Originally posted by Brook Gardner-Durbin:

I would almost certainly leave the game state as it was and issue the player who cast Prison Realm a GRV - Warning and their opponent a FTMGS - Warning.

The players misresolved the trigger, several turns ago. This doesn't meet the criteria for either a partial fix or a simple backup, so our options are to do a full backup or to leave it as is. Three turns is most likely too much to consider backing up, though I could consider it, depending on the exact board state. That means we're going to leave the game as it is now.

This is different from some auras that have ongoing restrictions, like “enchant blue creature” or “enchant creature you control with power 3 or less” - these are easier to fix, as they just fall off when we check SBAs. In this case, the Prison Realm is not checking continuously, it only checks when it enters the battlefield.

Strongly agree.
I have a concern though:
if you leave everything as is (i.e. the enchantment stays tucked under Prison Realm), each and every judge/spectator that passes by would point out that there's an error.
That would be annoying, wouldn't it?

It would be annoying, yes. But that can’t be helped. However, the annoyance may reinforce the lesson here and ensure neither player misses something like that in the future, so it’s not all negative.

I believe this would be more appropriate as a double GRV, since both players were involved in the error. Otherwise I agree with Brook's answer. Policy doesn't give us any way to fix this other than backing up, and backing up through 3 turns is something that should almost never be done.

Imo, this doesn't fit the pattern for other double-GRVs. The player with
the Enchantment didn't take any action; what GRV did they commit? If you
make this a double GRV, you're making every time a player commits FtMGS related to their own permanent a
double GRV.

pon., 29 kwi 2019 o 09:44 Isaac King <forum-49864-d13f@apps.magicjudges.org>
napisał(a):

Edited Dominik Chłobowski (April 29, 2019 04:22:59 PM)

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

It would be annoying, yes. But that can’t be helped. However, the annoyance may reinforce the lesson here and ensure neither player misses something like that in the future, so it’s not all negative.

- What about leaving the enchantment in exile, but not tucked under Prison Realm? That would be a correct representation, more or less.
- Prison Realm gets destroyed. Would you return the enchantment to the battlefield?

Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:

- What about leaving the enchantment in exile, but not tucked under Prison Realm? That would be a correct representation, more or less.
- Prison Realm gets destroyed. Would you return the enchantment to the battlefield?

Tucking cards like that helps players to remember which cards were exiled by which effects. While everyone does it, it is not a requirement of the rules. Therefore whether a card is underneath Prison Realm, or off to the side of the table, or at 90 degree angle underneath the graveyard, makes no difference from a purely technical point of view. No matter where it is on the table, it is “the card” exiled by Prison Realm.

If Prison Realm is destroyed, I would return the enchantment, as that's how the card is supposed to work. There's no need to make the players' mistake even worse by leaving the card in exile. It's not illegal to have Prison Realm exiling an enchantment (after all, Opalescence is a card! (not in this format thankfully)) - it's only illegal to target one with the trigger.

Returning the card to player if Prison Realm leaves also fits the approach of “leave the game state as it is”. If we made the enchantment stay in exile, then we would be performing a Partial Fix of sorts. A very poor one at that.

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

If Prison Realm is destroyed, I would return the enchantment, as that's how the card is supposed to work.

I agree here. I don't see a reason to further harm the game state by changing how the cards are supposed to work, any further than the players already have.

Originally posted by Dominik Chłobowski:

The player with the Enchantment didn't take any action; what GRV did they commit?

They chose an illegal target for their triggered ability.

Originally posted by Isaac King:

Originally posted by Dominik Chłobowski:

The player with the Enchantment didn't take any action; what GRV did they commit?

They chose an illegal target for their triggered ability.

Think wires got crossed here.

I'm pretty certain Dominik is asking “what did the person who controlled the exiled enchantment do,” not “what did the person who controlled Prison Realm do.” I think it should be unanimous here that Prison Realm's controller is getting a GRV.

Edited Andrew Villarrubia (April 30, 2019 06:53:29 AM)

Just chiming in to confirm that (a) Brook's original post is a fine answer, and (b) this is not an example of double GRVs, as NAP wasn't active in the resolution, they just allowed it - i.e., failed to maintain.

d:^D

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

Tucking cards like that helps players to remember which cards were exiled by which effects. While everyone does it, it is not a requirement of the rules.

I cannot confirm with a quote from MTR or CR right now (pretty sure it's in MTR), but it is actually required by the rules. Players should keep exiled cards together with a source that exiled them if there is any effect that requires info about those cards or could do anything with them.

Originally posted by Arman Gabbasov:

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

Tucking cards like that helps players to remember which cards were exiled by which effects. While everyone does it, it is not a requirement of the rules.

I cannot confirm with a quote from MTR or CR right now (pretty sure it's in MTR), but it is actually required by the rules. Players should keep exiled cards together with a source that exiled them if there is any effect that requires info about those cards or could do anything with them.

From MTR 4.7 Game Layout
If a card is exiled by a permanent and that permanent includes a way to perform additional actions with the exiled card, the association of the two cards must be clear. Keeping the two cards together is recommended.