If we decice to rewind the game to the point before the error occured during Adam's previous turn, we need to do (at least) the following:
- Return Mizzium Mortars to Adam's hand and untap the mana he paid to cast it. (This gives Niko info about a card in Adam's hand that might or might not get returned to the deck.)
- Return one random card from each player's hand to the top of their decks.
- Put the Shock back on the stack and tap the land that was paid to cast it.

Keep in mind that if Adam had other cards in his hand when he played the Shock, then there's no telling whether he already had the Mortars in his hand before the error or if he topdecked it on the following turn.

With all these factors to consider, I would not consider a rewind. I would leave the game where it is at the moment, apply state based actions, and have Niko choose a creature type that he wants. I would do nothing to influence his decision, I would simply instruct him to select a legal creature type in the game of Magic right now.

Finally, GPE-GRV for Niko & GPE-F2MGS for Adam.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

With the Mizzium Mortars on the stack: “I intended to name Angel, clearly.”

This doesn't seem fair (in any sense of that word).

That's part of why it's both players' responsibility to keep track of what's going on, because bad things could happen to either of them if things go wrong. Adam was partially at fault for letting the game get into this situation, and now he's put himself at a potential disadvantage. If Niko did this on purpose so that he could just save the choice for something like this then of course that's Cheating, but we don't have any evidence for that being presented to us.

Edited Michael Shiver (Oct. 10, 2013 12:05:22 PM)

Originally posted by Michael Shiver:

Lyle Waldman
With the Mizzium Mortars on the stack: “I intended to name Angel, clearly.”

This doesn't seem fair (in any sense of that word).

That's part of why it's both players' responsibility to keep track of what's going on, because bad things could happen to either of them if things go wrong. Adam was partially at fault for letting the game get into this situation, and now he's put himself at a potential disadvantage. If Niko did this on purpose so that he could just save the choice for something like this then of course that's Cheating, but we don't have any evidence for that being presented to us.

In the post I quoted, a distinction was made between the creature type that Niko had intended to name and the creature type that he would name based on the parameters of the current game state. I was simply clarifying that no such distinction exists, in reality. You are, of course, correct in your further analysis, though =D

A thought:
While technically, the player hasn't named a type for the returned Adaptive
Automaton yet, wouldn't one generally presume that that means he intended
for the choice to remain the same pre- and post-trigger resolution?

Originally posted by Charlotte Sable:

A thought:
While technically, the player hasn't named a type for the returned Adaptive
Automaton yet, wouldn't one generally presume that that means he intended
for the choice to remain the same pre- and post-trigger resolution?

Not necessarily, considering that he now has a beefy, flying angel on the battlefield that he might want to make even beefier and more resilient.

Especially, if we consider that the player may have séen Mortars in a previous game.

hi guys.
my opinion is: back up in this scenario is quite simple and the correct solution, as Nicholas Brown explains in his post. Many of u have talked about strategic advantage that Niko will have because he knows that Adam has Mizzium mortars on hand, but i think that it is even better advantage for Niko letting him make the decission before mortars resolves and making it being a wasted spell for Adam. Anyway, as Toby Hazes told before, 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..
Kind regards

Whether or not to rewind is not decided against whether the partial fix would be easier or fairer; the presumption is that it is in both players' interest to not make rules mistakes. There are only two things to consider when it comes to rewinding: was the error discovered soon enough, and would backing up be too disruptive.

On the second and more important point, even though we do not take the current game state into account for purposes of figuring out if rewinding would be “disruptive,” consider the general case: a card has been drawn and a spell has been cast before the error was noticed. Those were actions made with the erroneous game state in effect, decisions presumably made in light of the error - at least in absence of knowledge that should have been - but neither directly caused by the error. That's what makes rewinding disruptive here - both players have made decisions based on an error that they were both responsible for noticing.

Any remedy, be it a rewind or partial fix, realistically is going to be better for one player than the other. A rewind is far more likely to have unforeseen consequences than a partial fix. Don't rewind thoughtlessly; awful things happen to wizards who meddle with time.

Originally posted by Eric Paré:

If we decice to rewind the game to the point before the error occured during Adam's previous turn, we need to do (at least) the following:
- Return Mizzium Mortars to Adam's hand and untap the mana he paid to cast it. (This gives Niko info about a card in Adam's hand that might or might not get returned to the deck.)
- Return one random card from each player's hand to the top of their decks.
- Put the Shock back on the stack and tap the land that was paid to cast it.

Keep in mind that if Adam had other cards in his hand when he played the Shock, then there's no telling whether he already had the Mortars in his hand before the error or if he topdecked it on the following turn.

With all these factors to consider, I would not consider a rewind. I would leave the game where it is at the moment, apply state based actions, and have Niko choose a creature type that he wants. I would do nothing to influence his decision, I would simply instruct him to select a legal creature type in the game of Magic right now.

Finally, GPE-GRV for Niko & GPE-F2MGS for Adam.

Whether the rewind is too complicated/disruptive or not aside, I do want to inquire - why would we rewind all the way to the Shock on the stack, and not simply to the triggered ability of the Restoration Angel? The error was the Adaptive Automaton not naming a creature type. The decisions made prior to the “blink” effect resolving were all legal and without error.

I would be hesitant to rewind here as well; I'm just curious about the finer points of determining where to rewind to when they do occur.

Edited Rebecca Lawrence (Oct. 14, 2013 03:41:25 PM)

There is a GPE - Game Rules Violation for Niko : A choice must be maked for the creature type. A rool back is too complex to be apply. To remend that, I authorize Nico to make this choice.

Adam is responsible of the game state with Nico. GPE - Failure to maintain game state.

Penality : Warning for Nico and Adam.

Hello judges!

As many of you noticed, the infraction here is a Game Play Error - Game Rule Violation for Adam and the accompanying Failure to Maintain Game State penalty for Niko. The Failure to Maintain Game State penalty can help remind us that it is both players responsibility to keep the game state correct, and because of that, we should not consider which player would gain an advantage in determining how to fix a problem.

As for the resolution, the IPG has a partial fix already listed for a situation like this, in the event that you decide a rewind isn't possible. “If a player made an illegal choice or failed to make a required choice for a permanent on the battlefield, that player makes a legal choice.” Adam did not chose a creature type when his Automation returned to play, so he chooses one right now.

Thank you all, tune in tomorrow for another scenario!

Edited Michael White (Oct. 15, 2013 08:59:22 AM)

Originally posted by Michael White:

As for the resolution, the IPG has a partial fix already listed for a situation like this, in the event that you decide a rewind isn't possible. “If a player made an illegal choice or failed to make a required choice for a permanent on the battlefield, that player makes a legal choice.” Adam did not chose a creature type when his Automation returned to play, so he chooses one right now.

It seems odd that you would mention that and not give guidelines on whether in this particular case you would rewind or not, and based on what. I was under the impression that knowledge pool aimed not only to educate us about documents (although that is in and of itself a laudable goal), but to also show how it is put in practice by giving concrete examples of what should be done (i.e. rewind or not rewind).

In the end, the decision to rewind this scenario or any other is at the discretion of the head judge. I personally think this situation has evolved past the point where a rewind would be acceptable, so I would rule to apply the partial fix. Other head judges may feel differently. For this reason we leave the question of rewinding or not open-ended, and do our best to give you the information you need to carry out every possible solution.

Thanks.
Maybe it's just me but I like having someone from the KP team give their personal ruling, even if it's only a personal interpretation.

Originally posted by Nathanaël François:

I like having someone from the KP team give their personal ruling

Understandable - but there's a very real danger in that. Many have come to see Knowledge Pool as another ‘O’fficial source (and we do strive to only provide officially-approved solutions).

If one of us shares our opinion, it could easily be misconstrued as official.