(L1) In a competitive REL Environment, Adel, during his turn on his main phase, casts Brainstorm. In response, Noel activated his Aether Vial vialing in Spirit of the Labyrinth. Noel passes priority back to Adel. Adel resolves Brainstorm and draws his 1st of 3 cards. Noel calls a judge saying Adel has drawn extra cards. Assuming Adel forgot about Spirit of the Labyrinth and did not intentionally do it, what penalty should be given to Adel? Thanks in advance!

PS: I'm expecting a few players to use this scenario to steal games from their opponent. I just want to be prepared. Thanks!

EDIT: If I give Adel a game loss, wouldn't it be too harsh or just right?

Edited Kevin Chong (Jan. 30, 2014 12:02:45 AM)

Moved to Competitive REL.

Daniel Kitachewsky
L3, Paris, France
Rules NetRep

Although the situation changed between the casting and resolution of the spell, this looks very clear. If Noel had somehow tried to conceal his Vial/Spirit, that would be another matter, but he didn't.

Adel has “illegally put one or more cards into his or her hand”. There was no other error or CPV. Adel did not confirm the draw. This is textbook DEC. The penalty is a Game Loss. As a simple textbook case, there is no reason to downgrade.

Game Loss for Adel (with advice to pay attention when people Vial in response to your spells, and to confirm draws with the opponent…).

Originally posted by James Winward-Stuart:

Although the situation changed between the casting and resolution of the spell, this looks very clear. If Noel had somehow tried to conceal his Vial/Spirit, that would be another matter, but he didn't.

Adel has “illegally put one or more cards into his or her hand”. There was no other error or CPV. Adel did not confirm the draw. This is textbook DEC. The penalty is a Game Loss. As a simple textbook case, there is no reason to downgrade.

Game Loss for Adel (with advice to pay attention when people Vial in response to your spells, and to confirm draws with the opponent…).

Noted, thank you very much!

Originally posted by James Winward-Stuart:

Although the situation changed between the casting and resolution of the spell, this looks very clear. If Noel had somehow tried to conceal his Vial/Spirit, that would be another matter, but he didn't.

Adel has “illegally put one or more cards into his or her hand”. There was no other error or CPV. Adel did not confirm the draw. This is textbook DEC. The penalty is a Game Loss. As a simple textbook case, there is no reason to downgrade.

Game Loss for Adel (with advice to pay attention when people Vial in response to your spells, and to confirm draws with the opponent…).

Assuming that NAP hadn't hidden or somehow lied about effects of Spirit, yes, that's true, DEC and GL. A hard lesson to learn. I'm sure next time Adel will look carefully to that Spirit :)

In competetiv the players are supposed to know the rules and if not they should call a judge and ask for it.
Ap didnt take the Spirit in account. So he drew one card and gets a Gameloss for DEC.
Priority was passed and the AP could have seen and read the spirit before drawing. So just follow the IPG and do what you have to.

Since everybody agrees on the infraction and the penalty in the proposed scenario, please allow me to ask a couples of other questions with some slight variations, because I was given conflicting pieces of information about them and I would really like to get more insight about the philosophy behind.

A) Noel activates his Aether Vial vialing in Spirit of the Labyrinth, then Adel asks him "May I draw for my Brainstorm now?“. Is Noel compelled to answer such a question? If so, is he compelled to answer The Whole Comprehensive Truth? (here: ”Brainstorm resolves but you will not draw, due to my Spirit“)

B) Same as A. Let's say Noel answers malevolently ”I pass, resolve your Brainstorm“, which Adel believes to be a confirmation to draw. Adel draws an extra card, Noel calls a judge and tells him the whole truth about his malevolent answer, honestly thinking he was just acting as a competitive player (nefariously but legally). Should the judge take it as a confirmation for drawing, as did Adel (thus not a DEC), or not (DEC)? Did Noel commit an infraction here? (if so, which one?)

C) Noel activates his Aether Vial vialing in Spirit of the Labyrinth, then Adel asks him ”May I resolve my Brainstorm now?“. Noel answers ”Sure!", which Adel believes to be a confirmation to draw. Adel draws an extra card, Noel calls a judge and tells him the whole truth about his answer. Should the judge take it as a confirmation for drawing, as did Adel (thus not a DEC), or not (DEC)? Did Noel commit an infraction here? (if so, which one?) Does it depend on whether Noel thought that Adel was aware of the Spirit's effect (thus thinking he would not draw, spontaneously), or if Noel was aware that Adel might be unaware of the Spirit's effect and thus may have been about to commit a DEC?

Thanks by advance for your help.

Originally posted by Loïc Hervier:

Since everybody agrees on the infraction and the penalty in the proposed scenario, please allow me to ask a couples of other questions with some slight variations, because I was given conflicting pieces of information about them and I would really like to get more insight about the philosophy behind.

A) Noel activates his Aether Vial vialing in Spirit of the Labyrinth, then Adel asks him "May I draw for my Brainstorm now?“. Is Noel compelled to answer such a question? If so, is he compelled to answer The Whole Comprehensive Truth? (here: ”Brainstorm resolves but you will not draw, due to my Spirit“)

B) Same as A. Let's say Noel answers malevolently ”I pass, resolve your Brainstorm“, which Adel believes to be a confirmation to draw. Adel draws an extra card, Noel calls a judge and tells him the whole truth about his malevolent answer, honestly thinking he was just acting as a competitive player (nefariously but legally). Should the judge take it as a confirmation for drawing, as did Adel (thus not a DEC), or not (DEC)? Did Noel commit an infraction here? (if so, which one?)

C) Noel activates his Aether Vial vialing in Spirit of the Labyrinth, then Adel asks him ”May I resolve my Brainstorm now?“. Noel answers ”Sure!", which Adel believes to be a confirmation to draw. Adel draws an extra card, Noel calls a judge and tells him the whole truth about his answer. Should the judge take it as a confirmation for drawing, as did Adel (thus not a DEC), or not (DEC)? Did Noel commit an infraction here? (if so, which one?) Does it depend on whether Noel thought that Adel was aware of the Spirit's effect (thus thinking he would not draw, spontaneously), or if Noel was aware that Adel might be unaware of the Spirit's effect and thus may have been about to commit a DEC?

Thanks by advance for your help.

A. In the proposed scenario, if you add confirmation from the opponent (“yes draw”) you would fall into GRV territory instead of DEC. Being a rule violation you can't consciously go that way, so no, Noel can't hide the rules. Doing this willingly is Cheating.

B. That's DEC, Adel can (and, unless a counter respond to it, must, actually) resolve that brainstorm. The way that brainstorm is resolved is modified by Spirit of The Labyrinth. Nothing illegal happened before the actual DEC, that's why it's DEC.

C. Still DEC, look at B.

EDIT: it's maybe worth mentioning Game Rules are derived information, so “Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly.” (from MTR4.1).

Edited Andrea Mondani (Jan. 30, 2014 07:18:59 AM)

I was discussing the finer points of the DEC exception clause with another judge this past weekend myself. While clearly the circumstances will vary depending the details of any particular case, as a general rule I do not believe that acknowledging a spell on the stack or any other game action that results in a card draw is the same thing as acknowledging the card draw itself.

If Adel said “Ok, draw for brainstorm?” and Noel says sure, then we're probably looking at an exception case - in both of the other circumstances I would be hard pressed to award the exception to Adel, and would be issuing a game loss for DEC.

So in the case of A, I don't believe Noel is compelled to say anything at all, but what gets said in this situation will matter a lot as to what happens afterward.

In addition, the only infraction I see Noel can ever be awarded here would be an FtMGS in case A if he fails to stop Adel from drawing cards (to go along with the GRV for Adel, since we aren't in DEC but a game rule was still violated should that happen) - in the other cases, his answer is, as we say, “not particularly sporting”, but he hasn't broken any game rules or tournament policies that would garner him an infraction that I can tell.

Originally posted by Andrea Mondani:

EDIT: it's maybe worth mentioning Game Rules are private information, so “Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly.” (from MTR4.1).

You surely mean Game Rules are derived information

Originally posted by Sebastian Stückl:

Andrea Mondani
EDIT: it's maybe worth mentioning Game Rules are private information, so “Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly.” (from MTR4.1).

You surely mean Game Rules are derived information

Very obviously, yes (I'd better edit that slip of the tongue) :>

Shouldnt it be a GRV since he resolved the brainstorm incorrectly?

Originally posted by Johannes Wagner:

Shouldnt it be a GRV since he resolved the brainstorm incorrectly?

Well, Drawing Extra Cards is indeed a violation of game rules, just like all the Game Play Errors. However, the specific “Game Rule Violation” infraction only applies when a more specific GPE infraction doesn't fit. In this case, DEC fits, so that is the appropriate infraction.

Originally posted by Josh Stansfield:

Well, Drawing Extra Cards is indeed a violation of game rules, just like all the Game Play Errors. However, the specific “Game Rule Violation” infraction only applies when a more specific GPE infraction doesn't fit. In this case, DEC fits, so that is the appropriate infraction.

Thanks for the clarification.

We discussed this situation at the Portland Judges meetup last night.

The agreed-upon penalty is DEC, which fits. A few of us mentioned that making an announcement at the beginning of a Comp-REL tournament would be a good thing. “There is this card which adds a new twist to the game.”

When issuing a DEC, I would also speak with the Spirit of the Labyrinth controller and ask them to take some responsibility; for example when a draw spell is on the stack. They aren't going to let their opponent take-back the spell, but they can still make for a friendlier event.

I think if the same player has had multiple opponents game loss themselves due to SoTL, we should begin a different investigation.