There is a discussion currently going on between some judges in my region about what sort of thing would require a double GRV.

The main one that is being discussed is Torpor Orb, if N controls a Torpor Orb and A plays a Kitchen Finks, announces the gain life Enter the Battlefield trigger and resolves it. In this case should we be giving N a GRV?

Edited Gareth Tanner (March 14, 2016 01:41:31 PM)

Originally posted by Gareth Tanner:

There is a discussion cur going on between some judges in my region about what sort of thing would require a double GRV.

The main one that is being discussed is Torpor Orb, if N controls a Torpor Orb and A plays a Kitchen Finks, announces the gain life Enter the Battlefield trigger and resolves it. In this case should we be giving N a GRV?

What I think first is, is his A making something illegal?

Arthur announces first a triggered ability and then resolves, the ability isn't controlled by him, but there's an effect in the battlefield that modifies the game rules and is a continue effect.

So, there's two situations, first Arthur triggering an illegal ability and secon, Nathaniel is not mantaining the game state allowing Arthur to put the trigger in the stack and resolving it.

Now looking at the IPG, I remembered a text where it talks about illegal decisions based in missed triggers, but this case is a illegal trigger based in a missed continuous effect, so that doesn's cover this situation (IPG - Missed Trigger)

So, this is finally a GRV, a player has made an illegal action and his opponent is allowing to do it.

I'll call a GPE - GRV and a GPE - FMGS.

The counterargument is that because Torpor Orb is the reason that the ability trigger then N shares some responsibility in making sure the trigger doesn't trigger or resolve.

I'd call double GRV here.

Originally posted by IPG:

If the judge believes that both players were responsible for a Game Rule Violation, such as due to the existence of replacement effects or a player taking action based on another players instruction, both players receive a Game Play Error – Game Rule Violation. For example, if a player casts Path to Exile on an opponent’s creature and the opponent puts the creature into the graveyard, both players receive this infraction.

My reading of the double GRV is that the player who didn't commit the initial GRV must either have instructed the opponent to make the GRV or control an effect that created it. So where a player breaks a standard rule, or a rule created by their own effects the opponent gets FtMGS, but when they break a rule created by the opponent's effect the opponent gets a GRV too.

Examples:

Player A has Anafenza the Foremost and puts a destroyed Siege Rhino they controlled in their graveyard. Result: Player A gets GRV, Player N gets FtMGS

Player N has Anafenza the Foremost and Player A puts a destroyed Siege Rhino they controlled in their graveyard. Result: Player A gets GRV, Player N gets GRV

Edited Marc Shotter (March 14, 2016 03:51:02 PM)

Originally posted by Marc Shotter:

Player N has Anafenza the Foremost and Player A puts a destroyed Siege Rhino they controlled in their graveyard. Result: Player A gets GRV, Player N gets GRV

My argument is that I see little difference between Anafenza changing where things go when they die and Torpor Orb preventing things from happening on ETB. I think that NAP bears some responsibility for this as well (the IPG says “such as” a replacement effect, so clearly also covers other similar things).

We give judges some latitude here because it's impossible to encompass every factor that could matter (and because getting it “wrong” has minimal consequences). I usually ask myself “why did this error happen?” and if the answer comes back “because of something that player B did/controlled that led to confusion” then it's reasonable to apply the GRV to player B as well.

Edited Toby Elliott (March 15, 2016 12:30:25 AM)