Welcome, judges, to this week's installment of the Knowledge Pool! Our scenario this week is of Silver level, so L2+ judges should wait until after their local FNMs to add their opinions.

Here are your blog post and scenario:

Angela and Nigel are playing in a Modern Masters 2015 sealed PPTQ. Angela taps out to cast Banefire with X=5, targeting Nigel's Swans of Bryn Argoll. Nigel says, “Sure.” As Nigel is reaching for his Swans, Angela grabs the top five cards of her library and puts them into her hand. Nigel immediately raises his hand, “Woah! Judge!”

What do you do?

I see it as a GPE:DEC as Swans of Bryn Argoll did not prevent that damage, so Angela should not be able to draw those cards. With that a game loss awarded to Angela.
No warning for Nigel as Nigel caught this error immediately.

Angela should receive a GPE: Drawing Extra Cards and a Game Loss. Banefire's X >=5 condition was met, so Swans of Bryn Argoll will not prevent damage/allow for cards to be drawn. Nigel identified the error almost instantly, so I do not believe he should not receive a GPE: Failure to Maintain Game State. Nigel's only assent (“Sure.”) was to confirm the resolution of Banefire (he begins to make the motions to move his creature to the graveyard).

Angela GPE:DEC. Draw cards not known so game lose. No downgrade unfortunately. Nigel no penalty.

Issue a game loss to A for drawing extra cards.

Explain rule:
101.2. When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can't happen, the “can't” effect takes precedence.

Before:

This looks straightforward to me (which worries me >.>). I'm going to assume Angela didn't understand the effects of Banefire at X ≥ 5, and as a result she thought she would be drawing cards, as opposed to killing the bird. Sadly though she still receives a GPE - DEC for drawing extra cards, and as such a game loss. If she had no other cards in her hand at the time, then it can be downgraded and the cards put back. Since Nigel reported it immediately, no FtMGS.

Due to how straightforward this seems, I'm tempted to say that it's a GPE - GRV instead, upgraded to a game loss. However previous discussions on JudgeApps seem to say otherwise, plus I'm more or less mentioning this due to the paranoia about how straightforward this question is :P. Overall, I'll stick with GPE - DEC.

After:

Seems like other judges agree, though I'd like to see more views.

Edited Kai Clark (July 2, 2015 03:21:13 PM)

Given this is a ‘Silver’ I'm concerned that there is something deeper going on that I'm missing, but this seems a pretty clear interaction and error on Angela's part.

Banefire's clause for x>=5 has been met, so it can't be countered or prevented.
Swans of Bryn Argoll's first ability can't prevent the damage and so it's second can't create any card draw.

Angela has then drawn five extra cards and so committed GPE: Drawing Extra Cards, no warning for Nigel as this was caught immediately.

Unfortunately even if her had was empty when she drew the first card, the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th were not drawn into an empty hand, therefore there is no downgrade available and she is given a game loss.

Before Reading Responses

Banefire has X >= 5, so the damage is unpreventable. But, Swans says to prevent all damage and the source's controller draws cards equal to the damage prevented this way.

The relevant rule in the CR is 615.11:

615.11. Some effects state that damage “can't be prevented.” If unpreventable damage would be dealt, any applicable prevention effects are still applied to it. Those effects won't prevent any damage, but any additional effects they have will take place. Existing damage prevention shields won't be reduced by damage that can't be prevented.

So, the replacement effect from Swans will apply, damage just won't be prevented. 615.11 says that additional effects will still take place. The second half of the rules text on Swans reads:

The source's controller draws cards equal to the damage prevented this way.

To me this says the damage source's controller draws cards if and only if damage is actually prevented. So, Angela should not have drawn any cards on the resolution of Banefire and Swans should be going to Nigel's graveyard. Which Nigel was reaching to do at the time Angela drew five cards. So, this looks to me like Angela should receive a game loss for Game Play Error - Drawing Extra Cards.

The only sticking point is Nigel saying “Sure” when reaching for Swans. From the IPG section on GPE-DEC:

If the player received confirmation from his or her opponent before drawing the card (including confirming
the number of cards when greater than one), the infraction is not Drawing Extra Cards.

This does not seem to apply here in my eyes. Nigel looks to have been passing priority and allowing Banefire to resolve by saying “Sure”, not to confirm that Angela should be drawing cards. Whether Nigel had forgotten Swans rules text or knew how unpreventable damage and prevention effects work seems irrelevant. He said sure as he was reaching for Swans. The intent of reaching for the creature to me would be to put it in his graveyard. Nigel should not be issued a penalty.

Ruling: Angela is given a game loss for GPE-DEC and Nigel receives no penalty. The players should shuffle up for the next game in the match if applicable.

After Reading Responses

All other responses so far seem to agree with mine. Same answer.

Ruling: GPE-DEC; Penalty: Game Loss to Angela

The key point in my view is that everything has been legal until the point where Angela began drawing cards. While some might argue that this would be a GRV since Angela incorrectly prevented the damage, the first chance anyone had to notice something was wrong was when Angela drew cards which puts this squarely as a DEC. Nigel responded as soon as something was done wrong, so there will be no penalty to him.

I would explain to Angela that even though she thought she was supposed to draw the cards, the game state didn't allow her to do so and the penalty is a game loss.

While DEC seems like the obvious ruling here, one thing we need to note is that Angela drew extra cards due to incorrectly reading Swans of Bryn Argoll and Banefire. As we can see above, the interaction between how the damage prevention shield for Swans and the Banefire clause on damage prevention prevention is not immediately clear.

Because of this, I would not rule DEC. Normally, if a player takes an action called for by an effect their opponent controls and does so incorrectly, both players would receive a GPE-GRV (IPG entry on GRV's, final paragraph). Though Nigel immediately raised his hand for a judge, I don't believe this would absolve him of that. It is his responsibility to point out to Angela that she does not get to draw cards - “Sure.” doesn't suffice here.

If this were not a knowledge pool scenario, I would be inclined investigate further. If Nigel was intentionally vague and hoping that Angela would resolve the ability incorrectly, only calling a judge once the incorrect action was taken, that would be a serious offense and carry a ruling of USC-Major Cheating and a disqualification - with the Head Judge's approval.

However, assuming no wrong-doing or ill-intent, I would assign both players a GPE-GRV - Angela for incorrectly resolving Swans' ability and Nigel for not making what would happen clear. Both players carry some amount of fault here, a warning for both players is warranted.

Now, fixing the situation is very tricky. Even with the head judge's approval, I don't know if a backup could fix this. Since these extra card draws were not drawn at the start of the game, we can't safely shuffle them back into the deck. Even reversing the card draws and placing random cards from Angela's hand on top of her deck feels potentially disruptive, especially if she knew any of their identities already.

It's far from ideal, but I would leave the game state as is with Banefire having resolved for 5 damage, Angela having 5 cards, and the Swans of Brynn Argol still on the battlefield (as Nigel had not yet placed it in his graveyard). This gamestate is consistent with how Angela incorrectly resolved Swans' ability - missing the fact that damage could not be prevented by Banefire. While she may have cast Banefire with the intent of killing the Swans, by drawing the cards she acknowledged that the prevention would have happened.

This definitely feels like a case where no party is going to be 100% happy, but this is the closest I think we can get and not deviate from the IPG.

Originally posted by Rich Marin:

While DEC seems like the obvious ruling here, one thing we need to note is that Angela drew extra cards due to incorrectly reading Swans of Bryn Argoll and Banefire. As we can see above, the interaction between how the damage prevention shield for Swans and the Banefire clause on damage prevention prevention is not immediately clear.

<sic>

This definitely feels like a case where no party is going to be 100% happy, but this is the closest I think we can get and not deviate from the IPG.

“A player illegally puts one or more cards into his or her hand and, at the moment before he or she began the
instruction or action that put a card into his or her hand, no other Game Rule Violation or Communication Policy
Violation had been committed, and the error was not the result of resolving objects on the stack in an incorrect
order. If the player received confirmation from his or her opponent before drawing the card (including confirming
the number of cards when greater than one), the infraction is not Drawing Extra Cards.”

It's not illegal to think your cards work differently than they do - it's illegal to do things incorrectly. I disagree with your conclusion - to follow the IPG, Player A drew 5 cards. Was there a Game Rule Violation or Communication Policy Violation before it? Nope.

I agree with the ruling of DEC. In a real-life tournament, I would investigate to make sure that Player N wasn't trying to gain an advantage by misleading their opponent into drawing 5 cards (for instance, not making any effort to move the swans to the graveyard)

Assuming I'm the head judge, I rule that Angela has committed a GPE-DEC and issue her a game loss. While she drew the cards due to a misunderstanding of how Swans work (or a failure to read Banefire), the first moment Nigel had to recognize something was wrong was when she drew. To me, this is a textbook case of DEC.

If I'm not the head judge, I ask the players to hold on and go get the head judge who I expect will rule as above.

Just wanted to cover my bases as my status wasn't explicitly mentioned. :)

Mmm… I see a lot of cut and dried responses in this thread.

So I get called over to this table, and Nigel tells me that Angela drew 5 cards off of Banefire hitting Swans of Bryn Argoll, as he was trying to put the Swans into the graveyard, so he called me over.

Now, I consider myself a decently dextrous Magic player, and if you asked me to draw 5 cards off the top of a library casually, such that you don't have the chance to react to it, I would probably find it difficult. In fact, I have a deck right next to my computer, sleeved, and I'm finding that I draw 4, 5, and 6 cards when I mean to only draw 5, even though I can easily draw 1, 2, or 3 cards when I intend to draw those amounts. The fact that Nigel says that Angela drew 5 cards as he was attempting to move Swans from the battlefield to the graveyard seems… unusual to me.

When a player tells me something that I have difficulty picturing like this, I immediately enter investigation mode. If I am not the head judge, I get the head judge involved, note the time on the round clock mentally, and dive in.

If I am the head judge:

At this point I would separate the players and question them individually. The first thing I need to know is what actually happened, timing wise. If Nigel knew the interaction between Banefire and Swans immediately, and watched Angela count out 5 cards and add them to her hand, this would be grounds for further questioning that may lead to a Disqualification for Cheating. If Angela drew cards individually from the top of the library before getting to 5, I would be asking why Nigel didn't interrupt the draw sequence until the end. It is difficult, not impossible, mind you, but difficult for me to imagine a scenario in which Angela draws all 5 cards before Nigel has a chance to react.

I also need to ascertain exactly how much Angela knew about this interaction, because it is entirely possible that she also cheated to draw some cards here, I would ask her about this interaction, what she expected was going to happen, and why. I also want to know how she drew the cards, and if she's been drawing cards like this for the rest of the tournament. If nothing else, I would recommend to her to verify draws with her opponent before doing so in the future, if she did not do so in this situation.

If I am now satisfied with the investigation and I don't believe any foul play has occurred, now I have to make a ruling. There is a card on the battlefield, that instructs Angela to draw cards equal to damage that would be dealt to Swans and was prevented. Angela's mistake was not understanding that there would not be any damage prevented due to the clause on Banefire. That is a Game Rule Violation, and if you draw extra cards as a result of a Game Rule Violation, it is a GRV, not DEC. I would rewind the draws and shuffle the library after making sure that the location of other cards was not previously known(Telling Time is in the format) and shuffle the 5 cards into the deck. Issue a warning and a time extension.

But really, to me this is an unlikely outcome for this judge call. Something doesn't add up here! Nigel reached for his card, and Angela had the time to draw 5? How did she draw 5 cards in the time it took him to reach for his creature???

“I was trying to put my creature into the graveyard, but she drew 5 cards before I could do it!”
If this doesn't scream INVESTIGATE, I don't know what does.

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

Angela grabs the top five cards of her library and puts them into her hand. Nigel immediately raises his hand, “Woah! Judge!”

Eric Lee
The fact that Nigel says that Angela drew 5 cards as he was attempting to move Swans from the battlefield to the graveyard seems… unusual to me.

This is a KP and we usually rule out cheating, additionally the phrasing of this statement suggests this is all done very quickly. I'm not convinced that simply because she's managed to draw the 5 cards Nigel must be doing something shady. 2-3 seconds is plenty of time for Angela to have drawn 5 cards assuming his attention wasn't completely focused on her deck.

Nigel may have been thinking about his next turn, considering the board state, thinking about lunch or even reading the swans as he moved them to the graveyard and then realizing that drawing cards was an error. In any of these cases he's brought the issue to a judge's attention in a reasonable amount of time. The fact that she's got five cards in hand before he's been able to process and vocalize the error doesn't automatically make it his fault.

Alternately are we going accuse Angela of cheating because she wasn't stopping Nigel putting the Swans in his graveyard?

I'm not sure you could assess Nigel for USC-Cheating even if he had been hoping she'd make this error.

IPG
Additionally, the offense must meet the following criteria for it to be considered Cheating:
• The player must be attempting to gain advantage from his or her action.
• The player must be aware that he or she is doing something illegal.
If all criteria are not met, the offense is not Cheating and is handled by a different infraction

He's not taking an action and he's not doing anything illegal (Angela is taking actions here) - allowing an opponent to make a mistake is not illegal, failing to point it out is (FtMG) therefore cheating can't apply and he's called attention to the error immediately so I don't see anything else you could assess him for.

Double GRV looks possible here (though Angela here is taking an action not called for by his permanent), but this could only apply if there wasn't a DEC and as the first time we know something is wrong is when she draws cards this has to be DEC.

Here is my reasoning for why we shouldn't be doing a double GRV here. A similar, simpler situation would be if Nigel controlled a tapped Howling Mine but Angela still drew a second card for the turn because she thought she was supposed to. The setup is the same in that one of Nigel's cards warrants extra draws in certain situations, but that situation is not happening right now. I think in the Howling Mine scenario, no one would be saying that Nigel deserves a GRV for letting Angela draw an extra card just because he controls a tapped Howling Mine. Angela is misunderstanding the board state and thinks she is entitled to a card draw when the game rules say she is not. Whether or not she thinks she should be drawing the cards is irrelevant for assessing a GPE; that only informs our decision on whether she was cheating.

Another mark against calling this a GRV is that a GRV is used to cover errors not covered elsewhere in the IPG. To quote,

This infraction covers the majority of game situations in which a player makes an error or fails to follow a game procedure correctly. It handles violations of the Comprehensive Rules that are not covered by the other Game Play Errors.

We need to decide this is not DEC before we decide to call it a GRV. So let's look at what DEC is.

A player illegally puts one or more cards into his or her hand and, at the moment before he or she began the instruction or action that put a card into his or her hand, no other Game Rule Violation or Communication Policy Violation had been committed, and the error was not the result of resolving objects on the stack in an incorrect order.

Well Angela definitely illegally put cards into her hand, and there was nothing wrong before she did this. We hadn't seen another error occur, and of particular importance there was no effect on the stack that entitled her to these card draws. She thought a replacement effect was occurring, but she was incorrect. Nigel seemed to have a proper understanding of the situation and there was no misleading interaction between them. Banefire was cast, resolved, and the Swans should have died since the damage can not be prevented with no cards drawn. So yes, Angela has drawn cards when she shouldn't have, and there was not previous error committed nor was this incorrect order or resolution.

If the player received confirmation from his or her opponent before drawing the card (including confirming the number of cards when greater than one), the infraction is not Drawing Extra Cards.

From the text, it appears Nigel only said “Sure” when Angela cast Banefire. This looks like Nigel is affirming that the spell resolves and nothing more. Angela never confirmed with him that she is drawing five cards, so this sentence does not apply.

…And that's it. That is all the criteria for a situation being DEC. Again, the only argument I can see for this being a GRV is if the damage to Swans was incorrectly prevented first, but that would not be the case if Nigel is reaching to put it in the graveyard. So why is it so hard for us to give a Game Loss here for DEC? Honestly, for me my only hesitation is because it's so easy to see why Angela made this mistake. It's a limited event with older, wonkier cards. She missed one conditional line on a rare in her deck, and that's going to get her a game loss. Being able to see why it happens just makes ruling out Angela cheating easier. Regardless of her intentions though or how easy it is to see why she drew cards, the fact remains that she did and the penalty in the IPG for that action is a game loss.

To respond to the idea of Nigel cheating, it's not unwise to double check that he didn't sit there, snickering softly as he watched Angela peel each card from her library and read them individually as she drew. If he did then this would be another story, but we have no indication of that. I can totally imagine Angela grabbing a small chunk of 3-4 cards and then pulling the last cards as Nigel responds. On her end though it makes little difference; the penalty would be the same if she drew any number of cards.

I'm interested to hear other people's opinions, and will also gladly see the L2 group enter the conversation tomorrow to hear what they see in the scenario.