of players committing GRVs.

In Legacy and Vintage, where graveyard order is relevant, we may worry about the final ordering of cards in the graveyard, but not about whether they are all put there in a technically correct sequence. For example, it is perfectly fine for a Dredge player to cast Faithless Looting, put it in the graveyard, then discard his two cards, then move the Faithless Looting to be on top of them. That's Out of Order Sequencing. The actions were slightly mixed up, but they resulted in the correct final state.

Leaving the Electrolyze on the table while drawing the card is a good habit. Doing this may help Arjun recognize that Nadia is making a mistake while we can still downgrade the DEC. However, without confirmation of the draw, leaving that spell on the table does not really mean anything. I have often seen players leave fully resolved spells sitting on the battlefield for an entire turn because they are, in their own minds, in the middle of a batch actions or it clarifies the game state to both players because the effect lasts until end of turn. It is not Arjun's responsibility to read Nadia's mind to determine why a spell is or is not being resolved using OOS. It is his responsibility to call attention to errors at the point at which he becomes aware of them. His assumption that Nadia was playing legally was reasonable until she drew the second card. After it stopped being reasonable, he called a judge and we resolve it according to the state of the game and the active communication that has occurred in it.

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

When exactly a spell is put into the graveyard is not a thing we worry about in terms of players committing GRVs.

I'll add a bit of history & context to that (highly accurate) comment.

The origins of OoOS (Out of Order Sequencing) date back to Harrow, when it was reprinted in Invasion. Players would announce Harrow, sac a land, put both in the graveyard, and then their Rules Lawyering opponent would argue they'd already resolved the spell and chose not to find any lands. That's clearly an undesirable outcome, even if technically correct.

Players don't pay attention to the obscure details of the rules that Judges pride themselves on knowing. So it's not a problem if a player casts Fling, then puts it in the graveyard with the sacrificed creature on top of the Fling … unless they're playing with something like Bosium Strip or Volrath's Shapeshifter (and that's why we enforce graveyard order in Eternal formats).

d:^D

Edited Scott Marshall (Oct. 8, 2014 04:53:21 PM)