Interesting scenario.

I think we have mainly 3 posible answers for the backup (Partial backup, backup or nothing). I am not sure if we can apply a complete backup, because the reasons marc exposed:

Originally posted by Marc DeArmond:

The IPG states to perform a partial fix when appropriate and “Otherwise, a backup may be considered or the game state may be left as is.”

The argument of Markus sounds solid, but I don't think playing a land is a real mistake. Specially taking into consideration that this partial backup doesn't expire (a player may have forgotten to discard 3 turns ago, played some cards that should be discarded, and we could still perform it, according to the IPG and the Annotated IPG).

On the other hand, there are some interesting issues I would like to adress:

1) I don't understand why are many judge arguing that, in case of a complete backup, they should put 2 cards on top; when the problem was discarding. “To perform a backup, each individual action since the point of the error is reversed, starting with the most recent ones and working backwards. Every action must be reversed; no parts of the sequence should be omitted or reordered.” Why should we, in this context, put 2 cards on top instead of one?

2) Why aren't they 2 separate infractions? From IPG: “Separate infractions committed or discovered at the same time are treated as separate penalties, though if the root cause is the same, only the more severe one is applied.” Do they have the same root cause or are they just the same infraction performed twice?

I think that the player made an infraction twice, and therefore he should get 2 GPE-GRV (with respective FTMGS). I don't think one of them is consequence of the other, or that they share the same root cause (unless he doesn't understand how ascendacy works, wich is most likely not the case).

So to know if we want to perform a backup, let's start by looking at the expected results of the 3 options:
a. In case of a partial backup, player A “won” an illegal card (the land).
b. In case of a backup, player A ends up knowing wich card is on top, so he can decide if he wants to loot it or not (as I said, I don't think rewinding until putting two cards on top is supported by the rules).
c. In case of no backup, he won 2 cards.

I think we can do better than c. to repair the game, either a. and b. are substantially better. Between a. and b., I'm inclined to perform a partial backup, discarding 2 cards (or as many as he has), mainly because of the reasons exposed before.

Just a thought. Why can't we partial fix the land N “played”?

It's identity is know to all players and is in an incorrect zone, the battlefield.

Originally posted by George FitzGerald:

Usain Ascendency - GOLD

You are the head and only judge of a Modern format Preliminary Pro Tour Qualifier when two players call you to their table and explain what has happened. Nathan drew his card for turn. With just a Jeskai Ascendancy and lands on the battlefield, Nathan said “Bolt you twice” and put two Lightning Bolts on the table. He then says “Ascendancy”, draws two cards, plays a land from his hand and passes turn while putting the Lightning Bolts into the graveyard. Alice then untapped and drew her card for the turn when she realized that Nathan was supposed to discard for the Jeskai Ascendancy triggers. They then called you over. Nathan currently has one card in his hand. You believe that the mistake was unintentional and Nathan was rushing due to the time left in the round. What do you do?

This is an interesting scenario.

It seems that Nathan has failed for properly resolve both of the Jeskai Ascendancy triggers. I would rule GPE-GRV for Nathan and GPE-FTMGS for Alice.

I believe in the scenario we have two partial fixes that can apply.

IPG Section 2.5 Additional Remedy
• If a player forgot to draw cards, discard cards, or return cards from their hand to another zone, that player does so.
• If an object changing zones is put into the wrong zone, the identity of the object was known to all players, and it can be moved without disrupting the state of the game, put the object in the correct zone.

Nathan forgot to discard one of the cards from one trigger, I would have discard the card in hand.
Nathan also played the land that was drawn from the other trigger. This should have been discarded but was put onto the battlefield. as we can put the land into the graveyard without disrupting the game state, I would have Nathan do this as well.

I would remind each player to be more careful/mindful of the game state and have them continue play.


Edit: Apparently Cyril Crocker thought of this as I was typing.

Edit: To backup my thoughts on this. Nathans first error was to not properly resolve an Ascendancy trigger. Followed by not properly resolving a another ascendancy trigger. Unfortunately he continued and played one of the cards from the trigger. This is two infractions that seem to have the same root cause so we would only apply the penalty for one. Alice allows the infractions to occur without calling a judge in an appropriate time.

We still need to fix the infractions. The card in hand should have been discarded, which we have a partial fix for. apply the fix for the infraction. The land on the battlefield should have been put into the graveyard from hand and was known to all players, we have a partial fix for this as long as it does not significantly disrupt the game state. I don't feel moving a land to the graveyard from battlefield is a big disruption. I would apply this fix as well.

Edited Jacob Kriner (March 12, 2015 02:32:06 PM)

First, the infractions: GRV for Nathan, FtMGS for Alice. I wouldn't give DEC here because the description for DEC specifically says:

Originally posted by 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.

The card he drew wasn't illegally drawn, as he has a trigger telling him to draw a card.

For the fix, the partial fix in the IPG calls out this situation directly:

Originally posted by IPG:

If a player forgot to draw cards, discard cards, or return cards from their hand to another zone, that player does so.

So I would have Nathan discard 2 cards. He can only discard one at the moment, but the partial fix is still the only solution that fits with policy. When applying additional remedies, we shouldn't be trying to find the “most fair” partial fix, rather we should be striving for consistency by applying policy as best we can. By the same philosophy that we don't apply punitive fixes, we shouldn't be looking to deviate from policy here just because Nathan ends up with an extra card and that isn't fair. It's up to the people who create that policy to do it in a way that is the most fair in the most situations.

Originally posted by Cyril Crocker:

Just a thought. Why can't we partial fix the land N “played”?

I don't think this fits the criteria. Annotated IPG says “Additionally, this is applied to objects that changed zones, and went to the incorrect zone. This does not apply to cards that should not have changed zones but did, or that were supposed to change zones but didn't.”

Looking at the events that transpired, Nathan drew a land, which he should have discarded but didn't (should have changed zones, but didn't). After moving past that mistake, he played a land from his hand following normal rules, so the land changed zones and went to the correct one for playing a land. I think the only partial fix here is discarding the remaining card in hand.

Edited Dylan Goings (March 12, 2015 02:26:46 PM)

Originally posted by Dylan Goings:

Cyril Crocker
Just a thought. Why can't we partial fix the land N “played”?

I don't think this fits the criteria. Annotated IPG says “Additionally, this is applied to objects that changed zones, and went to the incorrect zone. This does not apply to cards that should not have changed zones but did, or that were supposed to change zones but didn't.”

Looking at the events that transpired, Nathan drew a land, which he should have discarded but didn't (should have changed zones, but didn't). After moving past that mistake, he played a land from his hand following normal rules, so the land changed zones and went to the correct one for playing a land. I think the only partial fix here is discarding the remaining card in hand.

I believe this meets the criteria although it is a bit of a stretch. I would like to reference the following article to support this and cite Scott Marshall.
http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/16442/

I agree with everyone saying GPE - GRV, and FTMGS.

As to the fix - If the opponent was also hellbent or tapped out at the beginning of the turn, and if there were no fetchlands in play, then I would feel comfortable backing up to the resolution of the topmost trigger.

If she had any cards in hand, or mana untapped or there is some other reason that backing up seemed like a bad idea, I would in that case apply the partial fix of having him discard the cards now, which would mean discarding his one card and the land would remain in play.

GPE-GRV for improperly resolving an ability.
GPE-FtmGS for allowing the ability to resolve improperly.

My suggestion for the fix: have Nathan return the land he played for the turn to his hand, then have him discard the remaining two cards in his hand.

Casting the two Bolts before the triggers are allowed to resolve is fine and legal. The choice to draw/discard is declared upon the ability being placed on the stack. So Nathan, being aware of the game state, said that he would draw-discard twice. You can't partially resolve something like that. Much like a Sword of X and Y; if you declare awareness of the triggers but only resolve half of it, you must resolve the remainder.

We back the game up to after the Ascendency abilities resolved. We place a random card from Alice's hand on top of her library, warn both players to play more cautiously in the future, then let the game proceed from there.

This is not DEC/LEC since Nathan was entitled to draw those cards. So the penalties are GRV for Nathan and FtMGS for Alice. Now for the exciting part, the fix. I believe at least one partial fix can be applied here, which rules out a rewind. The first fix is to have Nathan discard his last card since trigger requires Nathan to discard a card. Another possible fix is moving the land from the Battlefield to the GY. However, this partial fix is typically used for small problems like the incorrect resolution of Path to Exile. Using this fix for a card that was played instead of getting discarded seems possible but a bit too far. So to fix this, I would only have Nathan discard the card, and leave the rest of the board as is.

Edited Adam Eidelsafy (March 12, 2015 03:20:18 PM)

GPE-GRV for Nathan; GPE-FTMGS for Alice. He didn't resolve his Ascendancy triggers correctly, she had the opportunity to notice before her draw step. Warnings all around.

We have a partial fix that applies, and we apply it: Nathan forgot to discard 2 cards, so he does so now - discarding the remaining card in his hand, and keeping his land on the battlefield.

My initial reaction was to back up, and I was starting to get mired in the question of whether the extra land is more disruptive than him knowing what the top two cards of his library were - but the fix is called out specifically in the IPG.

The annotated IPG also elaborates:

Note that this partial fix does not expire, even if the error was many turns ago.

This indicates to me that the IPG is aware of the fact that cards may have been played that should have been discarded. He forgot to discard two cards, so he must now discard two cards.

If I were the only judge at this event, I might be severely tempted to deviate and get rid of that land, too, but I'll be honest, I don't see anything in policy that tells me I can do that.

Originally posted by George FitzGerald:

He then says “Ascendancy”, draws two cards

Nathan says “Ascendancy” once; he dosn´t say it twice, “Ascendancy two times” or something similar. So, how can I believe that he remembers both triggers? I can´t, so I believe he forgot one. In this game comunication is esencial.
So, when resolving a trigger he draws (ok) draws again (error) and dosn´t discard. Before drawing the second card no other GPE was commited and there was no Comunication Policy Violation, so this is a GPE - DEC. There was no confirmation from the oponent, the identity of drawn card is not know for both players and he had another card in his hand so no downgrade posible. Nathan gets a GL.
Alice allowed him commiting the error so she has commited GPE - FtMGS and she gets a Warning.

GRV/FtMGS, Discard the card now and continue playing.

I feel this would be much easier in person since I can ask what his starting hand size was, etc and not have to reverse engineer as much =) Or maybe I'm just slow, which I'm OK with.

If he started his turn with 2 bolts in hand and draws for turn, that puts him at 3 cards. He bolts twice, which leaves with 1 card in hand. Then he draws 2, putting him back to 3, plays a land putting him at 2 cards in hand. Alice starts her turn, but somehow Nathan has 1 card in hand? What happened to the other one he drew from the triggers? So this means he must have only had 1 card to start with.

If he started his turn with 1 bolt in hand and drew the other bolt, that puts him at 2 cards. He bolts twice, leaving him hellbent. Draws 2 and plays a land, putting him at 1 card in hand. Awesome, I think we have the sequence here.

This is a GRV for Nathan, and a FtMGS for Alice.

Check for partial fixes… there should have been 2 discards, but we can only perform one of them. But the IPG is pretty clear, they player forgot to discard some cards… so we apply the fix. Have him discard now. And move on. (The keyword from the IPG is “otherwise”)

I naturally tend towards wanting to rewind here, since it's the disparity in potential damage is so great (extra land in play, versus knowing your next card) and we don't think anything nefarious was going on, but we only look at rewinds if the infraction didn't fall into one of partial fix options.

Originally posted by Javier Martin Arjona:

George FitzGerald
He then says “Ascendancy”, draws two cards

Nathan says “Ascendancy” once; he dosn´t say it twice, “Ascendancy two times” or something similar. So, how can I believe that he remembers both triggers? I can´t, so I believe he forgot one. In this game comunication is esencial.
So, when resolving a trigger he draws (ok) draws again (error) and dosn´t discard.

He doesn't even really need to say ascendancy at all, that's just nice of him to verbally acknowledge it for his opponent.

I think it's safe to say he remembered the trigger, since he drew the cards one right after the other. He demonstrated knowledge of the trigger by virtue of doing something required by the trigger, and he did them both as a batch.

First of all, Nathan demonstrated awareness of both Ascendancy triggers by drawing two cards. That also indicates his intention to use both triggers to loot - they're ‘may’ triggers so he could have just skipped one or both. The pump/untap trigger is not relevant here because Nathan controls no creatures.

So for two separate Ascendancy triggers with two separate root causes, Nathan chooses to loot but does not discard. This means two GRV infractions. The second is not subsumed by the first because the root causes are different. DEC does not apply - the first draw was legal, the second was immediately preceded by a GRV. Alice gets a FtMGS for both. Each infraction is a warning. Since this is two warnings each in the same category, double check to see if a GL upgrade may be in order.

A partial fix applies here, so we don't consider a backup. Nathan discards two cards, but since he only has one in his hand he just discards what he has. He keeps the land, there is no fix that supports Nathan saccing the land. Saying that the land went to the wrong zone (and moving it to the graveyard under that partial fix) seems like a stretch that (to me) doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Nathan did not actually have a choice which cards he would have had to discard. His hand was empty when he started resolving the triggers, so his only choice (given that he chooses to loot) would be to discard the cards he just drew. I tried to figure out if that should figure into the ruling somehow, but apart from some minor considerations regarding OoOS, I don't think it does.

Originally posted by Jacob Kriner:

Dylan Goings

Cyril Crocker
Just a thought. Why can't we partial fix the land N “played”?

I don't think this fits the criteria. Annotated IPG says “Additionally, this is applied to objects that changed zones, and went to the incorrect zone. This does not apply to cards that should not have changed zones but did, or that were supposed to change zones but didn't.”

Looking at the events that transpired, Nathan drew a land, which he should have discarded but didn't (should have changed zones, but didn't). After moving past that mistake, he played a land from his hand following normal rules, so the land changed zones and went to the correct one for playing a land. I think the only partial fix here is discarding the remaining card in hand.

I believe this meets the criteria although it is a bit of a stretch. I would like to reference the following article to support this and cite Scott Marshall.
http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/16442/

That scenario is different, in that the PLA was indeed changing zones (it went from the stack to the graveyard), but it went to the wrong one (the battlefield). Instead we have a land that should have gone somewhere but stayed where it was. I'd point to this scenario and it's thorough explanation (a little old, but still valid) as another example.