This thread is for discussing the article Handling Multiple Infractions by Matthew Johnson.

I'm confused with situation D handling.
The text says:

Anne casts a Brainstorm and draws 3 cards, but forgetting about Nancy’s Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
This definitely does qualify as the legal resolution of Brainstorm, even though the Brainstorm itself was illegal. Therefore we only give the warning for the root cause (the GRV) and we just apply the fix for the GRV and a backup through the resolution of Brainstorm.

Previous versions of IPG specifically stated something like “if cards were drawn as the result of GRV, than't not DEC”, but the most recent IPG does not. So, I thought we should not fall back to GRV anymore, just back things up if appropriate and issue warning for DEC, not GRV. Isn't it true?

TL;DR: I thought this case should fall under DEC with the recent IPG despite the fact we are considering backup as if it was real GRV.

Edited Alexey Chernyshov (Sept. 2, 2015 07:53:21 PM)

On Wed Sep 02 12:50, Alexey Chernyshov wrote:
> I'm confused with situation D handling.
> The text says:
>

Anne casts a Brainstorm and draws 3 cards, but forgetting about Nancy’s Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
> This definitely does qualify as the legal resolution of Brainstorm, even though the Brainstorm itself was illegal. Therefore we only give the warning for the root cause (the GRV) and we just apply the fix for the GRV and a backup through the resolution of Brainstorm.

>
> Previous versions of IPG specifically stated something like “if cards were drawn as the result of GRV, than't not DEC”, but the most recent IPG does not. So, I thought we should not fall back to GRV anymore, just back things up if appropriate and issue warning for DEC, not GRV. Isn't it true?

Are you also not penalising with a GRV the incorrectly cast Brainstorm? I'm saying here that we should not issue both a warning for DEC and GRV, but that we should issue a warning for GRV (since it was the root cause).

That sentance mostly means we're not applying the additional _fix_ of DEC. Not giving both warnings is what my article suggests, which is supported by IPG1.2: “Infractions with the same root cause, or multiple instances of the same infraction that are discovered at the same time, are treated as a single infraction”.

Matt

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

On Wed Sep 02 12:50, Alexey Chernyshov wrote:
Are you also not penalising with a GRV the incorrectly cast Brainstorm? I'm saying here that we should not issue both a warning for DEC and GRV, but that we should issue a warning for GRV (since it was the root cause).

That sentance mostly means we're not applying the additional _fix_ of DEC. Not giving both warnings is what my article suggests, which is supported by IPG1.2: “Infractions with the same root cause, or multiple instances of the same infraction that are discovered at the same time, are treated as a single infraction”.

Matt

Our consensus was that you should report DEC and penalise DEC since the infraction results in drawing cards. The additional remedy described for DEC allows for a back up so there is no difference in this regard. It could potentially change how subsequent infractions would be penalised for the same player. Considering that GRV is a very frequent infraction and any extra warning could lead to an upgrade this is a very important question.

“A player draws a card forgetting that a Howling Mine is no longer on the battlefield”
“If the cards were drawn as part of the legal resolution of an illegally played instruction…”

The example and the excerpt from additional remedy section of the DEC paragraph in IPG seem to indicate that illegally cast brainstorms and the like should be handled as DEC.

On Wed Sep 02 13:06, Vladimir Votintsev wrote:
> GPE-GRV definition says, that “It handles violations of the Comprehensive Rules that are not covered by the other Game Play Errors”, but situation D is currently GPE-DEC under new version of IPG, so it is not GPE-GRV. There is no two differnt infractions with the same root cause, there is only one infraction - DEC.

If a judge was called before the cards were drawn here you'd be penalising it with a GRV. I don't think that it ceases to be a GRV because further things happened afterwards.

On Wed Sep 02 13:06, Arman Gabbasov wrote:
> Our consensus was that you should report DEC and penalise DEC since the infraction results in drawing cards. The additional remedy described for DEC allows for a back up so there is no difference in this regard. It could potentially change how subsequent infractions would be penalised for the same player. Considering that GRV is a very frequent infraction and any extra warning could lead to an upgrade this is a very important question.
>
> “A player draws a card forgetting that a Howling Mine is no longer on the battlefield”

I don't think this is regarded as a GRV having happened beforehand, since nothing is visible until the drawing of cards. Hence this is always GRV with the new fix. It's not an example of two infractions.

> “If the cards were drawn as part of the legal resolution of an illegally played instruction…”
>
> The example and the excerpt from additional remedy section of the DEC paragraph in IPG seem to indicate that illegally cast brainstorms and the like should be handled as DEC.

I view this as just removing the additional fix for DEC from these cases. The ‘out of order’ clause here will result in a DEC warning and just a backup, since there's no previous infraction, but where there's a GRV beforehand I think it should be penalised as GRV.

Another argument for this is that if a player casts brainstorm and realises it was illegal, but has two GRVs already, I don't want them to draw cards before calling a judge so that it's actually DEC and not upgraded.

Matt

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

If a judge was called before the cards were drawn here you'd be penalising it with a GRV. I don't think that it ceases to be a GRV because further things happened afterwards.

What part of IPG supports that? We already have infraction that “mutates” if not caught immediately: IDaSoG.

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

I view this as just removing the additional fix for DEC from these cases. The 'out of order' clause here will result in a DEC warning and just a backup, since there's no previous infraction, but where there's a GRV beforehand I think it should be penalised as GRV.

If IPG authors wanted us to remove the DEC remedy and penalise for GRV in such cases, they would have stated “this is not DEC, this is a GRV” as they used to. I think this statement was removed on purpose.

Edited Alexey Chernyshov (Sept. 2, 2015 09:01:30 PM)

On Wed Sep 02 13:49, Alexey Chernyshov wrote:
>

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

> If a judge was called before the cards were drawn here you'd be penalising it with a GRV. I don't think that it ceases to be a GRV because further things happened afterwards.

>
> What part of IPG supports that? We already have infraction that “mutates” if they are not caught immediately: IDaSoG.
>
>

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

I view this as just removing the additional fix for DEC from these cases. The 'out of order' clause here will result in a DEC warning and just a backup, since there's no previous infraction, but where there's a GRV beforehand I think it should be penalised as GRV.

>
> If we want to remove DEC remedy and penalise for GRV, IPG should have state “this is not DEC, this is a GRV” as it used to.

Well, that's conflating the two cases. I believe it is _both_ a GRV followed by DEC in the first part of the sentence ('correctly resolving an incorrectly played instruction'), and just a DEC in the other ('resolving a multi-instruction effect in the wrong order'), and that IPG1.2 supports just penalising for the first infraction for both cases.

In the old IPG it was _not_ DEC at all, just a GRV - there wasn't a general ‘root cause’ clause in 1.2 at the time (just ‘apply the worse penalty’, which would other wise be a GL for DEC) and the ‘root cause’ logic was baked into DEC directly.

Now we have the generic method of only penalising for root causes in 1.2, DEC doesn't need to say it explicitly any more. The ‘root cause’ change in 1.2 was made in response to me submitting this article (I submitted it several months ago, but needed to wait for policy to be updated to match and then re-written and re-reviewed matching the new IPG text)

Matt

I do believe there's the only infraction here. Everything is legal besides the incorrect payment.

But suppose we have two infractions for a minute. If we are in “penalise only the root cause” shoes (which is not explicitly stated by IPG by the way) we would penalise only the GRV and we would never reach these “as part of the legal resolution of an illegally played instruction” remedies in the DEC section. Why are these there? Well, they might be as a reminder and clarification. But in this case why there's no “remember that's not DEC” reminder as well?

Edited Alexey Chernyshov (Sept. 2, 2015 10:21:38 PM)

On Wed Sep 02 15:12, Alexey Chernyshov wrote:
> I do believe there's the only infraction here. Everything is legal besides the incorrect payment.
>
> But suppose we have two infractions for a minute. If we are in “penalise only the root cause” shoes (which is not explicitly stated in IPG by the way) we would penalise only the GRV and we will never reach these “as part of the legal resolution of an illegally played instruction” remedies in the DEC section. Why are these there? Well, they might be as a reminder and clarification. But in this case why there's no “remember that's not DEC” reminder as well?

This is what I think the IPG1.2 statement about root causes covers. Even if we're only giving one _penalty_ you should apply both _fixes_ still. Those statements in the DEC section are to stop you appyling the normal DEC fix in this case.

Matt

I don't agree with “apply two fixes” as well. IPG does not provide us with such instruction.
There's an example for this in the article (Situation A). The article states it is “double fix”, but it is only backup for GRV (scry is rewinded with shuffle).

On Wed Sep 02 16:34, Alexey Chernyshov wrote:
> I don't agree with “apply two fixes” as well. IPG does not provide us with such instruction.
> There's an example for this in the article (Situation A). The article states it is “double fix”, but it is only backup for GRV (scry is rewinded with shuffle).

“scry is rewinded with shuffle”

This is not described in either the ‘backing up’ section or the ‘GRV’ section. It is only described as part of the additional remedy for “Looking at Extra Cards”. The fact that you have a GRV followed by LEC and you only give the GRV warning, but apply the fix for GRV and LEC is the only way you can justify a shuffle after scrying due to a GRV (such as playing a temple as your second land for the turn).

Matt

It is not described.
I have another situation to discuss. While it might be a little bit off the topic, but I think it might help me with understanding with this scry rewinding.

Player A casts Wrath of Gods for 3W, it resolves. Then they play Temple and scry, leaving the card at the top. Now players notice the mistake.
Would you rewind? If yes, how would you rewind this scry? Do you think this card “became legally known after error was commited”?

On Wed Sep 02 17:10, Alexey Chernyshov wrote:
> It is not described.
> I have another situation to discuss. While it might be a little bit off the topic, but I think it might help me with understanding with this scry rewinding.
>
> Player A casts Wrath of Gods for 3W, it resolves. Then they play Temple and scry, leaving the card at the top. Now players notice the mistake.
> Would you rewind? If yes, how would you rewind this scry? Do you think this card “became legally known after error was commited”?

Well, that only applies when shuffling to reverse a shuffle, which you are not
doing here. I definitely think that you should shuffle here (otherwise they can
not play the temple and scry again next turn), although I concede your implied
point that this is not a LEC infraction, consequent or otherwise. Therefore in
some way this must be possible with just the GRV fix. I'm not sure that you can
justify it with a literal reading of the IPG here.

For reference, if this temple were the second land for the turn I'd be giving 2
GRVs and no LECs (since the extra land was not caused by the illegally cast
wrath).

I think this also has something to shed light on ‘illegal brainstorm - DEC or
GRV’ case two. If you play your second land for the turn as a temple and scry?
Are you giving GRV or LEC? I would give GRV, but the argument that DEC is more
specific in the Brainstorm case would seem to also hold that LEC is more
specific in this case?

Matt

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

I definitely think that you should shuffle here (otherwise they can
not play the temple and scry again next turn), although I concede your implied
point that this is not a LEC infraction, consequent or otherwise. Therefore in
some way this must be possible with just the GRV fix. I'm not sure that you can
justify it with a literal reading of the IPG here.

I agree.

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

I think this also has something to shed light on ‘illegal brainstorm - DEC or
GRV’ case two. If you play your second land for the turn as a temple and scry?
Are you giving GRV or LEC? I would give GRV, but the argument that DEC is more
specific in the Brainstorm case would seem to also hold that LEC is more
specific in this case?

I'm also thinking this way. I would definitely give GRV at least because the remedy for L@EC leads us nowhere: alright, we've just shuffled the card into the library, now what are we going to do with this second temple?

But still I have the question that started this whole thing. We just (almost) agreed on the point we don't use two fixes for two infractions. If it is true, why would DEC description mention “legal resolution of illegal played instruction” at all?

Edited Alexey Chernyshov (Sept. 3, 2015 12:49:04 AM)

Why do I think the original case is DEC and the case with two lands a turn (the second being a temple) is not L@EC?
Because we have explicit description in the IPG: “there's a special case of DEC preceded by a GRV and in this case we do X and Y” while L@EC doesn't have such a section; thus GRV fits better for the Temple case.

I do think the previous iteration of IPG that treated such case as GRV was more consistent and easier to work with.

Edited Alexey Chernyshov (Sept. 3, 2015 01:37:47 AM)