Thanks everyone for sticking around, and welcome back for another Silver scenario this week. As always, L2s should hold off until their FNM to jump into the discussion.

Anita and Norris are playing in a Standard PPTQ. Anita casts Cathartic Reunion in her first Main phase, discarding two of the five cards in her hand. Norris responds by playing Spell Queller, and exiles her Cathartic Reunion. Anita then destroys Spell Queller with a Harnessed Lightning. She again casts Cathartic Reunion, says “Draw three?” Norris agrees, Anita draws her cards, and passes the turn. Two turn cycles later, on Anita's turn, Norris asks Anita how many cards are in her hand, and she shows him 6 cards. Norris then calls for a judge, and explains that Anita should have two fewer cards, because she didn't discard when she cast Cathartic Reunion the second time. Anita agrees that she forgot to discard the second time. What do you do?

(Scenario credit to Ben Quasnitschka)

This was posted at http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/2017/02/22/negative-queller-the-graveyard-is-full/
The answer will be posted next week at the above link as well as in this forum.

Do your best, judges!

-Ben Q

I would issue two penalties here and apply the fix per IPG.

Anita would receive GPE: Game Rule Violation for failure to discard the two cards as part of casting the spell the second time,

Norris would receive GPE: Failure to Maintain Game State for not noticing the error for two turn cycles, essentially allowing Anita to forget to discard.

As for the fix, at this point, Anita would discard two cards. (Per IPG, if a player forgot to draw cards, discard cards…that player does so).

I'd ask Norris what made him think of her handsize two turn cycles after the fact. That's a long time. He may have waited purposefully to “catch” her with too many cards at a time when he thought it was more to his advantage, aka cheating. I'd also check her graveyard and board well to see if Norris knew about any cards in her hand during the relevant time period due to revealed cards or what have you. I would corroborate this with Anita.

If their answers seemed earnest and reasonable, I'd do exactly what Kimberly would do. GRV for Anita (failing to correctly pay costs or a spell), FTMGS for Norris (letting her get away with it for two whole turns), Anita discards two cards and play proceeds.

I'd also encourage them to play more carefully and have fun.

As per usual, a quick investigation is called for to make sure that we don't believe Anita or Norris are up to anything nefarious. Assuming that's the case:

Infractions:
GPE-GRV for Anita
GPE-FtMGS for Norris

Penalties:
Warning for both

Fix:
Failure to draw or discard cards has the additional remedy of “just do it now”, with no expiration, unlike most fixes. Anita discards two cards now, everything's fine!

Some questions for you folks:

Why does Norris get FtMGS?

Is this not HCE?

Is this an appropriate use of the Thoughtseize fix?

Edited Ben Quasnitschka (Feb. 23, 2017 09:12:53 PM)

It is not HCE because the error was publicly correctable before drawing the cards. Nap actively agreed to allow AP to draw cards before the full cost was paid. HCE requires that the error both have occurred without the permission from the opponent and not have been correctable with public information. It is not appropriate to use the Thoughtseize fix, as that is not used for GRVs. From a philosophical point of view, the NAP is responsible for correcting errors. The Thoughtseize fix being applied to publicly correctable errors would encourage people to wait until the Thoughtseize would benefit them. FTMGS is issued for the same reason. Players are required to ensure that all actions taken are legal. FTMGS is given because NAP did not ensure that all costs were paid correctly. The warning serves as a record to see if there is a pattern of conveniently forgetting to maintain the gamestate.

FtMGS applies here because Norris didn't catch the failure to discard immediately. It's everyone's responsibility to make sure the rules are followed, and Norris could have prevented this happening. They didn't, so they get FtMGS. In the great scheme of things, it's unlikely to matter, but keeping track of warnings is useful in case there's a pattern- if this is happening consistently with Norris, it may be worth reminding them to be more careful, or even to investigate further.

HCE requires that publically available information cannot be used to correct the situation, which is not the case here- everyone could see that the discard didn't happen, it's just that noone noticed.

This is not an appropriate use of the thoughtsieze fix for the above reason- that particular fix is specifically for HCE, because it makes the information required public- or rather, displays the sets and allows the aggrieved player to dictate the private information publically. There's no information to make public here, there's just two cards that failed to change zone.

What makes this FtMGS and not a GRV for Norris? What is the difference between the two? Quote the IPG or Annotated IPG if possible.

Norris didn't violate any game rules himself – he resolved his Queller's LTB trigger properly, and that was his only active role in what happened. However,

Originally posted by IPG 2.5:

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.

Originally posted by IPG 2.6:

A player allows another player in the game to commit a Game Play Error and does not point it
out immediately

Norris should have noticed right away that Anita didn't discard to fully pay the costs of Cathartic Reunion, and, certainly, two turn cycles later is well past the window for immediately pointing it out.

Edited Andrew Villarrubia (Feb. 24, 2017 03:20:17 PM)

The IPG states “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.”

The issue arose after Anita casted Harnessed Lightning targeting the Norris's Spell Queller which resulted in Anita being able to cast Cathartic Reunion or a second time. Norris is a passive agent at this point in the scenario. She did not cast the spell because of an instruction from Norris. This is not like the example case where a player casts Path to Exile and the opponent puts the target in the wrong zone. Anita waS acting independently from Norris's agency. He gets a FTMGS.

She didn't cast it from an instruction by Norris? Who controlled the ability that allowed her to play the spell from exile? And what about that ability deviated from the normal steps of casting a spell?

It comes back to asking where Norris's responsibility ends in this situation. The ability asks Anita to cast the spell that was exiled by the Spell Queller.

For those who suggested FtMGS for Norris (myself included) i guess it was because it was implied that Norris's responsibility ended from the moment that Anita decided to cast the spell as stated by the ability ?

On the other hand, if his responsibility ends when Anita finishes legally casting the spell (announcing it, paying all costs, putting on the stack). Then this is a case of double GRV.

Therefore the process of actually casting the spell should be included as an instruction of said ability ? Which means failure to properly cast that Cathartic Reunion in this case will lead to a Double GRV ?

Edited David Lachance-Poitras (Feb. 27, 2017 04:52:38 PM)

Originally posted by Ben Quasnitschka:

She didn't cast it from an instruction by Norris? Who controlled the ability that allowed her to play the spell from exile? And what about that ability deviated from the normal steps of casting a spell?

Norris did control the ability which allowed Anita to cast Cathartic Reunion from Exile and Anita casting Cathartic Reunion is part of resolving Spell Queller's triggered ability.

The only deviations from the normal steps of casting a spell are as follows:

• Anita may cast the spell without paying it's mana cost
  
• Timing permissions based on the card type don't apply because there is an effect instructing Anita to cast the spell
  

So there could be an argument for Norris being partially responsible for Anita's failure to pay additional costs, however I would argue that once Anita decides to cast the spell and puts it on the stack she becomes responsible for correctly paying the additional cost. Paying the additional costs is not an action based on another players instruction, is is an action based on Anita deciding to cast the spell.

If we hold Norris fully responsible here where does it end? Let's say the exiled spell is Kari Zev's Expertise which Anita uses to cast Cathartic Reunion and Anita fails to discard…

Thanks everyone for participating this week. Kimberly McDonald was the first to identify the correct ruling.

Anita must discard two cards. This is the partial fix outlined in IPG 2.5. Spell Queller's ability only makes the mana cost free- any additional costs still must be paid. Finally, Anita is issued a Warning for Game Rules Violation, and Norris a warning for Failure to Maintain Game State. The argument that Norris should also get GRV exists, but ultimately Anita is responsible for her spells, and even though Spell Queller changed how casting the spell worked, Cathartic Reunion is Anita's card.