Originally posted by Clynn Wilkinson:

it easily could have resulted in a game loss.

Nope, there's no Game Loss applicable here.

I like a lot of what you expressed, Clynn - we do want players to call us, and we really don't want them to fear us; we do try to be “minimally invasive” while still maintaining the integrity of the event. And yes, a Game Loss is clearly disruptive…

But, if a Game Loss was the appropriate penalty, please go ahead and be disruptive. Don't let your customer service tendencies talk you out of what the IPG says you should do.
(I know that you didn't actually say you would avoid a GL because it's disruptive, but I worry that others reading that might take the wrong message.)

d:^D

So what's the actual fix here? Leave the game state as is and issue a GRV - W or something? I'm not clear on it at the moment. A rewind would be too disruptive to the game honestly, and at that point we should just leave everything as is given the IPG.

A rewind would be far too disruptive in Astro's favor.

Edited Todd Dalton (Nov. 5, 2014 04:34:45 PM)

Originally posted by Todd Dalton:

A rewind would be far too disruptive in Astro's favor.

Compared to what? (Keeping in mind Section 1.4 of the IPG)

I certainly want to back up here. As noted by Chris (and probably others), the current state of “Nono has been forced to discard a card illegally” is worse than the previous state of “Nono has not been forced to discard a card illegally.” Nono has apparently done nothing of consequence in her turn (especially since it sounds like Astro was on the play), and if Nono has drawn, then by process of elimination, we know which card to put back.

Policy only supports backing up to the point of “error” which I take to mean the Game Play Error which generated the infraction. As noted earlier, failing to fetch is not a GPE - it is just punting. Therefore we only back up to the point where Thoughtseize was cast illegally. Put it back into Astro's hand, refund the 2 life if it was marked down, return Nono's card to her hand, and move forward from there. Astro completes his turn with no land in play (again, I assume this is turn 1).

I get that Astro will want to put a mountain into play, but my read of “error” doesn't support backing up to that point, and I don't consider the situation exceptional enough to deviate from policy.

I would certainly not back up to the point of putting Bloodstained Mire into play.

No FtMGS for Nono, as she had basically no way of knowing about the error before Astro called a judge. I might remind her to be more careful about accepting short cuts that she doesn't know can be legally completed, especially if they involve revealing hidden information.

Originally posted by Tom Wyliehart:

I certainly want to back up here. As noted by Chris (and probably others), the current state of “Nono has been forced to discard a card illegally” is worse than the previous state of “Nono has not been forced to discard a card illegally.” Nono has apparently done nothing of consequence in her turn (especially since it sounds like Astro was on the play), and if Nono has drawn, then by process of elimination, we know which card to put back.

These might be slightly over simplified. The game state is “Nono discarded a card due to an illegal spell, Astro has perfect knowledge of Nono's hand before the start of the Turn, lost two life and doesn't have a Thoughtseize” a back up would be “Nono has a full hand, Astro has perfect knowledge of Nono's hand and has a Thoughtseize in hand to use again when they see fit”

Given the IPG and the current information we have, a turn cycle hasn't passed yet, we CAN rewind, but I personally don't like rewinding this. We have all the information to do so, but it benefits one player far more than the other.

To quote the newly-added section 1.4 for the IPG:

“A good backup will result in a situation where the gained information makes no difference and the line of play remains the same (excepting the error, which has been fixed). This means limiting backups to situations with minimal decision trees.”

There's no “minimal decision tree” here. The entire direction of the game would change purely based on that perfect information. Based on that, I'm saying we should leave it as is. The failed fetchland isn't an error, it's a gameplay mistake.

Originally posted by Todd Dalton:

So what's the actual fix here?

A lot of good discussion here, and plenty of opinions on how best to fix it - but there isn't any sort of ‘O’fficial answer forthcoming.

Please do keep in mind that Nono isn't the innocent victim here; he acted on an assumption, rather than check the facts first. Important lesson to learn: wait for the fetch land's resolution before you accept that the Thoughtseize will resolve. Sure, it seems like a foregone conclusion, he's just gonna find a Swamp, and then Thoughtseize resolves, so let's jump ahead and save time… whoops.

I will confirm that Astro gets a GRV (casting Thoughtseize without correct mana), and Nono's assumption earns a FtMGS.

I'll also note that, if we back up to the point of the error, it's where Thoughtseize is announced with no way to pay for it; cracking the fetch land happened after that (illegally, during the announcement of the spell). So Astro has Thoughtseize in hand, a fetch land on the board, and Nono has revealed the contents of his hand (which would once again include the card he discarded). We wouldn't force Astro to activate the fetch, but he could still do so if he chose. We also won't back up to before he played the fetch land from hand, and allow or force him to play the Swamp instead.

Whether or not that's the best solution - well, consider the arguments presented here, and the next time something like this happens to you, you'll be prepared to deal with it.

d:^D

I am very surprised by the FtMGS here. Isn't Astro's play a perfectly acceptable Out of Order Sequencing if he does have the Swamp in his library?
My first instinct would be to encourage players to accept this kind of shortcut in order to play faster. A FtMGS goes in the opposite direction.

100% agree with Florian, incentivizing players not to accept this type of
time-saving shortcut seems really bad.
On Nov 6, 2014 7:40 PM, “Florian Horn” <

I would back-up to the point prior to Thoughtseize being cast (Bloodstained Mire in play), and issue GPE-GRV (Improperly Casting Thoughtseize). I would not issue FtMGS to Nono.

4.3 Out-of-Order Sequencing

Due to the complexity of accurately representing a game of Magic, 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.

Do we arrive at a legal game state ?
I dont think, so this situation dont fit with OoOS.

Edited Pascal Gemis (Nov. 7, 2014 07:30:41 AM)

@Pascal: While that is true, it's not obvious to Nono whether or not the OOS will arrive at an illegal game state until the shortcut is executed. In order to avoid FtMGS, Nono has to call a judge as soon as it's possible for them to discover the error.

I am very new, and this conversation has really helped me understand how we use the IPG.

The question I have is to all the judges who would have given Nano the FtMGS.

Why would you say that not giving the FtMGS is incorrect?

Since player A's block of actions did not arrive at a legal game state, OoOS cannot be applied here. Thus we rewind the game to the first illegal action Player A took and undo that action, which was casting Thoughtseize without paying its mana cost. That means Bloodstained Mire is still in play, Player A still has Thoughtseize in hand and did not lose 2 life, Player N returns whatever card was discarded back to their hand, and Player A plays out the rest of their turn before they played the Thoughtseize. Player A is given a Warning for GPE - GRV, and Player N is reminded they don't have to reveal hidden information to their opponent until they are sure the opponent has completed all legal actions of casting the spell or using an ability.

There's no reason players should allow themselves to be duped by the old “Thoughtseize you, oops no Swamp, just kidding!”. Even if it means we discourage players from taking shortcuts when it comes to fetchlands, which mind you are very different from Evolving Wilds in that the mana they are getting are often times immediately relevant before the turn passes.

Edited Kainoa Pestana (Nov. 7, 2014 12:26:02 PM)

Originally posted by Kainoa Pestana:

There's no reason players should allow themselves to be duped by the old “Thoughtseize you, oops no Swamp, just kidding!”. Even if it means we discourage players from taking shortcuts when it comes to fetchlands, which mind you are very different from Evolving Wilds in that the mana they are getting are often times immediately relevant before the turn passes.

The ‘old’? How much does this happen really? In my mind/experience, it's not worth all that time that could be saved to prevent a few incidents like this.
I always try to save time like this when I play and I encourage others to do the same. Some players are uncomfortable with it and that should be respected but otherwise, great, no loading screens =D
The way I see it this is a bit like that time all triggers had to be explicitly announced when they triggered. There's ‘technically correct’ and there's ‘natural/pleasant way of playing’. Sometimes you have to let the second one win.