Julio, Electrolyze dealt 1 damage to two targets, one was Spirit of the Labyrinth, upon recieving this point of damage it was destroyed, that is wrong, because electrolyze does not destroy creatures it deals damage to, no matter if it is lethal damage or whatever.

Edited Thomas Ludwig (Oct. 5, 2014 12:45:56 AM)

Would you consider it an Out of Order Sequencing?
Even more important, and I fear I will be deviating too much from the
original situation; would you be penalizing every single player that
proceeds in the same way?

Now, coming back to the situation:
Electrolyze dealt damage, and he drew a card.
Which part of the spell, letting alone the fact that he was not allowed to
draw, was resolved in an incorrect way?
Follow-up: before putting the drawn card in his hand, was the game state
legal? Why/why not?
El oct 4, 2014 8:41 PM, “Thomas Ludwig” <

Again, Electrolyze does not destroy creatures it deals damage to, that was what Nadia did incorrectly. The game state was illegal once the Spirit hit the yard before the card was drawn, because a creature was put into a graveyard without a reason. Both players could have different thoughts what exactly was happening, it is likely A was expecting that Electrolyze was fully resolved, when he put the Spirit in the yard, but was the spell already in the yard? But I really think this is too far, I would pretty much never give ftmgs penalties in such situations.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Since Nadia has no other cards in her hand, the normal GL for DEC can be downgraded to a Warning.

This isn't true. Read this again:

Joshua Feingold
Nadia draws a card and untaps her lands. Then she looks at her new card and draws again. Arjun stops her at this point and calls a judge.

Nadia has two cards in hand when the judge is called. Does this change your ruling any?

Edit: I deviated a bit too much, now focusing on the scenario:

“Nadia tells you she thought the Spirit was dead before she was supposed to draw for Electrolyze because it deals the damage first. Arjun tells you he thought Nadia's first draw was just shortcutting her draw for the turn, rather than trying to draw from the Electrolyze.”

Given this information I think we can decide two things. One, Arjun knew what should have happened according to the rules and two, Nadia did resolve Electrolyze wrong.

This means there will not be a penalty to Nadia for DEC, nor will there be a FtmGS penalty for Arjun.

There was a misscommunication between the two players and maybe even an OOS when putting the Spirit into the yard before Electrolyze went there.

The solution here is a GPE - GRV for Nadia and a Rewind. I would make sure to explain Nadia how lethal damage / SBA works and if the Spirit hit the yard before Electrolyze I would ask Arjun to not play too hastily.


Edit²: Taking a closer look:
We can argue that Electrolyze was resolving correctly, it dealt 1 damage to Spirit and Arjun and all that was wrong is Nadia´s knowledge about lethal damage. This will still not result in a GPE - DEC, because by the time she drew a card the Spirit was dead and she was obviously thinking that she was still resolving Electrolyze, even though her opponent believed otherwise. We could end up in a GPE - GRV for Arjun, if he put the spirit in the yard before Electrolyze hit the yard, but I think this is just a sort of OOS problem. If Nadia puts Electrolyze in the yard before the spirit, then the spirit is put into the yard and then she draws for Electrolyze this would still be a sort of OOS Problem as well. Us believing in Nadia believing in placing the spirit in the yard before finishing to resolve Electrolyze will always be the GRV that prevents a DEC Penalty, no matter how much OOS has taken place wrongly.

Edited Thomas Ludwig (Oct. 6, 2014 03:53:39 PM)

Initially I would explain a few things for both players. First, explain that the damage itself does not kill a creature, but when the SBA is checked (every time a player receives priority) and the total damage marked on the creature is greater than or equal to its toughness, thus the Spirit of the Labyrinth still on the battlefield until electrolyze resolved completely. Second, I would tell the players to respect the order of the phases / steps and avoid using shortcuts, and say to Arjun that for the next time he think that a player is using shortcuts (draw before untap), ask him/her to do in the right order, which in this case would have decreased the problem.

Having said that to the players, Arjun does not receive GPE – FTMGS, because electrolyze resolved correctly (He attributed the damage, and did not draw) and he called the judge at the time that the mistake occurred, I would not give no penalty for it. As for Nadia, clearly she draw a card when it shouldn’t, even if it was by mistake she draw an extra card, then it is a GPE-DEC. No doubt that the card was drawn in an empty hand, however, Nadia draws another card after the Untap step, what makes impossible to identify the card that was draw illegally for both players, then a downgrade to this penalty isn’t viable. Game Loss to Nadia for GPE-DEC.

Obs: Sorry for my bad English.
Edit: Some problems with english.

Edited Victor Hugo Souza (Oct. 6, 2014 05:36:05 PM)

Regarding OoOS, From MTR 4.3"

…it is acceptable for players to engage in a block of actions that, while technically in an incorrect order, arrive at a legal and clearly understood game state once they are complete…
…All actions taken must be legal if they were executed in the correct order…
…An out-of-order sequence must not result in a player prematurely gaining information which could reasonably affect decisions made later in that sequence…

Since Nadia drew a card she wasn't supposed to it can't be OoOS due to the first 2 statements referenced. That being the case can you still consider applying OoOS fixes?

It can´t be GPE - DEC..

Nadia said that she thought the spirit was dead when she drew. That means she was still resolving Electrolyze after the Spirit was put into the graveyard. So we got to find the Error, but it is not DEC, because in fact, with the Spirit gone, drawing that card is legal. The Error was putting the Spirit into the yard before finishing to resolve Electrolyze and even though Arjun did not intent to put the spirit there before Electrolyze actually had resolved there was no clear communication if Electrolyze already finished resolving or not.

So what Nadia wanted to do was not legal, but the failure was not drawing extra cards, it was “destroying” the Spirit with Electrolyze (and not just dealing 1 damage), the draw itself is legal, as there is no more reason to not draw a card.



About OOS, what happened was not legal and therefor it is no OOS, but you can still call it a failed OOS, just to give that what happened a short name, that´s what I meant with “sorta OOS”

Today, just as every other day, millions of players are putting their spells in the graveyard before finishing following out their instructions. They are also moving fetchlands to their graveyards without tapping them first and are even passing the turn and allowing their opponents to untap and draw for their turns while shuffling after a tutor effect. ¿Are they all committing GRVs? Well… technically, yes. But we allow this kind of play shortcuts in favor of speed of play, as long as everyone involved understands what is happening with the game state.

Furthermore, the vast majority of players are not really interested in understanding the technical intricacies of SBAs and how and when they happen, and that is just as well. Otherwise we would require every player everywhere to announce each and every priority pass.

Also, note that thinking something works in a certain way when it doesn't can never be an infraction. It's only a misunderstanding of the rules, and that's where we come in. On the other hand, taking illegal actions is an infraction and that's also where we come in. ;)

We should deal with the infraction first, and explain the proper rules while we apply the penalties. The symptom for the infraction is that Nadia has more cards in her hand than she should have. Where did the extra card(s) come from? According to her explanation, from Electrolyze. But Electrolyze would have not allowed her to draw the card, and the point at which she should have done so (following the instructions in the card) there was still no GPE. The game state was perfectly legal up to that point. So the only applicable infraction here is GPE-DEC and since we cannot put the extra card back without disruption (because its identity is not known to both players) we cannot apply the downgrade, even if it was originally put into an otherwise empty hand. Nadia gets a GL and the explanation of how things work, along with the reminder to play more carefully in the future.

To me this is a pretty clear definition of drawing extra cards for Nadia. The first time for a player to catch the mistake was when the card entered her hand which is a normally a pretty clear sign that the infraction is drawing extra cards. I dont believe that Arjun receives FtMGS because he called a judge the first time he recognized there was an error with the game, when Nadia drew here second card.

For the fix. Because we are working under the new IPG changes there is a possible downgrade for placing a card into an empty hand:
"If the identity of the card was known to all players before being placed into the hand, or was
placed into an empty hand, and the card can be returned to the correct zone with minimal disruption, do so and
downgrade the penalty to a Warning."
So the question here is, can it be returned to the correct zone with minimal disruption? Since Nadia has already moved to her draw step for the turn and drawn a second card we have no way of verifying the identity of the card she incorrectly drew off the electrolyze. So we have no way of moving the cards drawn to the top of her library in the correct order. This leads me to believe that there is no possibility to downgrade the penalty and Nadia will receive a game loss for Drawing Extra Cards.

Point of interest, people have been using the words ‘uniquely identifiable’ for drawing a card into an empty hand. This isnt the correct place to use the term as it only applied to GPE-GRV. Using the phrase may lead someone to think this is an instance of Game Rule Violation which it is not. The IPG for DEC never says anything about a card having to be uniquely identifiable to be downgraded, it must simply be drawn into an empty hand and can be returned to the correct zone.

Claudio, why is it illegal to draw a Card with Electrolyze when no other effect is denying that?
Nadia already explained to you what Arjun and she did, they were resolving Electrolyze, putting Spirit into the graveyard as it had lethal damage on it, commiting GPE - GRV and GPE - FtmGS and then finished resolving Electrolyze by drawing a Card.

Please explain me why you believe this is GPE - DEC?

Now you might want to argue that this did not happen that way, because Arjun got another Version. But remember, both Versions, while not 100% the same, are true. You should not just decide for one Version and ignore the other..

Besides…

In Arjuns Version Nadia resolved the first part of electrolyze, OOS happened and Arjun put the Spirit into the Yard and then Nadia resolved the rest of the spell, drawing a Card and committing GPE - DEC. Here is a Problem, because part of OOS says:

“…it is acceptable for players to engage in a block of actions that, while technically in an incorrect order, arrive at a legal and clearly understood game state once they are complete…”

obviously putting the Spirit into the graveyard after Electrolyze resolved was not clearly understood by Nadia.
Therefor Arjun could not do this OOS and instead just put the Spirit into the graveyard while Electrolyze was still resolving. This would mean he recieves a GPE - GRV and Nadia will end up with GPE - FtmGS. Oh what an interesting Story this is? :/

Edited Thomas Ludwig (Oct. 6, 2014 10:41:34 PM)

Thomas: How was it visible to Arjun that Nadia had commited the GRV the
proceeded the illegal drawing of a card? I don't believe it was visible and
thus there was no visible GRV before the DEC so we award the DEC infraction.

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Thomas Ludwig <
forum-12960-33ff@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

> Claudio, why is it illegal to draw a Card with Electrolyze when no other
> effect is denying that?
> Nadia already explained to you what Arjun and she did, they were resolving
> Electrolyze, putting Spirit into the graveyard as it had lethal damage on
> it, commiting GPE - GRV and GPE - FtmGS and then finished resolving
> Electrolyze by drawing a Card.
>
> Please explain me why you believe this is GPE - DEC?
>
> Now you might want to argue that this did not happen that way, because
> Arjun got another Version. But remember, both Versions, while not 100% the
> same, are true. You should not just decide for one Version and ignore the
> other..
>
> Besides…
>
> In Arjuns Version Nadia resolved the first part of electrolyze, OOS
> happened and Arjun put the Spirit into the Yard and then Nadia resolved the
> rest of the spell, drawing a Card and committing GPE - DEC. Here is a
> Problem, because part of OOS says:
>
> “…it is acceptable for players to engage in a block of actions that, while
> technically in an incorrect order, arrive at a legal and clearly understood
> game state once they are complete…”
>
> obviously putting the Spirit into the graveyard *after* Electrolyze
> resolved was not clearly understood by Nadia.
> Therefor Arjun could not do this OOS and instead just put the Spirit into
> the graveyard while Electrolyze was still resolving. This would mean he
> recieves a GPE - GRV and Nadia will end up with GPE - FtmGS. Oh what an
> interesting Story this is? :/
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view
> and respond to this message on the web at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/84118/
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/12960/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/12960/?onsite=yes
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/
>



–
Gareth Pye
Level 2 Judge, Melbourne, Australia
Australian MTG Forum: mtgau.com
gareth@cerberos.id.au - www.rockpaperdynamite.wordpress.com
“Dear God, I would like to file a bug report”

I don´t understand why it is important that the GRV was visible to Arjun and why the GRV would be ignored if Arjun wasn´t Aware of it? On the other Hand, was the OOS visible to Nadia? No, as well, so taking this route seems to make us turn around but not proceed with the Problem.

Arjun is as responsible for the mistake that happened as Nadia is. It seems unusual, but Arjun did OOS w/o his Opponent clearly knowing what he was doing (because due to this misscommunication the error was possible), you may not do so, that´s a GPE - GRV, therefor Nadia believed the Spirit was dead before she finished resolving Electrolyze.
It does not matter that Arjun did not intend to put the Spirit into the graveyard before Electrolyze resolved, he did that. He used an OOS the Opponent did not clearly understand and even though I am not too pleased I think Arjun commited the error.

Edited Thomas Ludwig (Oct. 7, 2014 12:22:17 AM)

Thomas: I think another important point to make is that GRV is the catch-all last choice for a Game Play Error infraction. We only apply GRV if we don't have another category which fits better. In this case, the error is Nadia drawing a card when she wasn't allowed, so that's what we have and we don't keep looking for a GRV since we already have a category that fits.

Originally posted by Thomas Ludwig:

It does not matter that Arjun did not intend to put the Spirit into the graveyard before Electrolyze resolved, he did that. He used an OOS the Opponent did not clearly understand and even though I am not too pleased I think Arjun commited the error.

Except that Arjun did not use OOS, he sequenced everything correctly. She cast Electrolyze passed priority, he passed priority back (Saying “sure, still done”), it resolved and dealt 1 damage to the Spirit, he put the Spirit into the graveyard. That is the correct order and not at all “Out of Order Sequencing” as he did exactly what the rules tell him to do. Then, after that, Nadia drew a card, thinking that she was continuing to resolve Electrolyze. Unfortunately for her, with the game state as it was, drawing a card was not a legal part of resolving Electrolyze, and so she has committed the error of drawing extra cards (just like if she had cast Ancestral Recall and drawn 4 cards instead of 3). The fact that she drew it after he put the Spirit in the Graveyard, because of her flawed understanding of the interaction, does not mean that Arjun did something wrong.

Edit: Also note that except for cases of cheating, player intent shouldn't be coloring our Game Play Error infractions. It doesn't matter that Nadia thought she was resolving Electrolyze correctly, what matters is that she did so incorrectly by drawing a card when she wasn't allowed.

Edited Chuck Pierce (Oct. 7, 2014 12:40:14 AM)