Welcome back to the Knowledge Pool. This week we are running a Silver scenario. If you are a Level 2 or higher judge, please wait until Friday to jump in to help guide discussion. Good luck, everyone.

Here's the blog post.

At a local Comp REL Legacy event, Antonio controls a Batterskull equipped to a Germ token, a tapped Stoneforge Mystic, and three tapped Plains. Narnia only controls two untapped Islands and one Flooded Strand. Antonio attacks with the Germ, both players tick down Narnia's life total by four, and Antonio passes. Narnia draws a card and a spectator asks them to pause their match while he calls for a judge. Both players realize that they missed the lifelink from the Germ equipped with a Batterskull. What do you do?

Ok so from what I can see, this is a pretty simple GPE-GRV and FtMGS.

Penalties: Warning to Antonio and Warning to Narnia.

Fix: Usually we'd back up after asking the Head Judge, since it's simple and within a turn, but I really don't like undoing a draw with that Flooded Strand on the field, so in this case I would consult with the Head Judge but probably end up not backing up (with his/her approval). Leave the game state as-is - we can't give Antonio the life because that's a partial fix not supported by the IPG.

This seems like a relatively simple back up. First return a card randomly from Narnia's hand back to the library then bring it back to the combat damage step and have them correctly Mark the life total change. Issue a GPE-GRV to Antonio and confirm that he has not received any other GRVs this tournament if not it's a warning. Issue a GPE-FtMGS to Narnia and check to see if she has recived any FtMGS if not then issue her a warning.

Edited Walker Metyko (Feb. 11, 2015 11:40:19 AM)

Ah, I forgot about the flooded strand. In that case I agree with Bryan and would not back up but keep it as is. Penalties remain the same.

First, Antonio receives a GPE - GRV Warning for not gaining life off of the lifelink, while Narnia receives a GPE - FtMGS Warning for allowing that and not correcting it.

For the remedy, none of the partial fixes in the IPG support directly changing the life totals, and I don't think I would be comfortable backing up through the card draw, given that Narnia controls a Flooded Strand that could allow them to shuffle away the card that gets put back on top, so I believe I would leave the game state as is and remind the players to play more carefully in the future.

Shooting from the hip, I'd say that this is a GRV for A and a FTMGS for N. My first instinct was that I'd propose a rewind to the head judge after asking the players to hold on momentarily. Then the head judge asks me if there's a potential for advantage and I realize there's a fetch in play and feel silly. since the rewind is gives N the opportunity to shuffle away a card from his hand or play a removal spell that he didn't have before. I don't believe there's a partial fix here so we leave the game state as is. Warnings all around!

After check IPG, I feel confident in my decision. I should've caught the fetch land before proposing a rewind but as I gave the rewind a second thought I realized my error.

Lifelink is a static ability. Adjust the life totals accordingly. No rewind.
GRV for A
FTMGS for N

Side note, check both players life pads to see if there were any other life total changes that involved gaining life. Ask the players if this is the first attack made with a Batterskull equipped creature. If one player remembers life gaining consistently, but forgets this one instance further investigation might be required.

I don't think it being a static ability matters. The only IPG-supported partial fixes are moving cards to/from a hand and another zone, making legal choices for permanents where no choice/an illegal choice was made, and putting an object in the wrong zone back into the right zone if it's within a turn. None of these apply to lifelink, so we just leave the game state as-is.

As lifelink is not something that can be missed, and both players recorded the damage done by the germ token, fix the life totals accordingly and issue out a GRV for A and FTMGS for N, no rewind is required.

I am with Jeremy and Kenneth on this. Lifelink is not a trigger to be missed.

Fix life totals, issue GRV to A and FTMGS for N. No rewind.

Hello guys,

just my 2 cents on the lifelink issue. This is a Comp REL event running under the IPG guidelines and we as judges have to try to be as consistent as possible. The current wording of IPG does not allow us to do the proposed partial fix (i.e. to not perform the whole back up and add the life gained by lifelink). Were it a Regular REL, I would “deviate like hell” :-)

It is our job to support consistency across rulings (ours, other judges', over the globe). And if you feel that the no-fix resolution damages the active player, note that he shouldn't have made the mistake in the first place…

If you feel it is not right, you can try to suggest such a change in IPG to some high level judges.


One a side note, one thing I would like to mention is that such situations are getting more frequent recently, so I suggest to be more vigilant when dealing with those. Even players have begun to notice the trend of “no-fix” connected to fetch lands. I do not want to be a witchhunting Judge Dredd here, but I fear that it slightly increases a chance of cheating (i.e. intentional incorrectly resolved spell that manipulate libraries when a fetch land is around).

Edited Milan Majerčík (Feb. 13, 2015 02:42:43 AM)

I am worried that the correct answer from the IPG isn't a great solution. I agree with Milan that if we don't feel the fix is right, we suggest a change in the IPG to some high level judges.

With that said, I believe that I would give the Batterskull player his 4 life, and then issue him a Warning for GRV and a Warning for FtMGS to the opponent. But to deny him that 4 life AND issue a Warning just seems like bad customer service; like pouring lemon juice on a cut. The spectator who reported it is then seen as a tatty-tale. Friendships are harmed this way. It's policy like this that I think is making more and more players afraid of calling judges, or of playing in Competitive events at all.

My issue is that I don't see why giving Batterskull player 4 life is a “partial” fix. It seems totally complete to me! We give the 4 life and the game is exactly where it should have been had the active player remembered. Is “complete” always another word for “complete back-up”? Why would we or should we back up a card draw and re-tap permanents just to give a player 4 life? It doesn't make sense to me. I also don't think that awarding the 4 life damages the integrity of the tournament.

I agree with the proposed answers from Milan, Bryan, and Chuck. I agree that their answers say what the IPG says to do. But I don't think it's “right” or “fair” and I don't think it's good customer service.

By the way, I'm not mad or sarcastic, although my typing sometimes seems that way. I'm just being matter-of-fact, asking real questions that keep me awake at night (which is also literal).

Originally posted by Roger Dunn:

My issue is that I don't see why giving Batterskull player 4 life is a “partial” fix. It seems totally complete to me! We give the 4 life and the game is exactly where it should have been had the active player remembered. Is “complete” always another word for “complete back-up”? Why would we or should we back up a card draw and re-tap permanents just to give a player 4 life? It doesn't make sense to me. I also don't think that awarding the 4 life damages the integrity of the tournament.

It's a partial fix because in game terms, A is gaining life during N's draw step, for essentially no reason (in terms of the game). Yes, it's life that he should have gained in his attack phase, but at this point in the game there's no game reason for that life gain to happen.

On the general reason why this isn't a partial fix, I suspect it's because it's difficult, if not impossible, to come up with a consistent policy for how and when to apply it. In the reverse case of life loss, what do we do if the missed life loss, if applied now later in the game, would cause a player to lose the game on the spot? If we had a general policy that life changes can be quickly fixed like the Batterskull in this case, then we would have to say “Sorry, we apply that life loss now and you lose the game,” which is even worse feel-bads than choosing not to back up when both a player and his opponent fail to recognize lifelink.

In feel bad situations like this, it's helpful to remember that this is Competative REL, where players are expected to know the rules. It sucks for him but in the end, our decisions can't be swayed by weather leaving the game state as is sucks for a player. You could deviate here, but every time we deviate from the IPG we damage it's integrity.

Roger, while there may not have been any likely change in circumstances this time, consider the plethora of game effects involving lifegain which affect more than just the players' life totals; if any of those were in play, we could have a radically different state of affairs. (Let's not go down that rabbit hole here though, Knowledge Pool should focus on the circumstances presented.)