Agent Smith controls Drana's Emissary. At the beginning of his upkeep, he announces “I win one life”, but forgets the part where Neo loses one life as well. Both player write down +1 life for Agent Smith and no change for Neo.

Agent Smith should get a Warning for GRV, but what about Neo? Assuming no Cheating, do you give him a FtMGS or a GRV?

Edited Florian Horn (Oct. 5, 2015 11:29:58 AM)

A resolved his ability incorrectly. N didn't catch that A was resolving his ability incorrectly. GRV & FtMGS.

The scenario is extremely similar to Desecration Demon, where at the beginning of each combat, Desecration Demon triggered. Unless the ruling has changed, both players received FtMGS…

I think you might be misremembering Billy. If they forgot the ability it was a Missed Trigger and if they forgot part it was a GRV for the Demon player and FtMGS for the opponent. It's unlikely (some might say impossible) for both players to get FtMGS.

In the original situation not taking a game action when told to is not the same as taking the wrong one, so while losing life is a game action I wouldn't rule this as a double GRV.

Originally posted by Gareth Tanner:

In the original situation not taking a game action when told to is not the same as taking the wrong one, so while losing life is a game action I wouldn't rule this as a double GRV.

I would rule the opposite (double GRV) exactly for the same reason.

FtMGS has no upgrade path due to the fact we want players to call us on opponent's GRVs they didn't notice in a timely manner, so that GRVs can be tackled, and the potential for abuse somewhat reduced. Here we have NAP's potential abuse, not AP's.

Edited Andrea Mondani (Oct. 6, 2015 04:06:50 AM)

That feels a bit like making the infraction fit how you think it should be rather than matching the infraction to what has happened to me.

If you suspect that the player has “forgotten” and not said anything on purpose then you should investigate for cheating, if your investigation comes back inconclusive then use the warning as a way to track the accidents. But issuing a GRV because you want to be able to upgrade seems wrong to me

I would rule that way because I believe not doing what you should do is philosophically the same as doing the wrong thing, take these two examples:

1. “A player casts Path to Exile on an opponent’s creature and the opponent puts the creature into the graveyard”
2. “A player casts Path to Exile on an opponent’s creature and the opponent leaves the creature on the battlefield”

I won't rule FtMGS to the opponent both in case 1 and case 2.

Originally posted by Andrea Mondani:

I would rule that way because I believe not doing what you should do is philosophically the same as doing the wrong thing, take these two examples:

1. “A player casts Path to Exile on an opponent’s creature and the opponent puts the creature into the graveyard”
2. “A player casts Path to Exile on an opponent’s creature and the opponent leaves the creature on the battlefield”

I won't rule FtMGS to the opponent both in case 1 and case 2.

While I appreciate your philosophy here, how does this interact with the philosophy behind GRV partial fixes? We clearly distinguish between not doing something (creature still in play) and doing something incorrectly (exiled creature in graveyard)

If a creature dies to combat damage and is not placed in the graveyard, what is the infraction?