I've dicussed this with some judges, but maybe discussion should be more worldwide.

I'm interested if you would be comfortable with giving out penalties for breaking really hard rules (like the ones found at L2/L3 tests), that you can't really expect a normal player to know.

Let me get you an example:
You control 5/5 trample token and opponent controls Gavony Ironwright and is at 6 life. You attack with the token, opponent blocks with Ironwright and you both mark 1 damage to player and opponent puts his Ironwright to his graveyard (not that Irorwright is already 2/8 when SBA are performed).

Would you be comfortable giving GRV Warning to a player for that error (or even harder)? Would you give a GL for 3 error of that kind? Would you upgrade even further? Where do you think we should draw a line? I'm aware that those errors are rarely caught, but in case that happens it would be awesome to have a guideline for that.

Jernej Lipovec, L2, Slovenia

Yes, I would give a warning and expect you to do the same.
That's the point of a warning: to warn a player that he did something wrong and educate not to do it in the future.
If he makes the same mistake 3 times, it means he was warned twice already. He should absolutely get a game loss.

Besides, I actually expect players to call a judge and ask if Gavony Ironwright dies or not in this scenario.

I don't see a need to make any difference between breaking a rule that is
easy to understand and one that is more difficult.
When you break a rule, you commit an infraction and deserve a penalty.

Making a distinction between “easy” rules and “hard” rules will certainly
cause a lot of inconsistency between judges.

-Richard Drijvers


2013/11/21 Jernej Lipovec <forum-7158-3d50@apps.magicjudges.org>

Well everything correct here, no warning at all, since Ironwright would only pump other creatures he WILL die and the token will trample over…
Despite I'd also make no difference at all between hard and easy rulings. Therefor we have the IPG telling us how to penalize which infraction.

Gavony Ironwright doesn't pump itself, but we can easily imagine the kind of scenario you're talking about.

The comp rules and the IPG don't differentiate between “easy” rules and “hard”/“cornercase” rules. In this scenario, who decides what subsection of the rules players are supposed to know? This leads to inconsistencies in rulings where one judge thinks “the players should have known that” and another thinks “I can't really expect the players to know that”. That's why deviating from the IPG is exceedingly rare - consistency is important. Everyone is treated equally no matter where they play.

I would be very comfortable giving out warnings for errors made involving little known sections of the rules, and upgrading as appropriate. However in situations like this where the rules aren't as clear cut to the players, how you deliver the ruling becomes far more important. I would take a moment to explain exactly why the creature didn't die (continuous effects and state based actions etc). This takes away any of the ‘sting’ that getting a Warning might bring.

An encounter like this is rare enough that it will stick in both players' memories, so it's unlikely to reoccur and get upgraded anyway.

In the end, I think if you operate by the IPG, and are courteous in your interaction with the players, then there won't be any issues, and you won't need to worry about “crossing lines”.

Absolutely. I gave out Warnings for misunderstanding Humility interactions last weekend.

The reason we give out Warnings isn't to punish people who “should have known.” It's to track errors and help people remember that ruling (or to call a judge when they are unsure).

Yep, definitely apply the IPG equally for easy or hard rules infractions.

But the difficulty of the rules can affect your investigation. If a player is intentionally making a mistake, to gain advantage, but protests “I had no clue it worked that way!”, it's easier to believe when it's a complex rules scenario.

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

An encounter like this is rare enough that it will stick in both players' memories, so it's unlikely to reoccur and get upgraded anyway.

You seem to imply that GPE:GRV would only be upgraded if the error was the same in all cases. But the way I read the IPG the third GRV should be upgraded, no matter what the mistakes were.

IPG 2.
A third or subsequent Warning for a Game Play Error offense in the same category should be upgraded to a Game Loss.

That is all I could find on upgrading penalties for GPEs. Neither here nor in IPG 2.5. GPE - GRV does it say to only upgrade if the mistake was the same.
And while I agree that we should not differentiate between “easy” and “hard” rules, in this situation giving a GL to a player who happens to have committed two completely unrelated GRVs before seems quite draconic.

But maybe I misunderstood something or didn't look in the right place?

The upgrade path is for repeated infractions, regardless of the specifics of those infractions.

A player who commits a third GPE-GRV will receive a Game Loss, even if all three involved different Game Rules being Violated.

I really don't want to decide on my own what rules a player in a competitive REL event can reasonably be excpected to know. If judges started doing this, players would start blaming the individual judges instead of blaming the IPG, which wouldn't help the atmosphere of the tournaments.

I actually think that a warning doesn't really hurt you, so I wouldn't be uncomfortable giving a warning for a game rule violation in a very complex situation. If you get enough warnings to have your penalty upgraded, we're not talking only about breaking the “hard” rules anymore. Needless to say that determining the rules a player can't reasonably be expected to know would be very difficult.

Edited Jasper König (Nov. 21, 2013 02:45:53 PM)

Thank you guys for contributing to this topic. It seems there is not much to discuss her, since you have an uniform opinion about it which complies with mine as well.

What I also see as a biggest problem is what Jasper said (If judges started doing this, players would start blaming the individual judges instead of blaming the IPG).

The fact here is that those hard rules that are hard to spot are just that - hard to spot. Therefore players don't even notice them to raise some questions or call a judge and almost never get penalized. That's probably the reason that we don't really need to put a lot of though in it, because it never actually showed up in practice.

Also sorry for the mistake in scenario, hope you all got the idea from it :)

It's been my experience that taking the time to educate players to recognize and understand complex scenarios has a more positive impact on them than the negative impact they perceive when they get a Warning.

Give them the penalty, explain why the ruling is complex, and why you have to issue the penalty if they object. Deliver it well and it's good customer service. They'll appreciate it.

Edited Evan Cherry (Nov. 21, 2013 05:37:14 PM)

I'd suggest too that players are pretty used to getting warnings for rules
they either didn't know or forgot about, and most won't even know you
consider the rule obscure or complex enough that you didn't think they
would know it. Simply explaining it and delivering the warning if
appropriate will frequently be sufficient for players to be satisfied, and
also educated.

Originally posted by Julien de Graat:

And while I agree that we should not differentiate between “easy” and “hard” rules, in this situation giving a GL to a player who happens to have committed two completely unrelated GRVs before seems quite draconic.

Why is that draconic? Players are not supposed to have “committed two completely unrelated GRVs” at all. The GL is not for this one GVR but for all those GVRs combined.

If you're playing at Comepetive REL, you're on 2 GRV warnings, and a
situation happens in which you don't know what the correct outcome is, and
you are arrogant or naive enough to decide to press ahead as if you do know
what the correct outcome is without checking with a judge, and somebody
notices your mistake and calls a judge about it, then yes, I think a GL at
that point is totally reasonable.

Paul Smith

paul@pollyandpaul.co.uk