On the other hand when we allow him to choose the target after drawing and only get him a warning and no other remedy we somehow reward him for his mistake since it's a huge advantage to retroactively choose the target according to what he draws. Because that way he knows whether it will be enough to finish of his opponents nasty fatty or whether only the little guy has to take the hit. It is really tough to decide, but personally I think that we shouldn't disadvantage the nonactive player who didn't do anything wrong…

The nonactive player did do something wrong. He let his opponent start
resolving a targeted spell without a target.

So far Tom's the only one who's proposed a solution. Lets throw out some other options.

It's very much possible that the genius started resolving his spell immediately (for example, if the non-active player was tapped out) without a chance for the non-active player to call him on it. I understand that GRV and a subsequent warning is the normal case here, but the potential for abuse here is just as much as a Drawing Extra Cards event. This may seem draconian and an overreach from a measly level 1 like myself, but I don't think there's any real way to fix the game state. Philosophy suggests that an un-fixable game state requires a game loss to the perpetrator, so that seems like the logical conclusion to me, even though it's technically GRV and not DEC.

Of course, there's a real chance that I'm flat-out wrong on this issue. If I am, please let me know what you think is more appropriate.

Originally posted by Adam Zakreski:

So far Tom's the only one who's proposed a solution. Lets throw out some other options.

Assuming nothing complicated has happened while the Blast of Genius was on the stack, the best fix is to rewind to the declaration of targets for Blast of Genius by placing the appropriate number of random cards from the player's hand on top of their library (assuming they weren't previously known by both players). Yes, this means that he gets to choose a target knowing how much damage he can deal, but this is the fix specified in the IPG, and I don't think these circumstances are significant or exceptional enough to merit a deviation.

A more interesting question is what to do if a ton of stuff has happened with the Blast of Genius on the stack (with no declared target). It seems we cannot just leave the game state as-is (as the Blast of Genius' target is not defined), but at the same time it would be disruptive to perform a full rewind. How do we handle this situation?

If it is disruptive to do a full rewind, you have the player choose a target and then leave the game as it is.

Addressing Blast of Genius, I would argue that it is a Game Loss for DEC. Reasoning:

1 - Blast of Genius was never successfully cast. As declaring the target is part of casting the spell, it never is actually put on the stack.
2 - When the player begins drawing, they are drawing extra cards due to failing to properly cast Blast of Genius. Yes, a GRV by not targeting led to this, but a greater violation occurred and the potential for abuse is significant in my opinion.

Admittedly I'm a fairly inexperienced Level 1, but this seems a pretty cut and dry DEC -> Game Loss to me.

Looking forward to hearing others thoughts on this.

The IPG explicitly states as part of the definition of DEC that it does not apply when putting the cards in hand was preceded by another GPE/PCV infraction.

A player illegally puts one or more cards into his or her hand and, at the moment before he or she began the instruction or action that put a card into his or her hand, no other Game Play Error or Player Communication Violation had been committed, and the error was not the result of resolving objects on the stack in an incorrect order.

So this can't be DEC.

As an extension to my above reply:

I would issue the player who cast Blast of Genius a warning for GPE: Game Rule Violation, as he has broken the rules by casting a targeted spell without announcing a target. This cannot be Drawing Extra Cards, because the first illegal thing that happened was the spell being cast without a target being named for it. As this error preceded the cards that were drawn illegally, Drawing Extra Cards does not apply in this situation. I would asses his opponent a warning for GPE: Failure to Maintain Game State, as he allowed the spell to begin to resolve without his opponent choosing a target for it.

As this is a fairly simple situation, the backup is also simple - we remove the cards that shouldn't be in his hand by randomly selecting three cards from his hand, and placing them back on top of his library. Then, since Blast of Genius was cast illegally, we back up the entire casting of the spell, returning the card to his hand, and untapping any lands he used to cast the spell, or if the mana came from another source, replacing that mana in his mana pool.

If the situation had been too complicated to allow a full backup, then we cannot backup the game. However, we still need to correct anything that's currently illegal in the game state, and as it is, there is a targeted spell on the stack that does not currently have a target. I would have the player then declare a target, and leave the game state as-is.

Originally posted by Benjamin Topping:

It's very much possible that the genius started resolving his spell immediately (for example, if the non-active player was tapped out) without a chance for the non-active player to call him on it. I understand that GRV and a subsequent warning is the normal case here, but the potential for abuse here is just as much as a Drawing Extra Cards event. This may seem draconian and an overreach from a measly level 1 like myself, but I don't think there's any real way to fix the game state. Philosophy suggests that an un-fixable game state requires a game loss to the perpetrator, so that seems like the logical conclusion to me, even though it's technically GRV and not DEC.

Of course, there's a real chance that I'm flat-out wrong on this issue. If I am, please let me know what you think is more appropriate.

If the player starts to resolve Blast of Genius right away then it would be DEC, because then the drawing of extra cards would happen simultaneously with the GPE, rather than the GPE being committed before the draw.

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

If the player starts to resolve Blast of Genius right away then it would be DEC, because then the drawing of extra cards would happen simultaneously with the GPE, rather than the GPE being committed before the draw.

No, it wouldn't be. The GRV occurred before the DEC, because he cast it without a target. There is absolutely no way that this can be DEC.

Originally posted by Casey Brefka:

Toby Hazes
If the player starts to resolve Blast of Genius right away then it would be DEC, because then the drawing of extra cards would happen simultaneously with the GPE, rather than the GPE being committed before the draw.

No, it wouldn't be. The GRV occurred before the DEC, because he cast it without a target. There is absolutely no way that this can be DEC.

EDIT: oh wait you're right I misremembered a previous thread.

Edited Toby Hazes (May 21, 2013 05:01:32 AM)

I agree that this certainly is not DEC. However, I really don't see any way of applying a fix without giving the erring player a potentially significant advantage. The “normal fix” just seems unsatisfactory. What are your thoughts on issuing a GL upgrade (per head judge's suggestion, of coure)?

I don't see any reason to. It's the non active player's responsibility to maintain the game state as well, and they have to be vigilant. Yes, it gives the AP some extra knowledge, but there isn't anything about this scenario that is “extreme” or “unique”. We issue the warning, and the warnings get tracked. If we want to even go as far as saying “do not do this again” so that if the player does forget to issue a target first, we could issue a “failure to follow directions” penalty next time we could. Otherwise it doesn't damage the integrity of the game and have the players carry on.

Originally posted by Benjamin Topping:

I agree that this certainly is not DEC. However, I really don't see any way of applying a fix without giving the erring player a potentially significant advantage. The “normal fix” just seems unsatisfactory. What are your thoughts on issuing a GL upgrade (per head judge's suggestion, of coure)?

I think this is a very important paragraph from the IPG:

These procedures do not, and should not, take into account the game being played, the current situation that the game is in, or who will benefit strategically from the procedure associated with a penalty. While it is tempting to try to “fix” game situations, the danger of missing a subtle detail or showing favoritism to a player (even unintentionally) makes it a bad idea.

In the vast majority of GPEs, the remedy results in some kind of advantage to one player or the other. This is unavoidable. If we feel the player was purposely trying to gain that advantage, the infraction is different (Cheating). It's a dangerous road to try to adjust penalties to fit what you feel is the appropriate punishment. Find the infraction first, then use the prescribed penalty.