Hey, Judges! We're back again with our first scenario about Fate Reforged rules and policy interactions! This week we have a Silver scenario, so if you are level 2 or higher, wait until after your local FNM to jump in.

Here are the blog link and scenario:

Stephen is watching Angus and Natalie play their match in a Sealed PPTQ. Natalie controls a tapped Archfiend of Depravity. Angus attacks with Mardu Strike Leader, which he has cast for its Dash cost, and a 2/1 Warrior token. He puts another Warrior token onto the battlefield, combat damage is dealt, and Angus moves to the end step. He then says “Return Strike Leader to my hand. Only 2 creatures left, so no sacrifice to the Archfiend.” Natalie untaps and draws. At this point, Stephen realizes something is wrong, pauses the match, and calls for a judge.

What do you do?

Ok, so it looks like Stephen resolved the triggers in the wrong order. That's a GPE-GRV, with a Warning associated with it. That's pretty simple (from what I can see).

However, the fix is more problematic. My first instinct is to rewind, but since Natalie untapped that runs into the issue of having to remember which of Natalie's permanents were tapped last turn. I'd talk to the Head Judge, and if he's alright with it, I would rewind by putting a random card from Natalie's hand on top of her library, having her retap her permanents that were tapped, and then going back to Angus's end step. Otherwise, leave the game state as is.

It's kinda tempting to have Angus sacrifice the Strike Leader, since he implied that for the Archfiend's trigger he chose the two tokens (“no sacrifice to the Archfiend” with 2 tokens on board), but I think that'd be improper, as the first error made was returning the Strike Leader. This also doesn't fall under “an object changing zones is put into the wrong zone”, as Angus did indeed resolve the dash trigger properly, just at the wrong time. Additionally, this isn't a double GRV, since the first error was resolving the dash ability, and not the Archfiend's ability, so this doesn't fall under “the effect was controlled by one player but the error was made by another player”.

In sum: GPE-GRV, Warning, rewind with HJ approval, otherwise nothing else.

This seems like it would be a fairly simple rewind. I would go to the head judge and ask him to approve the back up. I would then have Natalie put a random card back from her hand onto the top of her library, and tap all previously untapped permanents. I would then bring it back to Angus's end step and properly resolve the stack with Angus's dash trigger put below the Achfiend trigger. I would then give Angus a GPE-GRV warning and Natalie a GPE-FtMGS warning.

Edited Walker Metyko (Jan. 30, 2015 08:55:52 AM)

First, I would explain to Angus and Natalie how the triggers should have been handled at the end of the turn (Mardu Strike Leader trigger on the stack first, then Archfiend of Depravity, so Angus has to sacrifice down to 2 before returning the Strike Leader, not after). Angus would get a GRV Warning for resolving his trigger early, Natalie would get a Warning for FtMGS for allowing it to happen.

As for a fix, since this was caught right as the turn changes, I would want to back up here, assuming I got approval from the head judge. To do that, I would put a random card from Natalie's hand back on the top of her deck, re-tap whatever permanents that were tapped, then return the Strike Leader to play tapped and have the turn continue correctly, starting with resolving the Archfiend of Depravity trigger before the Mardu Strike Leader trigger.

I agree with Walker and Chuck on this. GRV for A and FtMGS for N with HJ rewind. I would definitely explain how APNAP works to both player in order to avoid any confusion in future matches.

Oops, missed the FtMGS on Natalie.

There may be a back-up involved, so the first thing we do upon understanding the situation from the players involved is to ask them to pause their game while we confer with the head judge/team lead/etc. (whoever is designated to approve back-ups at this event). We don't want to tell them “we might back things up” before we know one way or another. However, we probably want to get information from the players about what the game state was during Angus's end step before leaving the table (i.e. while it's fresh in their mind).

First off, we know we're not in missed trigger territory because Angus demonstrated awareness of Natalie's Archfiend of Depravity trigger.

This means that Natalie's trigger was acknowledged, but resolved improperly by Angus: At the time that Natalie's trigger resolved, Angus controlled 3 creatures (Mardu Strike Leader and two Warrior tokens), and should have chosen at least 1 creature to sacrifice.

This is a GPE-GRV on Angus's part. The IPG section for additional remedies under GRV states, in part:

If a player takes an action called for by an effect controlled by his or her opponent, but does it incorrectly, both players receive a Game Play Error - Game Rule Violation.

Thus, Natalie will also receive a GPE-GRV (rather than a GPE-FTMGS - I note Bryan Li's point about which ability happened first, but in my eyes it was the Archfiend's ability which resolved incorrectly and is therefore the focus here).

As an additional remedy, we would be looking to back up to Angus's end step, returning a random card from Natalie's hand to the top of the deck and returning Natalie's permanents to their proper status (i.e. tapping whatever she had tapped), and with all 3 of Angus's creatures on the battlefield - so that Angus can select at least one to be sacrificed. (If he protests that we are effectively reminding Natalie of her trigger, we can refer to the fact that he himself acknowledged the trigger originally.)

When we get back to the table, both players will get a friendly explanation of why the two players' triggers were ordered in that way, and why they are both receiving warnings for their GRVs. If the back-up was approved, then walk them through it and instruct Angus to make his choice of what gets sacrificed. If the back-up was not approved, give a brief explanation of why, if appropriate (or perhaps simply a polite statement that the head judge decided a back-up was too risky in this case, to avoid leaking strategic information, and a reminder that they can discuss the situation with a judge after the match).

Then ask if either player has received any prior warnings for GRVs at this event, etc., and be on your way.

Edited Mani Cavalieri (Jan. 30, 2015 10:32:52 AM)

Originally posted by Mani Cavalieri:

it was the Archfiend's ability which resolved incorrectly and is therefore the focus here

I disagree, I feel the focus is the active player resolving the stack in the incorrect order. This would involve the FtMGS warning as opposed to the double GRV.

Originally posted by Mani Cavalieri:

Thus, Natalie will also receive a GPE-GRV (rather than a GPE-FTMGS - I note Bryan Li's point about which ability happened first, but in my eyes it was the Archfiend's ability which resolved incorrectly and is therefore the focus here).

I don't think this falls into double GRV territory, even if we are thinking of it as resolving the Archfiend ability incorrectly as opposed to resolving the triggers in the wrong order. Double GRVs only happen when a player actually takes an action called for by an opponent's effect and does that action wrong. In this case, the problem was that he didn't take the correct action (sacrificing one of his 3 creatures), not that he did the action wrong.

GRV+FtMGS would definitely be the case if only Angus made an error and Natalie didn't notice it in time. However, each player controls one of the triggers involved in the situation. Both players put their triggers onto the stack in the wrong order and resolved them in that wrong order. To me this seems like it actually should be double GRV.

While they both failed to resolve the stack in the correct order it was Angus who committed the GPE by putting/stating his trigger on the stack after the archfiend's. And Natalie just simply allowed it happen.

From the IPG 2.6 “A player allows another player in the game to commit a Game Play Error and does not point it out immediately.”

This is a pretty clear GRV/FtMGS combo, Angus getting the GRV and Natalie getting the FtMGS. Briefly explain APNAP to the two of them, then fetch the head judge. It's unlikely Natalie has a fetchland or other top-selection, this being a sealed event, so the backup involving putting a card back on top of Natalie's library will likely not be too disruptive. Get them back to playing while you fill out the penalties on their match slip, then give them a brief rundown of their penalties and what they mean as well as an appropriate time extension.

Edited Robert Kajer (Jan. 30, 2015 09:39:04 PM)

Originally posted by walker metyko:

While they both failed to resolve the stack in the correct order it was Angus who committed the GPE by putting/stating his trigger on the stack after the archfiend's. And Natalie just simply allowed it happen.

From the IPG 2.6 “A player allows another player in the game to commit a Game Play Error and does not point it out immediately.”

Yes, and Natalie put her Archfiend trigger onto the stack on top of the Strike Leader's. Whether or not a trigger even goes onto the stack depends on whether its controller misses it or remembers it. Angus doesn't control Natalie's triggers or where they go.

I agree that it's FtMGS, Natalie never showed any awareness of the position of the Archfiend trigger. From that, we can deduce that the first mistake was Angus resolving them in the wrong order, and not Natalie putting the trigger onto the stack improperly or allowing Angus to resolve her trigger improperly. The Archfiend trigger was resolved properly, just at the wrong time.

EDIT: Reworded and expanded

Angus made her aware of its position on the stack, and she didn't disagree with him. She then passed priority enough times to let both triggers resolve and start her turn.

The way I see the situation, the different ways it plays out mean either neither, one, or both players made a mistake. Both triggers are trying to go onto the stack at the same time, so either

1. Angus puts his on bottom and Natalie puts hers on top. Neither player is making a mistake
2. Both Angus and Natalie try to put theirs on top. Angus is making a mistake.
3. Both Angus and Natalie try to put theirs on bottom. Natalie is making a mistake.
4. Angus puts his on top and Natalie puts hers on bottom. Both players are making a mistake.

Edited Michael Shiver (Jan. 31, 2015 04:30:08 AM)