Mechanically, backing up is simple, so the decision is based entirely on what information has been gained, and what the ‘natural’ state of the game should be.

I think that not backing up results in a game state that is extremely undesirable, where the player that made the illegal play is enabling themselves to play and activate Griselbrand. Even if that was the top card of the library, they should only be able to fully take advantage of it by not countering their opponent's spell.

Back up to the point where Worldslayer is on the stack.

Originally posted by Niko Skartvedt:

On the last part you mention that we won't force the players to kill them. That is true because they have another option that is illegal and will result in a GRV. (battleforge tapping for colorless or targeting an illegal player for the bonfire). But, if instead of a battleforge they tap a city of brass, i said he suicide. And paying 7 life is paying 7 life, if he had 6 we back it up because he can't make partial payments, but he could legally pay 7 life without and illegal option of paying something else.

Dustin: I understand the policy, but I disagree with it. I think that it's easy to get caught up in the minutiae of the rules and forget the broader purpose of them.

I was discussing this scenario with an L2 in my area and he pointed out that the policy against partial fixes is in place for a couple of reasons. One, because two judges might implement partial fixes in different ways under the exact same scenario. Two, partial fixes can lead to players feeling that there is favoritism going on. A solid policy of ‘all or nothing’ prevents any claims of favoritism and ensures that all backups are done uniformly.

But for the former, Niko's solution is elegant and makes sense. You're not backing anything up, you're merely correcting a life total discrepancy. You cannot “screw up” the backup because there's nothing to back up. This is what players do frequently at both Regular and Competitive (having played only once at Professional, I cannot comment on what is the norm there). In fact, this weekend, I can think of several times where, as a player, I discovered a discrepancy between the life total I had written down and the one my opponent had. In each case, we discussed where the discrepancy occured and corrected the life total. It wasn't a matter of backing up to the point where the discrepancy occured, it was simply a matter of fixing the accounting.

This dovetails into the second issue of partial fixes. To my mind, the ultimate goal of judging is to prevent impasses. When both players understand and agree on an interpretation of the rules, they don't call a judge. It's only when there is a disagreement about how the game should proceed that a judge is called. This is because a judge is seen as an impartial adjudicator of the rules. A judge ensures that disputes are resolved fairly and without favor. The most important part of that statement is that things are resolved fairly.

I agree that it's important to avoid the appearance of favoritism. But avoiding the appearance of favoritism is *only* important because favoritism implies unfairness. If I am playing in an event and I'm engaged in friendly banter with a judge, no one is going to complain about me being that judge's favorite player. They will only complain if they think that our relationship gives me an advantage.

The concept of fair play is intrinsic to the game of Magic. It's why there is such an uproar when a well-known player is suspended for cheating. It's why a player will bitterly complain about a ruling that he/she feels is unfair but sheepishly admit to punting when they lose a game due to a ruling that they accept as fair. Fair play, then, should be our ultimate goal.

The official solution does not “feel” fair. If you choose not to back the situation up, you have a player drawing seven (7!!!) cards that they should not have been able to draw. That's a huge advantage and while Anakin will not complain about the ruling, he's going to recognize it as an “unfair” advantage for himself. Nute, of course, is going to complain to everyone and anyone who will listen because he feels (and I'd agree with him), that he got hosed big time. The feeling of both Nute and Anakin will be that the judge “gave” Anakin the game by allowing him to draw a whole new hand worth of broken (this is Legacy, after all). If you do back the situation up, the “unfairness” is less egregious, but if one player or the other changes a decision based on previously hidden information, there will still be a feeling that the remedy applied by the judge was unfair.

Again, in this situation, Niko's solution of resolving the life total discrepancy is elegant because it *feels* fair. Neither player would walk away from that exchange feeling like they were “given” the game by the judging staff. An error was made and while you cannot remove the impact of that error on the game, you have done the most possible to minimize its impact. While it may be incorrect on a technical level (and therefore incorrect to do), it is the solution that best fits a judge's role as adjudicator.

As I told my friend, I understand why the offical answer is correct and I can follow the rules set down, but that does not change the fact that I feel that the rules are wrong and that therefore the offical ruling is flawed (within the context of what our role as judges should be).

Hi Mike,
I feel a bit silly commenting since I got it wrong, and now I'm going to defend the policy, but:

No set of rules could ever be created that get everything 100% fair all the time every time. A case will always come up that someone will see as “unfair”.

I'm reminded of my kids arguing over a toy. One says “You've been playing with it for a while, we need to take turns”, and the other says “Just because you want it now doesn't mean you get it now, you should have grabbed it first!”. When I have to step in, invariably one of them is going to think it's “unfair”.

To me, fair is establishing the rules of play before you begin playing, and then sticking to those agreed upon rules. That's what the IPG is, it's one of the agreed-upon rules for tournament play, so sticking to it is what's fair, even when it does something that feels wrong.

If you want to change the policy, what else would you suggest?

Just to be clear - this is not a life total discrepancy, and should not be thought of as one. A life total discrepancy occurs when the two players have mismatching views on what players life totals should be (or non-matching scorepads). In this scenario, both players agreed that the player was at 8 life, even though that total was achieved through an error.

So then perhaps the answer is a deviation? Or is that only for penalties assessed and not additional remedies? My knowledge of the IPG is less than comprehensive as I just started getting into judging; I'll be doing my first event this Sunday. I did judge for a WotC retail store and for a weekly Type 1 tournament back around the turn of the millenium, but it was a little more wild west at the store level back then.

As adults, our sense of fair play is more developed and refined than a child's. That doesn't negate your point; you're still going to have situations where one side or the other feels that a ruling is unfair, but we should strive for what would generally be considered fair. I think the ‘reasonable person’s expectation' test should be applied. A reasonable person would not consider a player drawing 7 cards that they should not have been able to draw fair. That's really the crux of the situation. If the starting life total had been 10 instead of 8, it wouldn't feel massively unfair to leave the game as is. But the difference between being able to draw 7 cards (without dying) and not being able to draw 7 cards is massive in game terms. So it's less about the need for a change to the rule and more about how the particulars of this case make it something of an exception. On the other hand, I understand why judge rulings are supposed to be made without regard to board state - again you have a desire to maintain consistency and avoid implications of favoritism. Changing the rules based on what effect a ruling will have on the game leads to confusion for players and judges alike. I don't have the answers, I just don't like the solution presented.

I think there is a difference between ‘consistent’ and ‘fair’. My work banned smoking on company property about 2 months ago, after complaints of people littering cigarette butts. It's a consistent policy, but it's not fair to those people who weren't littering. In a broader sense, it's not fair to the smokers as a whole because there are plenty of people making messes in the microwaves and fridges in the break room and the company isn't banning eating on company property. I do believe that consistency in judging is important - players should be able to know what to expect when they call a judge over to their table - but I still feel like fair play is paramount.

In Regular, if a deviation is what you and your players feels the most fair, deviate like hell™.

In Competitive, players need to be sure that the same situation will be judges the same way all over the world. Consistancy is the way to go. If a player feel that a fix is “unfair”, he shouldn't let the game state degenerate in the first place. It's his responsability. If he screws up, we'll fix the game so they can continue playing if we can, and we'll assign penalties, but we're not the ones who messed up here. Our fixes could sometime lead to giving a strategical advantage to a player. That's not a reason for deviation.

Deviations in Competitive are limited to “significant and exceptional circumstances”. There is, unfortunatly, nothing signifiant or exceptionnal about the cost of a spell being incorrrectly played. You'll encounter this kind of situation again and again. And then, either by leaving the game state as it, or rewinding, you'll give a strategical advantage to a player (“No, I won't rewind the Wrath of God played for 3W three turns ago”), because the alternative is to custom-made a ruling every single time, which is not what we want in Competitive. The HJ already have options here, as he can chose to rewind or not.

Again, if a player doesn't want that to happen, he should be sure he and his opponent actualy play Magic.

I think the fact that there are so many opinions on the “correct” action to take is exactly what makes this a “gold” level question. I don't think there's any way everyone will be happy with the end result. Luckily, odds are we will never actually run into a situation this extreme.

Originally posted by Emilien Wild:

In Competitive, players need to be sure that the same situation will be judges the same way all over the world. Consistancy is the way to go. If a player feel that a fix is “unfair”, he shouldn't let the game state degenerate in the first place. It's his responsability. If he screws up, we'll fix the game so they can continue playing if we can, and we'll assign penalties, but we're not the ones who messed up here. Our fixes could sometime lead to giving a strategical advantage to a player. That's not a reason for deviation.

Deviations in Competitive are limited to “significant and exceptional circumstances”. There is, unfortunatly, nothing signifiant or exceptionnal about the cost of a spell being incorrrectly played. You'll encounter this kind of situation again and again. And then, either by leaving the game state as it, or rewinding, you'll give a strategical advantage to a player (“No, I won't rewind the Wrath of God played for 3W three turns ago”), because the alternative is to custom-made a ruling every single time, which is not what we want in Competitive. The HJ already have options here, as he can chose to rewind or not.

Again, if a player doesn't want that to happen, he should be sure he and his opponent actualy play Magic.

Well said, Emilien - you covered a lot of the very points I planned to make.

We strive for consistency because we firmly believe that is fairest to the most players. In an ideal world, players won't grumble about “the crappy judges at Mark's Magic Mansion”, but rave about “the great judges at Scott's Sinporium”. That ideal will likely never be realized - but consistency gets us closer than attempts at situational “fairness”.

Thanks! – Scott Marshall, Magic Judge NetRep, L5, Denver
Seen our wiki? <http://wiki.internationalmagicjudges.net>
Looking for something (judge-related)? <http://www.internationalmagicjudges.net/>