Hello judges! Here's another fresh Knowledge Pool scenario for you to digest. Enjoy!

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/?p=854

Ares and Nike are playing in a feature match at a Legacy Grand Prix. Ares casts Thoughtseize against the tapped-out Nike, who reveals her hand of Brainstorm, Polluted Delta, Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur, Entomb, and Island. Ares says, “Well, I'm going to take Brainstorm, but hold on while I write this down.” He is quickly jotting down the names of the cards as Nike asks, “You're at 14, right?” Ares checks his notes and says, “No, 16…” “Don't forget the 2 life from Thoughtseize…” “Oh right, yeah, 14.” Ares finishes writing and says, “Your turn,” and Nike picks up her hand, untaps and draws. She plays Polluted Delta, pays 1 life and sacrifices it to get an Underground Sea, and casts Exhume. Ares asks to see Nike's graveyard, and notices Griselbrand is below Polluted Delta, and there's no Brainstorm. He calls for a judge.

Your investigation determines that Nike forgot to discard Brainstorm because she had been waiting for Ares to write down the hand first, then she got distracted by the life total discussion. You believe the error was unintentional. What do you do?

Edited Josh Stansfield (Sept. 19, 2013 04:03:13 AM)

Since the error was unintentional the infraction would be GPE - GRV for both players. The reason both receive GRV's is because it was a spell controlled by one player but required the action of another that was performed incorrectly. Both players receive warnings.

As to the fix, in this case we either back the game up to the point the error occured or we leave the game state as is. Since the card in the incorrect zone is not in a public zone we can not simply have them put it in the correct zone, the game should be backed up (if anything).

As to whether I would back the game up, I probably would not. Though the hand is known to all players, the card drawn is not. Even though by process of elimination we could figure out what that card would be, it states in the IPG “if the identity of the incorrectly drawn card is not known to all players then put a random card back instead.” Since the random card put back could be the brainstorm, and thus make the choice illegal I'd simply leave the game state as is and remind the players to be more careful.

Note - The top card would not be Griselbrand, it would actually be the Polluted Delta that was sacrificed to fetch the Underground Sea. But your question is clear. :)

I would disagree that the identity of the card drawn is unknown. It is
clear that both players had full information about N's hand and its
contents prior to the draw. The only unknown card, therefore, is the one
drawn. The fact that A doesn't know the name, color, etc. of the card
isn't relevant; he knows which one it is. That's what I would see as
important for knowing the identity of the card. If A's known information
is taken into account, he can point to the card in N's hand and say “it's
that one” with 100% confidence, even though it would be face-down/hidden.
I would support backing up in this case.

-Justin Miyashiro
L1 Fort Collins CO

Originally posted by Cris Plyler:

Even though by process of elimination we could figure out what that card would be, it states in the IPG “if the identity of the incorrectly drawn card is not known to all players then put a random card back instead.” Since the random card put back could be the brainstorm, and thus make the choice illegal I'd simply leave the game state as is and remind the players to be more careful.

This is exactly the kind of scenario that the IPG encompasses. We can deduce that exactly one of the cards could have been drawn that turn (the Exhume). I would completely Rewind to the resolution of Thoughtseize (undo the Polluted Delta, put the Exhume on top, and go back to the point in the turn where Thoughtseize was cast). I would not let Ares change his choice from the Brainstorm.

Nike may be upset that his opponent will have more information about what is coming up, but remind both players that this is a by-the-book rewind and having a consistent fix is more fair as a whole than trying to create a custom fix for each and every situation, and that both players share a responsibility in this error having happened, which is why it's a double GRV-GPE.

I dunno, this seems like a pretty clear case where you can apply a partial fix per IPG 2.5:

* If a player forgot to draw cards, discard cards, or return cards from their hand to another zone, that player does so.
* If an object changing zones is put into the wrong zone, the identity of the object was known to all players, and it is within a turn of the error, put the object in the correct zone.

Both players know that Ares chose the Brainstorm, so just discard the Brainstorm.

I wasn't sure if Ares should get a GRV or a FTMGS for this one. Nike should get a GRV, since he failed to discard the card that Ares chose. I thought at first that maybe FTMGS would be more appropriate, since Ares made a correct choise, but it was Nike who didn't carry it out correctly. But after thinking about the "Path to Exile" example, it seems like this is the same kinda thing.

So yeah, final answer: Warning for both players for GPE - GRV, have Nike discard the Brainstorm, thank them for bringing it to my attention, and instruct them to continue playing.

Ah, I forgot the discard rule. Yeah you are right Jack, it would be discarded without backing it up, provided the brainstorm was still in the players hand (which in this case it is).

Warning for both players for GPE - GRV and have Nike discard the Brainstorm.
If the graveyard isn't in the right order(griselbrand above polluted delta), isnt that a FtmGS? Because graveyard order is relevant in legacy.

Apologies for the confusion. I corrected the scenario to indicate Polluted Delta is on top. Graveyard order is not supposed to be part of the question. Thanks! :)

In the event you exclude cheating, a partial fix can be done. GRV for both players, because the one player controlls the spell that requires another player to take an action. (You could technically back as the Exhume is the specific card drawn that turn etc, but lucky for us the partial fix is easier)

I would first start asking questions though:
- Tell me exactly why/how you believe you missed discarding it.
- Did you at any point before casting the Exhume contemplated playing Brainstorm
- Where you at any point aware that this was in your hand before your opponent checked the GY
- Discuss with him the possible advantage he is creating when he would cast Brainstorm his next turn or a couple of turns later

Depending on how he reacts we can fiddle further and go along the path of trying to figure out why he didn't call a judge immediately…

Edited Niki Lin (Sept. 19, 2013 07:56:13 PM)

I think that Nike committed a GPE-GRV because he forgot to discard the card
chosen by Ares for Thoughtseize. Since Ares controlled the effect that
caused the infraction, he has also committed GPE-GRV when allowed Nike to
take the illegal action. The penalty for this infraction is a Warning for
each of them unless they have previously committed any other GPE-GRV. If
they had any other previous infraction, we should check how many previous
GPE-GRV they have taken to assess the correct penalty.
The fix for this situation could be either a complete backup or leave the
game state as is now and apply the exceptional partial fixes.

We could try to do a complete backup because we know the hand Nike had when
Ares resolved Thoughtseize but Nike played a fetchland and searched for a
land which makes it a little more difficult. Also we can just apply one of
the partial fixes that instructs a player to discard any cards he didn't
discard.
So, I think the best and less disruptive fix for this situation is making
Nike discard the Brainstorm.


2013/9/19 Niki Lin <forum-6034-daaa@apps.magicjudges.org>

Thanks for the great responses! Here is our solution.

Nike has committed a Game Rule Violation by failing to discard the chosen card. Since Ares controlled the spell that caused Nike to commit that Game Rule Violation, he gets the same infraction, and both players earn a Warning. Now that we've determined the infraction, what's the remedy?

While this situation involves a few decisions, we might consider asking the head judge about backing up: returning Exhume to hand, untapping the lands used to cast it, shuffling the Underground Sea back into the library, undoing the life payment and putting the Polluted Delta back in hand, putting Exhume back on top (since we know it must have been the card drawn that turn based on Ares' notes), tapping Nike's lands again the way they were at the end of the turn, then going back to the resolution of Thoughtseize to discard Brainstorm.

Be sure the Head Judge understands everything you're proposing when seeking approval for a complex rewind like this. It's easy to miss a single step which can further alter the course of the game.

If you feel that backing up is too complex in this scenario, you should apply the partial fix provided by IPG 2.5:

If not caught within a reasonable time frame, or backing up is impossible or sufficiently complex that it could affect the course of the game, the judge should leave the game state as it is after applying state-based actions and not attempt any form of partial ‘fix’ – either reverse all actions or none, with the following exceptions:
• If a player forgot to draw cards, discard cards, or return cards from their hand to another zone, that player does so.

If you choose not to back up, just have the player discard Brainstorm now, and continue the game from there. (Most of us on the Knowledge Pool team agreed we would not back up in this example.)

Thanks again. A new KP scenario is coming soon!

One additional point that I want to emphasize (yet, not clutter up the Official Solution):
The existence of a Partial Fix should not lead judges to applying that, without/instead of considering a backup. It's ONLY if you determine that “backing up is impossible or sufficiently complex” that you should consider whether one of the (VERY SPECIFIC) Partial Fixes applies.

It's not uncommon for judges to get those out of order, and just apply a Partial Fix instead of even thinking about backing up. Don't be that guy. :)