Hello Judges and welcome back to the Knowledge Pool. This week lets take a look at an Eternal format with a Silver scenario. As normal with Silver scenarios level 2 and higher judges please wait until Friday to comment so our level 1s can begin the discussion.

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/2014/12/03/blue-card-monty/

During a Legacy Open Abel casts Gitaxian probe paying 2 life and targeting Noel, who responds with Brainstorm. Abel casts Counterspell targeting the Brainstorm. Noel responds by casting Daze returning his Volcanic Island to his hand leaving his board empty. As Noel is resolving Brainstorm Abel says “Go” so Noel untaps and draws for his turn. At this point Abel realizes the Probe was never resolved and calls a judge. What do you do?

Edited Jeremy Behunin (Dec. 3, 2014 01:32:41 PM)

For infractions, I would give both Abel and Noel Warnings for GRV and FtMGS, respectively. Since this situation doesn't fall under any of the standard GRV fixes, but not much has happened, I would want to back up to the resolution of Gitaxian Probe (with head judge approval if I wasn't the lone judge).

Return a random card from Noel's hand to the top of his deck, re-tap whatever permanents were tapped, then resolve Gitaxian Probe correctly (Noel reveals his hand and Abel draws a card). Resume the game from that point (which would be Abel's main phase) and remind both players to play more carefully.

What we have here is a Game Play Error - Game Rule Violation on the part of Abel. Abel offered to keep passing priority until Noel had priority in his End Step with Gitaxian Probe still on the stack, which cannot actually happen. It was also not caught immediately by Noel, so we have a Game Play Error - Failure to Maintain Game State for Noel. Both of these come with Warnings. We should also ask if Abel has received any other warnings for Game Rule Violations today.

For the fix, it seems reasonable to back up to Gitaxian Probe still on the stack. Brainstorm would still have resolved, so the identity of the card drawn was known to Noel. There is actually no gained information here other than Abel having no plays for the rest of the turn by Noel, so a backup does no real damage and the probe really should have resolved. Abel has no way of verifying which card was drawn for this turn, so we should return a random card from Noel's hand to the top of the library. We should also retap all permanents that were tapped during Abel's turn. Then we can resolve the probe and the game can proceed from that point.

Edited Jacob Milicic (Dec. 3, 2014 01:45:17 PM)

Ask for a back up to Abel's turn (right after brainstorm resolves). Return random card from Noel's hand to the top of his deck. Have Probe resolve (noel reveal his hand, Abel draws). GRVs and warnings all around.

The key here is most likely this part of the IPG:

In a situation where the effect that caused the infraction is controlled by one player, but the illegal action is taken by another player, both receive a Game Play Error – Game Rule Violation. For example, if a player casts Path to Exile on an opponent’s creature and the opponent puts the creature into the graveyard, both players receive a Game Play Error — Game Rule Violation infraction.

Is the (in)action of Noel not revealing his hand enough for a GRV? I would be fine with a FtMGS here for Noel if not revealing is not what the IPG had in mind here.

Edited Addison Miller (Dec. 3, 2014 01:50:23 PM)

I agree that this is a GPE-GRV (Warning) for Abel, And a GPE-FtMGS (warning) for Noel. However I would like to Investigate a little bit to ensure Noel really did forget and didn't purposely let the probe not resolve.

If it's ruled that the complicated stack really did lead to an honest mistake then rewind the games state by randomly returning a card to the top of Noel's library, tap all previously tapped permanents, and place the probe on the stack currently in Abel's main phase.

If it is ruled that Noel did in fact fail to point out the probes resolution in order to incur an advantage then this would be USC-Cheating and the player will be disqualified.

Both situations require the head judge to become involved.

Edited Walker Metyko (Dec. 3, 2014 06:25:44 PM)

Before reading other responses:

quick note: the scenario states that Noel “untaps and draws for his turn”. With an empty board, there's no physical untap action, right?

Gitaxian Probe should have resolved before the turn was passed to Noel, but it wasn't. Probe was Abel's spell, and Abel passed the turn. This is a GPE - GRV, with a warning, for Abel. Noel had a chance to prevent this error, but failed to do so, so this is also a GPE - FtMGS with a warning for Noel.

To fix the situation, we should either leave the game state as-is, or rewind to the point of the error (right before the Probe resolves). The game state as-is is a bit weird, with Abel's sorcery still on the stack. I don't think it's very disruptive to rewind in this situation, and would do so. To rewind:

• Put a random card from Noel's hand on top of their library.
  
• re-tap any of Noel's permanents that they untapped. (I'm assuming this is none?)
  
• It's now Abel's turn, with Gitaxian Probe on the stack, Abel's priority. Both players have a chance to respond. Continue play.
  

While, technically, “Go” is a tournament shortcut for “I'll continue passing priority until you have priority in the end step”, I believe it's only reasonable to use this shortcut when the Active Player has priority with an empty stack. I.e., the technically correct thing to do after saying “go” is, if the opponent accepts, resolve Gitaxian Probe. This is weird, and not really what's intended. Given that I don't want to apply “go” as a tournament shortcut, this actually veers near TE - CPV. But, it's never CPV ;)


After reading other responses:

Originally posted by walker metyko:

If it is ruled that Noel did in fact fail to point out the probes resolution in order to incur an advantage then this would be USC-Major and the player will be disqualified.

Quick correction - It would be USC - Cheating with a Disqualification, not USC - Major. This is probably what you meant?
It's usually worth a cursory investigation, no matter the scenario. That said, every Knowledge Pool scenario has the assumption that an investigation has already occurred, and no player was intentionally cheating. (It might be worth adding this assumption to the introduction on scenarios?)

Edited Talin Salway (Dec. 3, 2014 05:05:44 PM)

quick note: the scenario states that Noel “untaps and draws for his turn”. With an empty board, there's no physical untap action, right?

Generally you are correct, but a few will make some sort of action to indicate this step though. For this scenario assume no action. :)

Originally posted by Talin Salway:

Quick correction - It would be USC - Cheating with a Disqualification, not USC - Major. This is probably what you meant?

yes, thank you for that catch I'll edit it right now.

I agree. I would give GPE-GRV for Abel and GPE-FTMGS for Noel, warnings all around, and a back up.

Hey!

I think that Abel did not resolve properly his Gitaxian Probe, so he is under GPE-GRV.
Also, Noel took his turn and drew without the Gitaxian Probe being resolverd, so he is under GPE-FtMGS.
Both players will receive a Warning.
I'll fix the situation by backing up up to the point where the Gitaxian Probe would have resolved.
To do that, I'll put a card in Noel's hand back on top of his library. That card would be chosen at random.

All the best!

GPE-GRV on A, GPE-FTMGS on N.

Additional remedy:
• If a player forgot to draw cards, discard cards, or return cards from their hand to another zone, that player
does so.

Draw the card. Carry on.

Olivier, why wouldn't you do a rewind?

Edited Clynn Wilkinson (Dec. 4, 2014 11:27:59 PM)

Backup!

I explain that the Gitaxian Probe was not resolved correctly, and the game must be backed up to a point at which it can resolve properly. I ask the Head Judge for permission to do so, and if he allows, I proceed as such.

First, I ask Noel to randomize his hand and place one of the cards on top of his library. From there are now at the point during Abel's turn where the sole object on the stack is Gitaxian Probe. We then resolve it. The game continues from that point, on Abel's turn.

I then inform them that warnings are in order for each of them. GPE-GRV: Warning for Abel and GPE-FTMGS: Warning for Noel. I ask them to please play more carefully in the future.

Another week in the books. This week our scenario centered around distracting spells, forgetting to take some actions, and information. Namely the correct resolution to Gitaxian Probe and changing the hand during a rewind. For this we issue a GRV to Abel and a FtMGS for Noel. Each comes with a Warning.

While it would appear that many game actions have taken place and information has changed it was correctly pointed out a rewind here is quite simple. Some consideration should be taken with the possibility of the information changing in Noels hand due to the random card being returned. However it is not a reason to deviate from the standard rewind called for by the IPG.

Placing a random card from Noels hand on top of the library is simple (and no one fell for the trap of Volcanic Island being a known card). Once we've done that it's a simple matter of Noel revealing his current hand and Abel drawing his own card.

well i am unsure about how I would handle that.

Considering the possible purpose of this brainstorm being cast only to hide a card, I believe I would like to deviate here, because returning a random card would maybe make the brainstorm play pointless. Moreover, since Noel is the one who chose which card to put on top with the brainstorm, I think that this back up penalises possibly Noel and I am very tempted to let him put the card of his choice on the top for the back up, since it was what actually happened with the brainstorm that he resolved.

I am unsatisfied with letting the state of the game at it is
I am unsatisfied with doing a back-up “by the book”, because you both possibly change the content of the hand AND the information gained by the opponent (which may be immediately relevant if the opponent plays discard for instance).

I believe I would do a back up to resolve the probe, except I would let Noel chose the card for the top of his library.

Please tell me if I am way out of lines with my process of thoughts here.