Originally posted by IPG:
For most Game Play Errors not caught within a time that a player could reasonably be expected to notice, opponents receive a Game Play Error — Failure to Maintain Game State penalty. 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 have committed this infraction.
Edited Brook Gardner-Durbin (March 21, 2018 04:32:51 AM)
Originally posted by David Lachance-Poitras:
Based on my understanding, I would rule GRV-FTMGS.
I believe the difference between those cases and the classical Path to Exile case that is used as an example for the double GRV is that the resolution of the Path is an active effect that is instructing the opponnent to take action on it as it resolves. So, if a player commits an error while following the instructions of a spell controlled by his opponent, then both players are at fault. I believe the same logic can be applied to replacement effects as well.
Thalia's and Leovold's static abilities that influence the state of the game for either one, many, or all players. Therefore, if a player commits an error related to those abilities, who is at fault ? The one who commits the error. And if the controller of the effect fails to prevent this error from impacting the game state, FTMGS should apply.
Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:
Agree.
In my understanding, the focus shouldn't be on which player controls what - it should be on which player actively takes action, and which one doesn't.
if you think both players share the responsibility for the error (thanks to replacement effects or participation in the action), then they do.
Originally posted by Scott Marshall:
I'm inclined to use double GRVs only for situations where both players are acting - i.e., the classic example of Path To Exile - and not for a static effect that the controller missed during another player's action.
Also, if you're playing with a card like the Sunwing, it's because of the effect it has on your opponents, and it's in your best interests to remember it. Forgetting that is almost never going to benefit you, when you Fail to Maintain the Game State. Receiving a GRV for your forgetfulness seems like “piling on”, to me.
Many of us remember when double GRV was strictly for Path to Exile, and perhaps a few odd corner cases. The frequency with which this list was dragged into those dark corners, to ask “is this double GRV?”, led us to relaxing the firm boundaries around the concept. (We also considered that there were other situations where it might be an acceptable outcome.)
However, it's good to keep in mind the original intent: both players are taking actions to resolve an effect, and it goes wrong - i.e., Path to Exile.
Edited Brook Gardner-Durbin (March 22, 2018 02:19:58 AM)
Originally posted by Johannes Wagner:
Because having to pay more is something the player has to look out for himself.
Originally posted by Johannes Wagner:
On the same token, if a player searches with a Leonin Arbiter under the control of his opponent, only one player gets a GRV, not both.
You must be registered in order to post to this forum.