Welcome to another week of the Knowledge Pool, home of a great deal of knowledge but surprisingly few pools. This week we have a Silver scenario, which means that if you are level 2 or higher, we would like you to wait until Thursday to add your thoughts.

Here's the blog post: http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/?p=977

Apple and Nectarine are playing in a PTQ. Apple controls a Gyre Sage with a +1/+1 counter on it. He casts Chronicler of Heroes and says “Evolve. Draw.”
Nectarine replies "Before Sage evolves, kill her with Orhzov Charm.“
”Sure. Take 3. Draw?“
”Sure.“
Apple draws his card, then looks down and realizes that the doesn't have a creature with a +1/+1 counter anymore.
”Uh oh. Judge!“

What do you do?

Edited Josh Stansfield (Jan. 15, 2014 08:02:07 PM)

Because Nectarine confirmed the draw before Apple could avoid his mistake, it's not Drawing Extra Cards, but a Game Rule Violation for Apple and a Failure to Maintain Game State for Nectarine. Not everyone knows what the extra card in Apple's hand is, so a random one is put on top of his library. Both players receive Warnings.

There could be an argument that Nectarine was only confirming the loss of 3 life, but as the situation is presented that would be a massive “gotcha”, and Nectarine is Cheating if it was purposeful. If it wasn't purposeful and Nectarine simply didn't realize the full implications of “Sure” (or wasn't paying enough attention to the question), then it just goes back to the GRV and FtMGS described earlier.

I agree that DEC isn't acceptable here because the number was confirmed. There's a possibility of cheating if Apple asked about the draw hoping that Nectarine didn't realize the change in board state, but I'd assume this to be the less likely reason. “If the player received confirmation from his or her opponent before drawing the card (including confirming the number of cards when greater than one), the infraction is not Drawing Extra Cards.” IPG 2.3. I'd also want to talk to Nectarine about what she realized was going on when she confirmed Apple's draw. It seems questionable that she responded by casting Orzhov Charm to prevent the card draw, then confirmed the card draw later on; though she may have just been trying to get rid of the Gyre Sage before it got too big. Nectarine trying to pull one over on Apple is a more likely scenario to than Apple trying to pull one over on Nectarine.

GRV - Warning for Apple is suitable for resolving his spell incorrectly even though he got confirmation from his opponent. This isn't a double GRV solution even though Nectarine's Orzhov Charm brought about the confusion, it wasn't the resolution of the Orzhov Charm that cause the GRV it was the resolution of the Chronicler of Hero's trigger. I see some reasons to point towards FtMGS because it's clear that Nectarine allowed “another player in the game to commit a Game Play Error involving an effect or action that he or she does not control” by confirming an incorrect draw. However, the philosophy here doesn't line up because we don't have the game progressing beyond the GRV.

However, I also see that TE-CPV seems fitting here as well. By telling her opponent (Is nectarine female? I naturally assumed that she was) that he may draw a card, Nectarine has indirectly misrepresented derived game information. “Derived information includes: • The number of any type of objects present in any game zone.
•All characteristics of objects in public zones that are not defined as free information.” MTR 4.1. Now Nectarine didn't say “you have a creature with a +1/+1 counter” when this clearly wasn't true. Her response of “sure” was most likely just a pass of priority than a confirmation of a particular game state.

The final option would be to give Nectarine no penalty since all she really did was pass priority back to her opponent. Because the error was caught at the card draw, the game hasn't progressed beyond the point of the GRV taking place and a judge is being called immediately. An error has occurred but the game state hasn't been corrupted by an ongoing error which seems more in the philosophy of a FtMGS. Also I have trouble telling Nectarine that she misrepresented derived information by saying “sure” when she wasn't even asked a question about either free or derived information.

I'm inclined to go with the GRV-Warning for Apple and no penalty for Nectarine unless her story doesn't check out. Nectarine seems to have sort of committed a FtMGS and sort of committed a CPV but I have difficulty totally pinning her down on either one.

As for the fix. With the Head Judge's permission to back up we're going to take one card from Apple's hand and place it on top of his library. “Cards incorrectly placed in hand are returned to the location in the zone from which they were moved (if the identity of the incorrectly drawn card is not known to all players, a random card is returned instead).” IPG 2.5

Edited Marc DeArmond (Jan. 15, 2014 08:02:38 PM)

Originally posted by Marc DeArmond:

By telling her opponent… that he may draw a card, Nectarine has indirectly misrepresented derived game information.

If that were the case, then most problems would carry a CPV along with them I'd think. Didn't have the right mana for that Supreme Verdict? You misrepresented how much mana you had available. etc.

In order to represent something, I think you have to actually represent something. (I really wanted to channel Riki's line on communication, but alas, I am no Riki)

I'd start by asking what led us here, and ask why Apple asked to draw and why Nectarine said yes. Assuming neither of our fruits had fermented into something more nefarious, it's likely they either didn't understand the mechanic or just weren't paying close enough attention.

So, as others have said, GRV/FtMGS. Ask the HJ to let us rewind, which involves putting a random card back on the library if it's not known to both players, or the actual drawn card if it is known and agreed upon.

GRV/FtMGS, since it falls under the DEC exception:

If the player received confirmation from his or her opponent before drawing the card (including confirming
the number of cards when greater than one), the infraction is not Drawing Extra Cards.

Assuming nothing nefarious, ask for rewind permission, take a card at random from Apple's hand and place it on top of library. Remind both players to be more careful. Give them a time extension.

GPE - GRV - Warning for AP
No penalty for NAP, but a caution instead.

Return a card at random from AP's hand to the top of the library. I don't believe permission for a rewind is required here, as no rewinding is occurring, simply a remedy being applied (That doesn't include rewinding)

This is assuming checking for cheating reveals nothing that would warrant calling the HJ to investigate for cheating.

My first thought was… IT'S A TRAP

heh heh, no DEC here as the draw was given permission by the opponent. It is, however, a GRV for Apple (lol) and a FTMGS for Nectarine (these names e_e). Both warnings. The fix; shuffle a random card from Apple's hand into his deck.

Looking back at all the replies now, I don't think cheating is a factor here, especially since he called the judge on himself. Also everyone seems to have said put the random card on top, while I said shuffle - silly me :)

Edited Sal Cortez (Jan. 16, 2014 11:28:21 AM)

This game state could be reached in a legal way if Apple put the triggers on the stack with Gyre Sage's trigger first and Chronicler of Hero's trigger second, then Nectarine Orzhov Charm-ing in after the Chronicler of Hero's trigger resolved but before the evolve trigger.

I interpret the statement “Take 3, draw for Chronicler” to mean a statement about the results of what will happen when the stack finishes resolving, and not necessarily in that order (Out of Order Sequencing seems perfectly reasonable here) by Apple, asking if Nectarine agrees with this result.

The statement “Before she evolves” doesn't specify whether the Charm is cast before or after the Chronicler trigger resolved, but by acknowledging the statement “Sure. Take 3. Draw for the Chronicler?” with “Sure,” Nectarine is affirming Apple's interpretation.

I would issue no warning and make no correction to the game.

Originally posted by Bobby Fortanely:

This game state could be reached in a legal way if Apple put the triggers on the stack with Gyre Sage's trigger first and Chronicler of Hero's trigger second, then Nectarine Orzhov Charm-ing in after the Chronicler of Hero's trigger resolved but before the evolve trigger.

Based on the fact that it is Apple himself who has called us over and the way the scenario was described, it seems like a stretch to claim this is what the players actually thought was happening. I don't see any reason here to ret-con in a (rather unorthodox) interpretation of the ordering of the spells and abilities that happens to work, rather than the one that the players actually intended and executed (putting both triggered abilities on the stack and then the Orzhov Charm on top of both).

Originally posted by Vincent Roscioli:

Bobby Fortanely
This game state could be reached in a legal way if Apple put the triggers on the stack with Gyre Sage's trigger first and Chronicler of Hero's trigger second, then Nectarine Orzhov Charm-ing in after the Chronicler of Hero's trigger resolved but before the evolve trigger.

Based on the fact that it is Apple himself who has called us over and the way the scenario was described, it seems like a stretch to claim this is what the players actually thought was happening. I don't see any reason here to ret-con in a (rather unorthodox) interpretation of the ordering of the spells and abilities that happens to work, rather than the one that the players actually intended and executed (putting both triggered abilities on the stack and then the Orzhov Charm on top of both).

I agree that it's a stretch. My reasoning is that, had I been watching the match and he not called a judge, I would've done nothing. Therefore, I would similarly do nothing when he calls me over.

It's true that the current gamestate is possible with that sequence of events, but that's not what happened. As they played it out, both players finished resolving the Charm before resolving the Chronicler trigger. “Let's pretend something totally different happened” isn't a good approach.

Originally posted by Bobby Fortanely:

I agree that it's a stretch. My reasoning is that, had I been watching the match and he not called a judge, I would've done nothing. Therefore, I would similarly do nothing when he calls me over.

Why would you have done nothing when watching? Do you have a justification for that?

Edited Stephen Hagan (Jan. 18, 2014 05:45:47 AM)

“Evolve. Draw.” and “Take 3. Draw.” make it pretty clear to me what the intended order of the triggers were. Also, it seems odd to involve a card of an opponent in Out of Order Sequencing, and the fact that he hasn't drawn a card before Orzhov Charm (which btw got a Typo in the very first post) makes it pretty clear that trigger hasn't resolved yet.

Time to wrap things up!

The Definition of Drawing Extra Cards in the IPG contains the provision: ”If the player received confirmation from his or her opponent before drawing the card (including confirming the number of cards when greater than one), the infraction is not Drawing Extra Cards.“ Since Apple confirmed with Nectarine before he drew the card, this isn't Drawing Extra Cards.

When a Game Play Error occurs and it isn't another specific infraction, it defaults to being a Game Rules Violation. And, since Nectarine confirmed the erronious play, she also receives Failure to Maintain Game State.

Since the error has just occurred with no subsequent actions taken, the head judge is going to rewind this every time. To rewind a card draw, take a card from Apple's hand and put it on top of his library. Do not shuffle the library.

Shoutout to Michael Shiver for the hole in one!

We also had some dicussion about whether we could invoke some sort of Out of Order Sequencing here. The answer is a definite ”no." While it may be tempting to say that this could exist as a legal game state, neither player believes that legal series of events has occured, and there is no evidence to contradict their understanding.

The Knowledge Pool will be back tomorrow with a new scenario for your consideration.