During a FNM player A cast Declaration in Stone exiling 6 of his opponents thopter tokens. Player A then gave his opponent 6 clues and gameplay continued for 5 or 6 turns. Another player asked where the clues came from and I was called over when the players realised that they had made a mistake. Multiple turns had passed and 3 of the 6 had been sac'd to draw cards. After discussing with the players I ruled that the gamestate should not change and asked them to ensure they use declaration in stone correctly next time. Both players were happy with this ruling and carried on playing. Should I have removed the clues in play or did I rule this correctly?

Originally posted by Sam Whatmore:

During a FNM player A cast Declaration in Stone exiling 6 of his opponents thopter tokens. Player A then gave his opponent 6 clues and gameplay continued for 5 or 6 turns. Another player asked where the clues came from and I was called over when the players realised that they had made a mistake. Multiple turns had passed and 3 of the 6 had been sac'd to draw cards. After discussing with the players I ruled that the gamestate should not change and asked them to ensure they use declaration in stone correctly next time. Both players were happy with this ruling and carried on playing. Should I have removed the clues in play or did I rule this correctly?

In my opinion too much time has passed to do anything in this situation. As decisions will have been made with the clue tokens in mind, leaving the game as-is, and instructing the players to play more carefully. It sounds like you did exactly what I would have done.

Hi!!!

Your instruction is ok for me.

its to late for any correccion. Let them keep playing.

Educate both players and any other guy involved.

As its Regular, I'd remove the extra clues that are still there. It's better than leaving them, and we can be more flexible in our fixes at Regular.

I agree with Mark, I would remove the remaining clues but not do anything about the cracked ones. This gets the game state closer to where it should be and regular allows for fixes like this.

Remember that in regular you re allowed to be more creative than in Competitive where you have to stick to the IPG.

You can always tell the players how you'll act if this were competitive, but you're not in competitive this time.

Also, remember that if you made a fix, try to get a better game state looking the whole picture, not just looking the problem itself.

Greets!

Edited Cristóbal Vigar Guerrero (May 13, 2016 10:17:25 AM)

This being regular either fix is fine, but I think on balance I'd have removed the remaining clues.

Let's have a look at what the JAR says!

Magic is a complicated game. While we can’t prevent players from making mistakes, we should do our best to fix situations as fairly as possible. (…) Our solutions should focus on educating the players and keeping the game going rather than worrying about the impact on the game. (…) This will cover the bulk of player errors, and usually the least disruptive option is to leave the game as it is after fixing anything that is currently illegal.

You see that there's a whole lot of leeway and room for interpretation here. Removing the tokens now seems like a fair and not too disruptive option, but so does leaving them on the battlefield. So, whichever you would rule, it would be a good and fair ruling. Because personal judgement is involved, there is no “best” or “correct” ruling.

However, I would like to present you a third option: “We agree that when Declaration in Stone resolved, you should not have gotten the Clues. Because of an honest mistake, you both agreed that you put some Clues onto the battlefield, and you already sacrificed them. You still have some Clues left, and because the current game state is legal, I will not fix or alter anything myself. However, it is fully up to you if you want to use those Clues or prefer to ignore them for the rest of the game”.

I can see myself using all three possible rulings, depending on how well I know the atmosphere of the event where it happened, the players involved, how well I'm rooted in the community… I know my own local players appreciate fixes like the one I proposed, but if this happens anywhere else, I would probably prefer not to touch the current game state and leave things as they are, without any suggestions on further play.

I'm not as much of a fan of the third option you propose Dustin. It feels a lot like putting the decision of how to fix on the player instead of the judge. That comes with various moral implications (“what will people think if I use the clues to win?”). The players have asked the judge for help, so I think we should make the decision and not put the onus back on the players.

It also creates a weird precedent for the players where if something goes wrong, the judge is just going to say “do whatever” and let play carry on. So they're less likely to call a judge in the future.

As stated, this is something I only use in my LGS where the players and I know eachother pretty well, and I would never do that at a GP side event ^^ However, I think it is good to keep our eyes open for more solutions than just exile or not exile.

It's also weird that the “fix” still provides potential incidental advantage for Confront the Unknown.

Well to be fair, this format is full of incidental synergies, Tireless tracker is a real card in limited and constructed, so is Ulvenwald mysteries.
And ultimately, not saying that those potential advantages are not real, having 3 extra cards represented by 3 clue tokens is aready a thing anyway.

However, I also like adapting my rulings in FNMs according to my communities, because some FNMs are really competitive and others are not. In the case of Dustin's third option, that is something taht is not too far from what some friends would do. You know when you are called at an FNM, and 2 buddies are playing together, they just want to play fair magic and I indeed know people that would not use the clues even if I let them on the battlefied. Maybe the wording Dustin used is not perfect but if the spirit is :
“Well, you both made booboo, and it was already some turns ago, I have to let things the way they are. But you know, if you think that my ruling is unfair to your friend, you can just not touch them until the end of the game.”
More than a third option, this is more a precision on the “leave things as is” fix, and while I do not endorse suggesting this in all circumstances (and to be honest, probably more never than ever), in the case of people who know each other very well and are friends in an FNM context, I see this as a very acceptable answer.

Edited Théo CHENG (May 14, 2016 11:46:41 AM)