Blind Obedience

The second ability is a static ability generating a replacement effect modding how opponents' artifacts and creatures enter the field.

How is it to be treated with respect to judging?

Is it the controller of Blind Obedience's responsibility to alert his opponent? (similar to a trigger)
Or if both players forget initially, does Obedience's controller have any recourse?
Can he call a judge to get the offending artifact/creature tapped?
Would they both get warnings via section 2.5 of the IPG?

***
Moved to Competitive REL, since the question is aimed at the IPG.
David de la Iglesia
Forum Moderator
***

Edited David de la Iglesia (Jan. 28, 2013 11:23:29 AM)

Blind Obedience doesn't really do anything all that different from previous cards, so we handle it pretty much the same as everything else.

The important thing to remember is that it is *not* a trigger. If someone forgets to tap his creature, that is a GRV. At Regular REL, I would just have him tap it. At Competitive, our choices are to rewind and correct the error, or to leave it as is. Usually, it will be caught fairly quickly and a rewind will be simple, so we typically will fix the problem. The player that forgot would receive a warning. The other player would only get a warning if it wasn't caught immediately.

Nick Short
L2, Chicago, IL, USA

Originally posted by Todd Bussey:

Is it the controller of Blind Obedience's responsibility to alert his opponent? (similar to a trigger)
Or if both players forget initially, does Obedience's controller have any recourse?

The general rule on “shared responsibility” applies. We make an exception involving an opponent's responsibility to alert a player to his or her own triggers, but that is an exception to the general requirement. Both players still do have responsiblity to make sure the game rules are followed.

Typically what will happen is the opponent will put the creature onto the battlefield untapped, and Blind Obedience's controller will point out the effect. The opponent taps the creature, and life moves on. Technically a game rule was violated (albeit briefly), but the players fixed it without any major repercussions. It might even be discovered after another spell is cast, in which case the players may fix it themselves (especially if they view it as clerical and the creature being tapped/untapped has nothing to do with the spell being cast) or they may call a judge.

Where a judge usually becomes involved is when “significant” time has passed since the error was made, and the player is now making a decision that is affected by this error. Such as when declaring attackers and realizing the opponent has an extra potentially blocker.

Originally posted by Todd Bussey:

Can he call a judge to get the offending artifact/creature tapped?
Would they both get warnings via section 2.5 of the IPG?

In all cases, a player who notes a mistake should call a judge. After that, it is up to the judge to investigate to determine what infraction, if any, has occurred. Once a judge has decided an infraction has taken place, he or she handles it according to the MIPG. Such a situation where the opponent accidentally didn't account for the replacement effect generated by the other player's permanent is going to be GPE-GRV for both players (as you correctly observe) and so both should be issued a Warning. (Edit: One caveat is that if the Blind Obedience's controller calls a judge immediately when the error happens, I'm likely to only conclude the opponent committed GPE-GRV; the controller did his due diligence in calling for a judge as soon as the error happened.) The decision to back up or not is going to be up to the individual judge, with the permission of the Head Judge.

Edited Brian Schenck (Jan. 28, 2013 12:24:56 PM)

Does it seem unusual to anyone else that I can move a card from one zone to another after almost a turn has passed as an allowed partial fix for GRV, but I might have to rewind that whole turn to tap a permanent?

Pardon my ignorance. But why is a Comp REL response 2 warnings for GPE:GRV and not one of those and one FtMGS?

Thanks!

From the IPG:

In a situation where the effect that caused the infraction is controlled by one player, but the illegal action is taken by another player, both receive a Game Play Error - Game Rule Violation.

The effect (Blind Obedience) is controlled by Player A, but Player B was the one who put the artifact or creature into play untapped, so this falls under that clause, and thus both players would receive the GRV.

Originally posted by Matt Sauers:

Pardon my ignorance. But why is a Comp REL response 2 warnings for GPE:GRV and not one of those and one FtMGS?

Thanks!

From the “Additional Remedy” section of GPE-GRV:

In a situation where the effect that caused the infraction is controlled by one player, but the illegal action is taken by
another player, both receive a Game Play Error – Game Rule Violation.

Blind Obedience is controlled by one player, but the illegal action of putting the permanent on the battlefield untapped is taken by the other player, so both players receive GRV.

Luckily there is a natural time after which we don't care whether the permanent entered the battlefield tapped or not: the controller's next untap step.