We've been having a discussion on how far back you would rewind a GRV, based on intent.

Assume Nick has a Gaddock Teeg and Amber doesn't realize what the card does.
1) Amber taps four lands and a Elvish Mystic to cast a Bring to Light. The intent was to add mana with the mana ability, and it's part of the casting cost, so it's straightforward.
2 )Amber shortcuts with her Arbor Elf, taps the Elf and 4 lands to cast said Bring to Light.
3) Amber does not shortcut, and explicitly says “Elf untaps forest, tap 4 lands, cast BTL”.
4) Amber now has only 3 land, the Arbor Elf and a Xenagos, the Reveler, She shortcuts with “Add mana with Xenagos, untap forest, cast BTL”.

Knowing Nick never interrupts the shortcuts and the error is always caught by him as soon as BTL is cast, would you rewind every situation until the first step presented in each point?
The intent this turn was always and only to cast the BTL.

1) Full Rewind (untap lands and Elvish Mystic. Only mana abilities have been used.
2) Backup the casting of BTL, Amber has whatever mana the forest produced
3) Backup the casting of BTL, Amber has whatever mana the forest produced
4) Backup the casting of BTL, Amber has whatever mana Xenagos and the forest produced.

Edited Jeff S Higgins (Sept. 23, 2016 01:21:19 PM)

Originally posted by Jeff S Higgins:

Aren't 2 and 3 the same? Or are these steps we are taking in performing the backup? Sorry it's not clear hence why I am asking.

Yes, 2 and 3 are basically the same situation.

On Sep 23, 2016 14:45, “Sherwin Ng” <forum-30149-8751@apps.magicjudges.org>
wrote:

5) Amber taps four lands, exiles Simian Spirit Guide, and casts Bring to Light.

Backup, put Spirit Guide in hand. Amber has shown a card in her hand, which is a legal thing to do.

As long as everything is part of the same block of actions related to casting the illegal spell, I would back-up. The fact that some abilities aren't defined as mana abilities in the Comprehensive Rules, but are used as such by players and don't have any philosophical difference won't prevent me to treat them in the same way when applying the IPG. The IPG isn't comprehensive, and when encountering some weird interactions, more attention should be paid to the philosophy than to the letter of the rule.

- Emilien

Originally posted by Emilien Wild:

As long as everything is part of the same block of actions related to casting the illegal spell, I would back-up. The fact that some abilities aren't defined as mana abilities in the Comprehensive Rules, but are used as such by players and don't have any philosophical difference won't prevent me to treat them in the same way when applying the IPG. The IPG isn't comprehensive, and when encountering some weird interactions, more attention should be paid to the philosophy than to the letter of the rule.

- Emilien

Emilien, thanks for the answer. The discussion in our group was about how would one define a block of actions and what the block of actions was, case by case. If one would backup 2) he or she would have to backup 3) and vice-versa. As an example, if you would backup 3) but not 2), you would be penalizing a playerthat was doing the technical correct play.
The issue with Xenagos was that it clearly is not “instant speed”.
The key point here is, as you said, the block of actions.

Even if i sac a fetch to get a land to have mana for it?

rewind till i get my fetch in play?

A fetch is never use as a mana ability so it's different from what Emilien said, if I understand Well.
So no, I would say rewind until you have the fetched Land in play.

Nor is a mana ability using arbor elf and Xenagos…

Crack fetch, during the search “I will cast x” it's the same block of
actions, rewind till the crack of the fetch?

No dia segunda-feira, 26 de setembro de 2016, Pascal Gemis <

Sorry, you said rewind till the fetch is in play or not?

The negative in the beggining confused me

No dia segunda-feira, 26 de setembro de 2016, José Moreira <
moreirazeantonio@gmail.com> escreveu:

My opinion: Agree with Emilien above.

What I have to add to this conversation: The situation changes imo depending on the communication. For example, I would not treat these situations the same:

1) Player says: “Activate Xenagos +1, tap 4 lands, cast Bring to Light.”

2) Player says: “Activate Xenagos +1, ok? *pause* Add 1 mana, pay 4, cast Bring to Light.”

In the first case, the player did not give their opponent the chance to respond to Xenagos +1, so they have not gained any information about whether or not the opponent would like to respond. The block of actions was clearly intended as a block, with one leading to the rest, so I would treat it as a block and allow the backup. In the second case, the opponent clearly passed priority, and it was evident that they received (whether they received it intentionally or not) information regarding whether or not the opponent would like to respond to Xenagos. This is gained information and hence I would not allow the backup.

Likewise for the Arbor Elf in example 3, I would treat it likewise depending on communication.

Lyle points out what I've been thinking, while reading this thread - it's going to depend very much on what you believe actually happened - that is, was it (as Emilien suggested) a single block of actions? If so, I'd back up, just as Emilien said (with certain exceptions, see below). Or, if - as Lyle mentioned - there's a pause for reaction from the opponent, it's no longer a single block of actions, and some of what just happened might not get rewound.

Remember Chromatic Sphere? That card led us to a policy change, regarding the rewind of illegal actions. The philosophy behind that was not only the knowledge gained, but a card changing zones. If a player were to use a Sphere (or its cousin, the Star) as part of a single block of actions leading to the illegally-cast Bring to Light, then we aren't going to rewind the Chromatic portion of that block of actions. The mana generated Chromatically is still in their pool, but we can untap lands and put Bring to Light back in their hand (and issue the GRV).

**Be sure to investigate, to make sure they aren't purposely committing that GRV - perhaps because the card they drew from Chromatic Star/Sphere gave them reason to rewind**

To me, a player who cracks a fetch land as part of the single block of actions should be held to that - because it moved a card from their library to the battlefield, and re-ordered the library. Not rewinding that fetch land isn't going to hurt them in most (non-corner) cases, and, even though we have perfect knowledge on what they fetched, and can put that land back in the library and the fetch back in play, I would not give them the chance to fetch for a different land, just because they goofed while casting a spell.

d:^D

So,

This means playing sloppy compensates?

Instead of doing the spells and ask if they resolve step by step?

No dia segunda-feira, 26 de setembro de 2016, Scott Marshall <