Is there any merit to arguing that life totals exist independent of how either player has them written? Instead of viewing the correction of life totals as a player ‘gaining life’ you are simply correcting the documentation to its proper intended value?

If there is a life total discrepancy as in one player wrote down the life change and the other forgot then we are able to adjust life totals accordingly. Otherwise They have missed the life gain as the means of tracking is the correct total regardless of what it “should” be

Originally posted by walker metyko:

If there is a life total discrepancy as in one player wrote down the life change and the other forgot then we are able to adjust life totals accordingly. Otherwise They have missed the life gain as the means of tracking is the correct total regardless of what it “should” be

It seems a disservice to hold what is recorded in higher regard than what is easily discerned as truth. I realize policy doesn't seem to support this however.

Edited Matthew Bevenour (Feb. 17, 2015 05:41:22 AM)

I'm sure many hours put in by many L4s and L5s have been put into this very question, and they have found this to be the best option. While it may seem simple to “just give him the life” there are countless scenarios where it is not. Our goal is consistency, so it is best to follow the IPG even if you disagree and then later message Scott, or Toby, or Kevin, etc and voice your concerns.

I have not read all the comments above.

I would rule that the Active Player get a GPE-GRV = Warning, while the Non-Active Player gets a GPE-FtMGS = Warning. I would fix the lifetotals so the Active Player gets +4 life.

Originally posted by Lars Harald Nordli:

I have not read all the comments above.

I would rule that the Active Player get a GPE-GRV = Warning, while the Non-Active Player gets a GPE-FtMGS = Warning. I would fix the lifetotals so the Active Player gets +4 life.

The bulk of the comments are with regards to weather or not to correct the life total. I would suggest reading them.

I'm going to reference a previous Knowledge Pool situation here which says that changing the life total, no matter what reasoning you choose to explain it with, is an unsupported partial fix that should be avoided.

Originally posted by Bryan Li:

I'm going to reference a previous Knowledge Pool situation here which says that changing the life total, no matter what reasoning you choose to explain it with, is an unsupported partial fix that should be avoided.

Woah woah woah!
I believe this falls under outside assistance sir.

I like Chuck's answer to my question because I'm still working out what the IPG even means by “fix”. I can also see why some cards in play could trigger based off the new life gain, or replace life gain with something else. We don't want any of those things to happen in the new turn. Although such cards aren't in play, if we gave the life-gain remedy conditionally on such cards being in play, then we're applying a remedy that's now dependent on game state, which is another thing we don't want to get in to.

I have another thread where I've asked for judges help on marrying “customer service” with the IPG and MTR. That thread is helping me get over my thinking issues on topics like this. With that said, I would do what others have said should be done: I wouldn't fix the life totals. I would issue a GRV-GPE:Warning to Antonio and a GRV-FtMTG:Warning to Narnia.

Is it wrong to think of other judges as rock stars? Because I sure look up to you more experienced judges.

For those people who feel that Antonio should get the 4 life added to his total, we do still have the ability to do that, but it requires that we go all the way back to the damage step. In this case, all the decisions made up to this point are assumed to have been made with the knowledge that Antonio's life total is X, when it “should be” X+4. Adding the life now takes away the option from Narnia to do something about it. (I don't know, maybe cast a burn spell?)

It's similar to if Antonio knew he gained the four life, but didn't say it. We would back up to the miscommunication and allow Narnia (and Antonio, for that matter) to proceed with a different line of play.

Not to bring other scenarios up, because we're definitely not supposed to do that in the Knowledge Pool; just some reasoning why it's a full rewind or no fix. (And sure, the rewind might give Narnia a chance to change something with the fetchland. That's why a head judge can decline to back up the game. Arguably, any advantage gained in the rewind could have been avoided by simply doing it right the first time, too. (I wouldn't say that to Antonio, but I'd probably say it to another judge away from the table, because, really dude, you know what Batterskull does. That's why it's in your deck.))

So, I've come across a similar situation with an improperly resolved Jeskai Charm (+1/+1 but player didn't gain the life) and gave the GPE-GRV/GPE-FMG as suggested earlier in the thread. However, some time later I brought up the scenario with my mentor to get a second opinion. He suggested the possibility that there was sufficient grounds for a cheating investigation. It didn't cross my mind at the time, but in hindsight it was a possibility.

While Antonio did miss his lifegain off of the Batterskull and definitely earned a GPE-GRV, Narnia is obligated to correct the discrepancy. Not doing so intentionally would be cheating since lifelink is no longer a trigger. This is a Competitive REL Legacy event. Not only are players held to a higher standard of play, they do tend to know the cards better considering the higher level of overhead to play the format competitively.

It's certainly possible that both players simply forgot about Lifelink, but that presumes innocence without sufficient investigation. I would take both players aside separately, ask them about the events in the game leading up to this point (specifically the turn with the problem), and if they knew what Batterskull did. I would also ask them if they knew how Lifelink worked. If it turned out that yes, Narnia knew that Antonio was supposed to gain life but didn't speak up, that is a disqualification for Narnia and a GPE-GRV for Antonio.

EDIT: If the investigation did not result in a disqualification, I would issue the GPE-GRV, GPE-FMG and neither do a partial fix on the life total nor back up the game state.

Edited Rich Marin (Feb. 18, 2015 06:46:55 AM)

@rich in knowledge pool scenarios it assumed there is no foul play involved. Otherwise I completely agree that an investigation is warrented.

Ah, I didn't realize. Neither of the stickied posts mentioned that and it wasn't anywhere in main page of the blog or subforum description.

Originally posted by Richard Marin:

It's certainly possible that both players simply forgot about Lifelink, but that presumes innocence without sufficient investigation. I would take both players aside separately, ask them about the events in the game leading up to this point (specifically the turn with the problem), and if they knew what Batterskull did. I would also ask them if they knew how Lifelink worked. If it turned out that yes, Narnia knew that Antonio was supposed to gain life but didn't speak up, that is a disqualification for Narnia and a GPE-GRV for Antonio.

EDIT: If the investigation did not result in a disqualification, I would issue the GPE-GRV, GPE-FMG and neither do a partial fix on the life total nor back up the game state.

While this is certainly true, in Knowledge Pool Scenarios we are to presume innocence in every instance.

I believe that the GPE-GRV and GPE-FtMGS to Antonio and Narnia respectively without backing up to change life totals is the correct answer. This would allow for uniformity across all formats and possible Game States that could be seen across all of Magic.

Originally posted by Ashten Fisher:

in Knowledge Pool Scenarios we are to presume innocence in every instance

Well, I can't make any promises that we'll never step outside that boundary. However, in this scenario, we are satisfied that it's an honest mistake.

d:^D