Scenario from a recent MTG event, looking for some opinions on what others would have ruled.

AP activates Jace, Vryn's Prodigy, draws and discards into a graveyard with 5+ cards. and then passes turn. NAP takes their turn and passes. AP activates Jace again and does not transform Jace. At this point the NAP realizes that the Jace should have transformed last turn and calls for a judge. Investigation rules out cheating. What infraction(s) have occurred?

This scenario happened at FNM - REL Regular.

The question came up, well, what if this happened at a Competitive event?

It looks like GPE GRV and FtMGS, but Jessica pointed out recent changes to GPE DEC.

The thought is that at Comp REL we'd transform Jace, and apply penalties/warnings.

I'm not clear if this is still GPE GRV ( “this” being AP missing Jace's transform ) or if it is GPE DEC because a GRV resulted in drawing extra cards.

At the FNM we transformed Jace and encouraged both players to be more careful about Jace's transform.

Thoughts?

As I see it, this is still a Game Play Error (Game Rule Violation).
While failing to transform Jace led to an erroneous activation of the ability; the original GPE did not "directly to drawing the extra cards…". The GPE directly led to the (re)activation of the ability.

My ruling (given the current knowledge set that I have) would be:
GPE - GRV to the AP; GPE-FtMGS to the NAP. Both are Warnings (given no upgrade).

I would also backup to the moment that Jace should have transformed (during the current turn); transform Jace, and have the game move forward with the standard admonishment of playing more carefully.

I would not backup to the first activation, as too much time has passed with too many game actions having been performed.

I look forward to seeing other points of view on this situation.

I think this will be split in two parts:
1st active of jace: AP GRV for don´t complete correctly the jace´s hability and FtMGS to the NAP for same.
2nd active of jace: AP GRV for same and FIX transforming it. NAP call us, soo nothing to him/her now.

I´m not sure if this must manage this way… but i think its a good way…

The GRV here is not the activation of Jace on the following turn, but the failure to transform Jace from the previous activation. There's no DEC infraction here. We issue the GPE-GRV to AP and GPE-FtMGS to NAP.

As for the fix, we can either backup, or leave it as is. I would not backup to AP's prior turn, as too much time has passed. Assuming that nothing has happened since AP drew and discarded from the 2nd activation, have them finish resolving the ability correctly by transforming Jace now. If other actions have occurred since, consider a backup to the point where Jace should have transformed from the 2nd activation.

I think the distinction of the GRV happening the previous turn and leading the the erroneous activation really resolves the question we were debating when the situation happened. But then it brings up another question for me: In what type of situations would we consider the GRV to have directly led to DEC so that this portion of MTR becomes relevant? “2.3. If a prior Game Rule Violation or Communication Policy Violation directly led to drawing the extra cards, it is treated as Drawing Extra Cards.”

Originally posted by Jessica Livingston:

In what type of situations would we consider the GRV to have directly led to DEC

You resolve Pithing Needle, naming Jayemdae Tome. I untap, pay 4, tap my Tome and draw a card - then say “oh, crap, I forgot your Needle…”.

For CPV, I really have to stretch a bit (which says a lot about CPV). I cast Withering Gaze, you reveal From Beyond, a Forest, a Cinder Glade, and a Mountain. You say “draw 3”, and I do - then we realize that From Beyond isn't actually Green.

d:^D

Originally posted by Jessica Livingston:

But then it brings up another question for me: In what type of situations would we consider the GRV to have directly led to DEC so that this portion of MTR becomes relevant?

As an example, I cast Elvish Visionary for 1W instead of 1G. In this case, I've committed a GRV by casting Elvish Visionary illegally, which led to me drawing an extra card from the resulting triggered ability. So, we will record the GRV as a DEC. However, the fix for this kind of DEC is to backup. We do not make AP reveal their hand so NAP can take a card from it.

I hadn't actually thought beyond the actual violation to the fixes, but now I'm wondering based on what Nathaniel said.

So to be clear on the fixes: just because the violation is being treated as DEC instead of the GRV or CPV, that doesn't mean we necessarily have to use the DEC fix if the GRV or CPV violation fixes are appropriate?

Originally posted by Jessica Livingston:

I hadn't actually thought beyond the actual violation to the fixes, but now I'm wondering based on what Nathaniel said.

So to be clear on the fixes: just because the violation is being treated as DEC instead of the GRV or CPV, that doesn't mean we necessarily have to use the DEC fix if the GRV or CPV violation fixes are appropriate?

If we look at the full text of the additional remedy section for DEC:

“If the identity of the card(s) was known to all players before being placed into the hand, or was placed into an empty hand, and can be put in the correct location with minimal disruption, do so.

If the cards were drawn as part of the legal resolution of an illegally played instruction, due to a Communication Policy Violation, or were as the result of resolving objects on the stack or multiple-instruction effects in an incorrect order, a backup may be considered or the game state left as-is.

If the player confirmed the card draw with his or her opponent before drawing, a backup may be considered or the game state left as-is.

If the situation isn’t covered by the previous three paragraphs, the player reveals his or her hand and the opponent selects a number of cards equal to the excess. Those cards are shuffled into the random portion of the deck. A simple backup may be used if there have been additional parts of the instruction performed since the illegal card draw, such as discarding or returning card to the top of the library. Once this remedy has been applied, the player does not repeat the instruction (if any) that caused extra cards to be drawn.”

Nathaniel's example falls into the second paragraph, which is why we apply the described fix of considering a backup or leaving the game as is. We only apply the “perish the thoughts” fix if the infraction does not fall into one of the first 3 paragraphs.

Edited Chris Wendelboe (Dec. 20, 2015 07:30:21 AM)

I've noticed that a lot of discussion - even excitement - centered on the new part of the remedy. We've even attached nicknames to it (the “Thoughtseize” or “V-Clique” fix). But all that focus seems to lead to people forgetting that there are various remedies for DEC, not just the new “let them pick” remedy.

Actually, what could have been a GRV before still has a very similar remedy - it's just recorded as DEC. That's on purpose - thinking that errors that lead to extra cards should be recorded in such a way to help us notice patterns.

d:^D