This happened at a Legacy SCG IQ today:

Player resolves Glimpse of Nature. They then cast Heritage Druid and immediately tap three elves to add mana to their pool using Heritage Druid's ability. They then draw a card for Glimpse of Nature.

“Judge!”

The situation is explained, and I read the text on the Glimpse of Nature card that just resolved. It is unclear, so I look up the Oracle text. Upon reading the Oracle text, it is determined that Glimpse triggers on cast, not ETB.

Clearly a missed trigger, clearly caught within a turn, clearly non-detrimental.

The card that was drawn from Glimpse of Nature, however, is already in the players hand by the time a judge is called, and is not uniquely identifiable.

There was some discussion about whether this should be a game loss for Drawing Extra Cards, a GRV warning with accompanying rewind, or simply out of order sequencing. Or should it be something else entirely?

The Glimpse trigger appeared to be remembered, but seemed to be (incorrectly) assumed to trigger when the Druid entered the battlefield. The card was drawn immediately after the elves were tapped for the Druid's ability. Should the awkward wording of the older card be taken into account when considering penalties and fixes for this situation?

I am interested to hear the thoughts of the general judge community.


Glimpse of Nature (printed on card)
G
Sorcery
Whenever you play a creature spell this turn, draw a card.


Glimpse of Nature (Oracle text)
G
Sorcery
Whenever you cast a creature spell this turn, draw a card.


Heritage Druid (Oracle text)
G
Creature — Elf Druid
Tap three untapped Elves you control: Add GGG to your mana pool.
1 / 1

Spontaneously I feel that the only reason not to consider DEC here is because of the quote: “and the error was not the result of resolving objects on the stack in an incorrect order.”
Was that what gave you pause about DEC? Because it seems to apply, according to me. They demonstrate awareness of their trigger but they resolve it after resolving the elf.

To me, it feels like the player doesn't know how their card works. I would require players to know that at comp rel. So with that reasoning, the player has missed their trigger, since they've taken a game action after the trigger should've resolved. A caveat is if the way they did it indicates out-of-order, which I can see happen. That, however, is a “you had to be there”.

So unless OoO, I'd rule GRV, since that is what the missed trigger infraction tells us to do.

I doubt they would forget a Glimpse trigger right after casting it when playing an Elves deck. It is possible, of course, so a quick chat with the players would be the defining factor here. If the whole thing was done as a continuous action - cast, tap, draw - I would rule out of order sequencing, but caution the player to be more careful in the future.

Edited for spelling.

Edited Mitja Bosnic (June 14, 2015 05:06:47 AM)

I agree with Eskil. This is a GRV for resolving effects in the wrong order; the IPG quote applies, so I don't think it's DEC. No fix, no backup, warning for GRV, no warning to the non-active player.

(This isn't OoOS, because the active player clearly made a rules mistake and OoOS is meant to be a tool for speeding up play, not a cover for sloppy play)

Originally posted by Samantha Davis:

Should the awkward wording of the older card be taken into account when considering penalties and fixes for this situation?

For this question specifically I'm pretty sure the answer is no. All players have access to the oracle wording and are expected to abide by it at competitive REL. You're also expected to know how your own cards work at competitive. Things like this are meant to be learned at regular REL events. Granted, there aren't too many legacy events run at regular.

As far as what to do in this situation I'd ask AP what he intended looking for when he thinks he should draw the card. If he says he was just playing fast and doing all his actions at once then OoOS is a fine ruling with a word of caution to the player. If he says he's drawing a card after his elf resolves then he's missed his trigger and we look at DEC instead. Why would it be DEC? Mainly because he took an extra action (tapping elves for mana) between his missed trigger demonstration and the drawing of the card.

Going through DEC:

A player illegally puts one or more cards into his or her hand

we've established that that's happened,

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 Play Error or Communication Policy Violation had been committed

the moment that the card was drawn was after a legal play of tapping elves far mana. The missed trigger violation had come and gone already by that point so we are past the “moment” another GPE took place,

and the error was not the result of resolving objects on the stack in an incorrect order.

If we're here then we've established it wasn't OoOS.

If the player received confirmation from his or her opponent before drawing the card (including confirming the number of cards when greater than one), the infraction is not Drawing Extra Cards.

This is obviously important and does need to be asked of the players.

That's how I see the rules applied to the situation. It's a “feel bad” judge call. No one wants to hand out game losses especially when the player was really close to doing things correctly and we're pretty sure he wasn't trying to cheat in any way. It is important to make the “feel bad” calls correctly for a couple of reasons. First, you have to be fair to everybody. We have structured rules and guides so that everyone can get the same experience. Once players notice us deviating from those then they start using them against us. The other is for the players sake. It'll end up being a hard lesson for him/her, but from then on he won't forget how that card works.

Edited Preston May (June 15, 2015 09:37:11 AM)

I'm in Mitja's camp on this case. I see no reason to not rule it as OoOS, player (based on OT description) made one bath of action: play a create, resolve it, tap elfes for mana, draw. he finish in the legal gamestate by executing steps in wrong order.

And Eli no, we should give rulling based on what happen on the table, not based on our assumption of player rules understanding.

Originally posted by Adam Kolipiński:

And Eli no, we should give rulling based on what happen on the table, not based on our assumption of player rules understanding.

I'm not sure i agree, Adam.

Here is a section of the MTR for Out of Order Sequencing:

Nor may players use out-of-order sequencing to try to retroactively take an action they missed at the appropriate time.

This doesn't explicitly discuss rules understanding; but it does make clear that when we see a sequence of actions that happen in a technically incorrect order, we need to ask the players why they did it that way. “Heritage druid, tap for mana, draw a card from Glimpse” and “Heritage druid, tap for mana, oh shoot let me draw for Glimpse now” result in two very different rulings.

Without reading other posts first, my gut on this one is Out of Order Sequencing, not a Missed Trigger or DEC.

From MTR 4.3: "Due to the complexity of accurately representing a game of Magic, it is acceptable for players to engage in a block of actions that, while technically in an incorrect order, arrive at a legal and clearly understood game state once they are complete. All actions taken must be legal if they were executed in the correct order, and any opponent can ask the player to do the actions in the correct sequence so that he or she can respond at the appropriate time (at which point players will not be held to any still-pending actions).“

From IPG 2.1: ”Players may not cause triggered abilities controlled by an opponent to be missed by taking game actions or otherwise prematurely advancing the game. For example, if a player draws a card during his or her draw step without allowing an opponent to demonstrate awareness of a triggered ability, the controller still has an opportunity to fulfill the appropriate obligation by doing so at that point. The Out-of-Order Sequencing rules (MTR section 4.3) may also be applicable, especially as they relate to batches of actions or resolving items on the stack in an improper order."

Everything about the OP seems to indicate that this was a batch or block of actions taken without significant pause. If the opponent had some kind of response, we help them solve it, but unless that response was a Stifle the trigger has not been missed and the card will be drawn. It *is* Legacy, though, so I'd warn the player to be more precise because of that card's existence.

If the player had played a sorcery instead of adding mana, I don't think
anyone would rule OoOS, even though adding mana or playing a card are
illegal to do with the trigger on the stack. The fact that adding mana is
“simple” changes nothing. The player missed the trigger by doing something
that is only legal to do after the trigger would have resolved. Because the
trigger changes part of the visible gamestate, we consider it to be missed.

I would rule missed trigger and then DEC for the extra card, it's a simple
mistake to make, and it sucks that is a Game Loss but I don't think policy
supports either OoOS or GRV.

Ok, I want to recall an old Toby Elliott's article about OoOS and Missed Triggers:
http://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2012/12/14/out-of-order-sequencing-and-triggers/

Yes, the policy changes since then several timea, but at, least in my opinion, Toby argumentation still apply.
Let's confront this example with 4 bullets from article:
1. yes, it was out of order
2. this is the most interesting one . But we believe that player has remembered the trigger all the time, he just put in on the wrong place of the stack. So yes, he was aware of the trigger all the time,
3. No, by tapping Elves he didn't get any new information
4. Final result is valid.

I'm not convinced by Frederico either. Putting 3 Elves into play and the draws 3 cards after Glimpse was always book-example of OoOS and Missed Trigger interaction for me.

It seems to me that, if anything, the player actually did themselves a disservice by choosing which three elves to tap before drawing that card. They certainly didn't gain any advantage or knowledge, doing things out of order.

Adam's analysis seems spot on, so I'll agree with all those who've said OoOS.

d:^D

I can't help but think it's out of order sequencing as those are a VERY common block of actions.
If I were a floor judge I would rule an OoOS but if I were a head judge and my floor judge ruled DeC I would uphold his call, this is something I feel gets murkier the further from the situation you are (I.E. flow of the game ect.)

Originally posted by William Barlen:

I can't help but think it's out of order sequencing as those are a VERY common block of actions.
If I were a floor judge I would rule an OoOS but if I were a head judge and my floor judge ruled DeC I would uphold his call, this is something I feel gets murkier the further from the situation you are (I.E. flow of the game ect.)

Why would you uphold a call you would not have mane, William?

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

Adam Kolipiński
And Eli no, we should give rulling based on what happen on the table, not based on our assumption of player rules understanding.

I'm not sure i agree, Adam.

Here is a section of the MTR for Out of Order Sequencing:

Nor may players use out-of-order sequencing to try to retroactively take an action they missed at the appropriate time.

This doesn't explicitly discuss rules understanding; but it does make clear that when we see a sequence of actions that happen in a technically incorrect order, we need to ask the players why they did it that way. “Heritage druid, tap for mana, draw a card from Glimpse” and “Heritage druid, tap for mana, oh shoot let me draw for Glimpse now” result in two very different rulings.

Well, that particular quote does not make any mention on rules knowledge or understanding, but the second and third paragraphs of the IPG actually do:

IPG
All players are treated equally according to the guidelines of an event’s Rules Enforcement Level (REL). Knowledge of a player’s history does not influence the recognition of an infraction or the application of penalties, though it may affect the manner of an investigation. The REL of an event defines what is expected from a player regarding his or her rules and policy knowledge and technical play skill.

Treating a player differently because he or she once played in a Professional event would mean holding each player to a different standard and would produce inconsistent rulings that depended on the judge’s familiarity with the player. Professionals should be able to play in events without being held to a higher technical level of play against less-experienced opponents who may not be as familiar with the rules.

Clearly, we're supposed to analyze only what happened, objectively (as hard as that may be) while withholding judgment on a player's experience. It may affect the kinds of questions we ask to get the proper information that would allow us to understand what happened, but it should not alter the ruling we make once we get a clear picture of what the situation was.

I agree with the OoOS ruling
This is the way I see this:
1) I think everyone is OK with ruling that resolving the Heritage Druid before drawing the card is indeed an OoOS, since it's a textbook example of resolving items on the stack in an improper order
2) Then, we have this definition:

A triggered ability that causes a change in the visible game state (including life totals) or requires a
choice upon resolution: The controller must take the appropriate physical action or make it clear what the
action taken or choice made is before taking any game actions (such as casting a sorcery spell or explicitly
moving to the next step or phase) that can be taken only after the triggered ability should have resolved.
Note that casting an instant spell or activating an ability doesn’t mean a triggered ability has been forgotten,
as it could still be on the stack

3) Ergo, if it's okay to let the Heritage Druid resolve first, and activating an ability doesn't mean that I have missed the trigger, I see no reason to think that doing both things will invalidate the original OoOS ruling

Edited Federico Verdini (June 19, 2015 05:25:56 PM)