Nissa controls Sigarda, Heron's Grace. Ashaya casts Duress, targetting Nissa, to which Nissa responds with a Negate. As the players resolve the Negate, Nissa remembers that she has Hexproof (From Sigarda) and the players call a judge.

Are you giving Nissa a GRV or FtMGS here? Would you answer change if Nissa hadn't cast Negate but instead the players had resolved Duress as normal?

At what point does Nissa become responsible ‘enough’ for what's happening that we go from FtMGS to GRV?

Edited Winter (June 5, 2016 11:33:26 PM)

For your convenience (but without spoiling the fun yet), here's the relevant text from the MIPG:

For most Game Play Errors not caught within a time that a player could reasonably be expected to notice, opponents receive a Game Play Error — Failure to Maintain Game State penalty. If the judge believes that both players were responsible for a Game Rule Violation, such as due to the existence of replacement effects or a player taking action based on another players instruction, both players 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 have committed this infraction.

I'm in the boat of double GRV here, in either case you present (casting Negate, or simply resolving Duress).

AP has done something they cannot do, but rather than state “hey you can't do that”, NAP just lets this happen. These kinds of effects are the responsibility of both players to remember, and allowing it to happen is certainly breaking a game rule.

I see no GRV for Nissa, just FtMGS. Double GRVs require the other player to
commit a GRV. Casting Negate on Duress is a perfectly legal action. Even
resolving Duress properly would not make it a double GRV, imo. Everything
stems from Ashaya casting a spell, and “responsibility of both players”,
and “NAP just lets this happen” sounds like textbook FtMGS.

“Infractions with the same root cause, or multiple instances of the same
infraction that are discovered at the same time, are treated as a single
infraction.” is possibly relevant here to focus on the Ashaya's root GRV,
in case you view Nissa's resulting actions as being additional infractions.

2016-06-05 19:29 GMT-04:00 Christopher Wendelboe <

Originally posted by Sophie Hughes:

Are you giving Nissa a GRV or FtMGS here?

Yes. :D

The reason we removed the strict wording about this was to get judges to stop agonizing over this dilemma. If you feel that both players were responsible for actions that were illegal, give them both a GRV.

d:^D

Fair enough. :P

I'm on the side of FtMGS here–Nissa allowed an illegal spell to target her, but she didn't take any actions that were illegal.

However, as Scott said, either ruling is justifiable and there's not need to agonize over it.

As the annotated IPG points out, double GRV only applies to active effects. Violation of Nissa's continuous effect should result in a normal FtMGS for Nissa.

It’s important to realize this is only for active effects. If player A forgets to pay 1 more when casting a Shock because he forgot about player N’s Thalia, Guardian of Thraben, that is not considered an active effect on player N’s part. In that case, the error is on player A’s shoulders, and player N should get a Failure to Maintain Game State.

Originally posted by Isaac King:

As the annotated IPG points out, double GRV only applies to active effects. Violation of Nissa's continuous effect should result in a normal FtMGS for Nissa.

It’s important to realize this is only for active effects. If player A forgets to pay 1 more when casting a Shock because he forgot about player N’s Thalia, Guardian of Thraben, that is not considered an active effect on player N’s part. In that case, the error is on player A’s shoulders, and player N should get a Failure to Maintain Game State.

Per Kevin's most recent blog this does not seem to be only for active effects. Kevin states that Kalitas and a missed replacement effect (on the opponent's creature) should be handled as a double GRV. Perhaps the statement that it only happens with active effects should be amended?

Whether a double GRV is the best path for this case is still up in the air however. Under GRV is currently states the following: “If the judge believes that both players were responsible for a Game Rule Violation, such as due to the existence of replacement effects or a player taking action based on another player’s instruction, both players 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 have committed this infraction.”

Perhaps the fact it explicitly states replacement effects makes this a thing, but an illegal target due to hexproof may not justify it. I mean, is it a double GRV if I allow my opponent to Lightning Bolt me while I have my Leyline? Is it a double GRV for my opponent's Bolt to kill my Geist of Saint Traft?

I think we need to re-read Scott's post and stop over thinking too much.

FtMGS is applied because we acknowledge that both players have a responsibility to maintain the game state, if Player A makes a mistake we want Player B to spot it at the point of error, and if it isn't spotted both players have some level of responsibility in missing that error.

Most mistakes are the responsibility of the person carrying out the action, they are the player we issue the GRV penalty. Double GRV is more about both players being responsible for the mistake. If Player A casts a spell that requires Player B to take an action, we can issue a GRV to both players because while Player B took the action and made the mistake, Player A should have made sure that Player B didn't make that mistake. If Player A controls some kind of effect that impacts on something that Player B casts resulting in Player B making a mistake, then we should probably issue a GRV to both players.

Overall though, once you start to get into more complex situations it really doesn't matter too much, either you issue the double GRV or you issue a GRV and a FtMTGS.

Christopher, thank you for pointing out that blog post, I wasn't aware of that. It does seem to contradict the phrase I mentioned from the AIPG. I'd appreciate it if a higher level judge could explain the reasoning behind the difference, or if one of the two resources is incorrect.

How is Kalitas' replacement effect NOT active? Each player is instructed to take an action…

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

How is Kalitas' replacement effect NOT active? Each player is instructed to take an action…

d:^D

This is a valid point. The more I thought about this the more it seems to me that the issue is that each player is supposed to do something, and in theory neither did (controller makes a zombie token, opponent puts creature into exile).

I believe what is generally thought of to be an “active” ability is something like a spell or activated ability on a permanent. Perhaps the more correct thought is “if an effect instructs you to do something, it's active”.

This also means that hexproof/shroud is never an “active” effect.

Originally posted by Christopher Wendelboe:

Scott Marshall
How is Kalitas' replacement effect NOT active? Each player is instructed to take an action…

d:^D

This is a valid point. The more I thought about this the more it seems to me that the issue is that each player is supposed to do something, and in theory neither did (controller makes a zombie token, opponent puts creature into exile).

I believe what is generally thought of to be an “active” ability is something like a spell or activated ability on a permanent. Perhaps the more correct thought is “if an effect instructs you to do something, it's active”.

This also means that hexproof/shroud is never an “active” effect.

How is it instructing both players to take an action? Doesn't Kalitas instruct its controller to exile the opponent's creature? To me it sounds different than, for example, the reminder text of Ingest where it says “… that player exiles…” where it clearly instructs the opponent to exile.

My understanding of taking an action is that it refers to usually does the
physical action, not about how the card is worded :).

If you look at one of the classic examples of double GRV, the swords to
plowshares and you put in graveyard, we are the ones that exile the
creature.

Den 9 jul 2016 23:45 skrev “Abdulrahman Alhadhrami” <