Hey all, welcome back once again to the Knowledge Pool! This week's scenario was created by Nick Rutkowski. As it's a Silver level scenario, L2+ judges should refrain from commenting until Saturday.

The blog post for this scenario can be found here.

You are the HJ of a local store's competitive event. Brad casts Valorous Stance, choosing the mode that destroys a creature with toughness 4 or greater, targeting Alice’s Summit Prowler. In response to that, Alice casts Dromoka’s Command, choosing to have the Prowler fight Brad’s 2/2 Zombie token and putting a +1/+1 counter on her 1/1 Goblin token. Alice calls for a judge because she just noticed the Valorous Stance was illegally cast. What do you do?

Edited Patrick Vorbroker (Sept. 17, 2015 05:12:46 PM)

Before reading: B cast a spell with an illegal target. Assuming B is found to have done so accidentally (ruling out USC-Cheating), this is a GPE-GRV. Due to A not immediately pointing it out, she receives a GPE-FtMGS. Back up to before B cast Valorous Stance (return both spells to their owners' hands and untap the lands used to cast them) and assess a warning to each player for their respective GPEs.

After reading: nothing to read yet.

Brad cast a spell with an illegal target and Alice didn't notice until she had taken further game actions. GRV for Brad, FtMGS for Alice.

As for the fix, none of the partial fixes apply, so we are left with either a backup or leaving the game state as is.

Unless there are other extraneous factors that are not described in the scenario, I feel that a backup would be quite straightforward (put Dromoka's Command back in Alice's hand, untap the land used to cast it, put Valorous Stance back in Brad's hand, untap the land used to cast it) and much less awkward than a game where a spell is destroying targeting a creature it shouldn't have targeted and Alice is using a resource she shouldn't have felt the need to use.

Therefore, I would backup.

Edited to fix dumb error on my part.

Edited Nathen Millbank (Sept. 18, 2015 10:44:48 AM)

Before reading:

Typical level GRV and Failure to maintain game state. I lean to not backing up, this does not sound to me like a “situation where the gained information makes no difference and the line of play remains the same (excepting the error, which has been fixed).”

After reading

Seems like the board is against me on backing up, I cede to their wisdom and straight vote that this is cleaner in a back up situation.

Originally posted by Nathen Millbank:

much less awkward than a game where a spell is destroying a creature it shouldn't have targeted and Alice is using a resource she shouldn't have felt the need to use.

Would the spell be destroying the creature?

Originally posted by Anthony Bucchioni:

Nathen Millbank
much less awkward than a game where a spell is destroying a creature it shouldn't have targeted and Alice is using a resource she shouldn't have felt the need to use.

Would the spell be destroying the creature?

Under no circumstances should the creature be destroyed here, if you don't backup then stance will have an illegal target and should be countered on resolution. You don't commit further GRV just because you decide not to rewind.
Thus leaving the gamestate as is feels like a poor solution and a backup is to before stance in this case is probably the best solution.
Warnings for both players GRV for Brad and FTMGS for Alice.

Edited Jonathan Downs (Sept. 17, 2015 07:12:17 PM)

Before Reading other responses:

Brad has cast Valorous Stance on an illegal target, and so has committed a Game Play Error - Game Rule Violation, and will receive a Warning. Whether or not Alice has committed Failure to Maintain Game State is debatable - Brad just recently committed the error, but Alice has taken game actions since then, which compound the error. I don't believe she's trying to fish for a reaction, but I think I'd assess FtMGS here, with a Warning.

As a fix, none of the partial fixes apply, so we either leave the game state as is, or perform a backup. In this case, the error has just been committed, and only a minimum of information has been given out, so I'd be comfortable performing the backup. Return Dromoka's Command to Alice's hand, and untap the appropriate lands. Return Valorous Stance to Brad's hand, and untap the appropriate lands. It's currently Brad's priority, in whatever phase they were in. Give a time extension as necessary and instruct the players to continue the game.

After reading other responses:

Seems to be the consensus.

The Valorous Stance was cast with an illegal target and the game progressed beyond that point. So Brad has committed a GRV and receives a warning, Alice has committed FtMGS as she has taken actions since the error and also receives a warning. As this does not fit one of the default fixes for GRV we can consider a backup or we could leave the game state as is.

This is the IPGs advice on backups:

Due to the amount of information that may become available to players and might affect their play, backups are regarded as a solution of last resort, only applied in situations where leaving the game in the current state is a substantially worse solution. A good backup will result in a situation where the gained information makes no difference and the line of play remains the same (excepting the error, which has been fixed). This means limiting backups to situations with minimal decision trees.

In this situation I would perform a back up, untapping the land for both spells, and returning the cards to each player's hand.

The game has not progressed beyond a point where decision trees have branched considerably, the error actually created the line of play from Alice so that isn't a line of play I'm trying to maintain.

Some small information has leaked from Alice's hand (the Dromoka's Command), but her FtMGS means at least some of the responsibility for that lies with her, additionally Brad has leaked some information (the Valorous Stance), but his error created this situation so I don't concern myself there either.

If I leave the game state as is I do consider the situation substantially worse - Alice has expended a valuable spell based on the assumption that her creature would be destroyed because of her opponent's mistake, though it obviously will not be if we left things as is given the Stance would be countered on resolution.

<<Just an observation and not really important given the scenario, but it struck me as odd that for this one the usual AP/NAP naming convention was ignored.>>

Originally posted by Anthony Bucchioni:

Nathen Millbank
much less awkward than a game where a spell is destroying a creature it shouldn't have targeted and Alice is using a resource she shouldn't have felt the need to use.

Would the spell be destroying the creature?

Uh… nope. Whoops.

Before reading: GPE - GRV - Warning for Brad
I don't think too much has happened here to prevent us from rewinding. Command was the only spell cast and nobody drew any cards or made many decisions, so I'm going to say to rewind back to before Valorous Stance was cast, untapping all lands tapped for the Command and Stance. Instruct the players to be more careful.

After reading: Forgot to give Alice the Warning for FtMGS. Other than that, no change.

Before Reading

Brad committed a Game Play Error - Game Rule Violation by trying to cast Valorous Stance on the Summit Prowler with the “Destroy target creature with toughness 4 or greater” mode. The penalty for this is a warning for Brad.

Alice would also get a Game Play Error - Failure to Maintain Game State by allowing Brad to cast the Valorous Stance illegally. She will also receive a warning.

I believe a back up is the best option here. If the game state is left as is, Alice would be out a creature she should have had and Brad will have gained an advantage he should not have. I think this is significantly worse than each player just knowing the identity of a single card in the other player's hand as would happen with a back up. We would back up to just before the Valorous Stance was cast, the point just before the error occurred.


Ruling: GPE-GRV for Brad and GPE-FtMGS for Alice with a warning for both. Then back up the game to just before the Valorous Stance was cast.

After Reading

Everyone seems to agree so far on penalties and a back up.

Is it possible there is an argument to be made for leaving the gamestate as-is?

From what I understand, backups should only happen if leaving things as-is is a substantially worse fix. This means that the burden of proof needs to be clearly in favor of backing up rather than not.

If we back up:
-Brad still has Valorous stance in hand
-Alice knows that brad has valorous stance
-Alice still has Dromoka's command
-Brad knows that Alice still has dromoka's command
-Alice might not cast Dromoka's command now, since Brad has a valorous stance to respond with
Board is:
Brad-
2/2 Zombie

Alice-
4/3 Summit Prowler
1/1 Goblin

If we leave things as-is:
-Valorous stance ends up in GY
-Dromoka's command ends up in GY
-Each player has no information about the other's hand

Board is:
Brad-
nothing

Alice-
4/3 Summit Prowler with 2 damage marked on it
2/2 Goblin
(Valorous stance will not kill summit prowler since prowler doesn't have toughness 4 or greater, so it will be an illegal target on resolution)

Maintaining the purest boardstate always argues for a backup, and I think that most judges and players would instinctively want that sort of a result if at all possible (I know that I certainly do), but in this case leaving the gamestate as-is doesn't seem to me to be clearly worse than backing up. Further, backing up will likely lead to a different line of play, since both players know the other has a card in hand that can interact with their card in hand (consider the indestructibility mode on valorous stance and the fight mode on Dromoka's command).

From the IPG:

Due to the amount of information that may become available to players and might affect their play, backups are regarded as a solution of last resort, only applied in situations where leaving the game in the current state is a substantially worse solution. A good backup will result in a situation where the gained information makes no difference and the line of play remains the same (excepting the error, which has been fixed).

In this case, the line of play (particularly the cast of dromoka's command) will likely not happen at all due to the gained information, nor is it clear that leaving the game as-is is a substantially worse solution.

As such, I would leave the game as-is and assess the warnings for GRV and FtMGS.

Edited Andrew Keeler (Sept. 20, 2015 12:03:22 AM)

Originally posted by Andrew Keeler:

In this case, the line of play (particularly the cast of dromoka's command) will likely not happen at all due to the gained information, nor is it clear that leaving the game as-is is a substantially worse solution.

The IPG specifically states the error as the only part of the fix that shouldn't be considered when trying to maintain lines of play - this immediately excludes the Valorous Stance from consideration and I believe extends to the dromoka's command because it's a response to the error.

In a slightly different scenario if Alice had used a Cancel to counter the Valorous Stance I wouldn't leave the gamestate as is to protect the lines of play that only happen because of the error, so I wouldn't here either.

I believe it's substantially worse to leave the game state as is, as the error has potentially figured into Alice's decision making regarding the casting of her spell.

<<edited to correct what spell was countered>>

Edited Marc Shotter (Sept. 22, 2015 06:24:30 AM)

Originally posted by Marc Shotter:

Andrew Keeler
In this case, the line of play (particularly the cast of dromoka's command) will likely not happen at all due to the gained information, nor is it clear that leaving the game as-is is a substantially worse solution.

The IPG specifically states the error as the only part of the fix that shouldn't be considered when trying to maintain lines of play - this immediately excludes the Valorous Stance from consideration and I believe extends to the dromoka's command because it's a response to the error.

In a slightly different scenario if Alice had used a Cancel to counter the Valorous Stance I wouldn't leave the gamestate as is to protect the lines of play that only happen because of the error, so I wouldn't here either.

I believe it's substantially worse to leave the game state as is, as the error has potentially figured into Alice's decision making regarding the casting of her spell.

<<edited to correct what spell was countered>>

Yes, the error has almost certainly figured into Alice's decision-making, but that in itself does not make the situation of the cast spell ‘substantially worse’ than backing up.

In the case of casting cancel, the spell itself could not have been cast without the illegal cast of Valorous stance, while that is not true of Dromoka's command. The cast of Dromoka's command is not dependent on the prior cast of Valorous stance, and so should not simply be considered part of the 'valorous stance line of play.' Your line of thinking seems to imply that we should always back up the game unless there is a good reason not to, rather than leave the game as-is unless there is a good reason not to.

Additionally, protecting the line of play is not the most important consideration in backing up. It is ideal (but not essential) that the line of play not be affected. What is essential is that the backup only be authorized in situations where leaving things as-is is substantially worse than backing up, and simply saying that a player ‘spent a valuable spell’ is not enough reason to back up, since if they had used an anticipate in response to find the dromoka's command, (spending two valuable spells) we likely wouldn't even consider backing up, in part because the revealed information since the error could substantially affect future lines of play.

In short, Alice having cast a spell in response to an error does not automatically make leaving things as-is substantially worse than backing up.

Wow what a fun question, with a not so simple answer. First let’s get the easy stuff out of the way.

We know that both players are getting a warning.
Brad is given a Game Rules Violation, for illegally targeting the Summit Prowler with Valorous Stance. He receives a warning. Likewise, Alice is given a warning for Failure to Maintain Game State, because she didn't notice the error

On to the hard stuff…what about the fix?

This question split many people on their decision to back up or not. The decision of whether to back up falls to the Head Judge, and this is a situation where either solution is correct, when done for the right reasons.

The argument against backing up was presented very well by Andrew Keeler. Let's revisit what he had to say:

From what I understand, backups should only happen if leaving things as-is is a substantially worse fix. This means that the burden of proof needs to be clearly in favor of backing up rather than not.
If we leave things as-is:
-Valorous stance ends up in GY
-Dromoka's command ends up in GY
-Each player has no information about the other's hand

Board is:
Brad- nothing

Alice-
4/3 Summit Prowler with 2 damage marked on it
2/2 Goblin
(Valorous stance will not kill summit prowler since prowler doesn't have toughness 4 or greater, so it will be an illegal target on resolution)

Maintaining the purest boardstate always argues for a backup, and I think that most judges and players would instinctively want that sort of a result if at all possible (I know that I certainly do), but in this case leaving the gamestate as-is doesn't seem to me to be clearly worse than backing up. Further, backing up will likely lead to a different line of play, since both players know the other has a card in hand that can interact with their card in hand (consider the indestructibility mode on valorous stance and the fight mode on Dromoka's command).

Well said Andrew. What about the argument for backing up?

The correct reaction by Alice to Brad's casting of Valorous Stance would be “you can't do that”; instead, she allowed that error, and took another action instead. The players realized the mistake soon after that, so because it's just one decision point, it's pretty easy to rewind, and returns us to a non-compromised game.

And finally, the last question - if we opt to back up, how far do we go? The IPG can help with that.
IPG 1.4

To perform a backup, each individual action since the point of the error is reversed.
That means we put the Dromoka’s Command back in Alice’s hand, untap the mana spent to cast it and then do the same for Brad with Valorous Stance.

Thank you all for playing along and stick around for a new scenario soon.