Hello my fellow Judges!

I encountered an interesting Situation while being a Floor Judge in a ~100 player modern Event at REL Competitive.
I will describe the Situation tell you how I handled it.


I get to the judge call. Angrath is playing 5 color humans and Narset is playing Hardened Scales. both players are very troubled, because a turn ago Narset played a Chalice of the Void with cmc 4 while Angrath is controlling a Gaddock Teeg. Since then a combat phase happened, Angraths draw for his turn and a creature, that triggered the chalice, was played (which is the reason a judge was called).

What do you do?





I handled the Situation as following. The first thing I did was to seek the Head Judge of the Event who was near me because I was not 100% sure what the right to handle this was. I told them what I think we should do and they agreed.
So I ended up giving both players a Warning for GPE-GRV and the HJ helped me making a full backup since neither a simple backup or partial fix fit the situation.
My reasoning behind this is that yes, Nartet Illegally played the Chalice of the Void, but since Angrath did not point it out in an appropriate frame of time and stopped his opponent from doing this illegal action (that is illegal because of his card), he is at the same fault this mistake happened.

Now afterwards I have talked to a few different judges about the siuation getting mixed answers on which warnings to give. Some say a GRV for both is appropriate, some say Angrath should only have gotten a Warning for GPE-FtmGS.


What is your take on this situation? I am not sure, if which would have been the correct thing to do. Please help me clear this up.


Best greetings,
Eser

We don't have clear policy as to what constitutes a double GRV vs. GRV/FtMGS. It's left up to the judge's discretion how they want to interpret “both players were responsible”.

Double GRV is appropriate if both players have an active role in the error. The AIPG uses Thalia, Guardian of Thraben as its example for GRV / FtMGS, and this is a similar situation.

Agree on GRV/FtMGS.
Agree on “full backup or nothing”.

Was full backup appropriate? How exactly did you perform the backup? Would love more information on this.
(It seems that Narset had 4 mana available, and that a few things indeed happened, and a few informations were revealed - so, not the simplest of decisions).

Edited Francesco Scialpi (Oct. 1, 2018 05:45:24 PM)

I agree on GRV/FtMGS as well. As far as “backup/leave as is”, I would need to know what the board state looked like to make a decision.

Double GRV is OK. Full backup is allways better if it's possible and correct.

oh no, i already wrote the board state down yesterday… and forgot to submit it… so i have to do it again…..ughhh….
anyways!!

Angrath: 2 creatures ( 1 uninteresting, 1 Gaddock Teeg), casting another at the moment as I arrive, 2 lands tapped for that and 4 untapped, 2 cards in hand left

Narset: 5 Lands (4 tapped for the illigal chalice), 3 creatures (not imprtant, but 2 tapped because combat happened) and no handcards.

no fetchlands to be seen or any other way that Angrath could shuffle his libary.


based on that I figuered a full backup would not harm the situation or change the way Angrath would play his turn, so i went to the HJ and told them about the situation, they were sceptical but let me do it (since no ramdom elemts took place). And luckily they helped me since i never did that before!

So i undid casting of that creature, i undid the draw for turn by putting a random card on the libary, I tapped the lands that were tapped before untapping, undid combat and undid the illegal play (and untap the lands).

and the game followed the exact same way of gameplay without the illegal play. So i would say that decicion was good for this situation :)

Eser, that backup sounds OK (from this distance, that is); I'm curious why the Head Judge was unsure about it?

As Isaac said earlier, you decide between GRV/GRV or GRV/FtMGS - sometimes based on the game state, more commonly the specific effects involved. One thing to keep in mind: for years, the ‘O’fficial answer re: double-GRV was “that's for Path to Exile when they fail to exile it”. Dozens of (not quite) similar scenarios were suggested, the answer was always “nope, that's not (similar enough to) Path to Exile”.

Finally, it became obvious that some other circumstances might warrant double-GRV, and that we we should empower judges to assess those GRVs; after all, so many judges found reasons that convinced them (and often many others) that it probably should be double-GRV. So, we relaxed out stance a bit.

However, if you think about it in the context of “is this similar to Path to (forgot to)Exile?”, it should help guide you to the most appropriate choice.

d:^D

For more information, there is a really good thread about Double GRV or GRV/FtMBS

https://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/42141/

Thanks everybody for clearing this up a little bit more! :-D


The start in the tournament was very rough for me and i did not do too well. (too less instructions on how to do new things, palyers speaking a different language, starting with very low selfconfidence because yeah, thoughts happen…) I think the HJ was very suprised that i came up with this kind of situation and fix. They were, from how i was the rounds before, probably a little sceptical if that was what we should do but I was able to show why i think we should do it and they luckily gave the ok.


Yes, after all what came together here I think I should have given GRV/FtmGS.
That player was not involved in why the illegal play happened itself, even if that effekt was created by their own creature. They did not step in within the appropriate time to stop their opponent and that fits the definition of FtmGS.

Originally posted by Perry Kraker:

For more information, there is a really good thread about Double GRV or GRV/FtMBS

https://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/42141/

awesome, thanks!!! :D