This was an interesting interaction that happened at a Regular REL Legacy tournament that I asked on the Judge IRC that I felt would be interesting to see other judges' opinions on the fix for the situation.

Andy is playing Reanimator and Nathan is playing Counterbalance at a Legacy tournament ran at Regular REL.

During Turn 1, Andy casts Gitaxian Probe, choosing to pay life to cast it. Nathan marks the life total change, but Andy, interested in taking a peek at Nathan's hand and drawing a card, forgets to mark his life total change.

Fast forward to Turn 4, we find Andy at 17 according to Andy's Lifepad and 15 according to Nathan's. Andy casts and resolves a Reanimate targeting a Griselbrand in his own graveyard. Once Reanimate resolves and his life loss is recorded, Andy looks at his lifepad, realizing he's (incorrectly) at 9 life decides to activate Griselbrand's activated ability. He marks his life change to 2 and looks to his opponent for any responses, his opponent says, “So you're dead?”

This is when you get called over to the table.

Some judges say that no fix should be applied, as Andy had enough life required to activate the ability and the players would continue on to the next game/report the match to the scorekeeper. Other judges say that due to the educational nature of Regular REL tournaments, the game state should be rewound back to the point prior to the activation of the Griselbrand ability and the life total discrepancy should be fixed.

Thoughts?

Edited Kris Ferderer (Oct. 13, 2014 02:08:16 PM)

Regular events can have different levels of education, and I could see the call going either way.

I'm curious about the communication involved here… and why life total changes don't seem to have been announced.

In this case, with the info at hand, I'm inclined to let it be taken back because there was no information gained off this, and I don't think it's likely his opponent was planning his future win based on him deciding to kill himself with Griselbrand. (or if he did, we're having a MUCH different conversation, because that tells me he probably noticed the discrepancy)

While it's true that he made a legal play, this doesn't fall in the “player didn't understand the implications of his action” kind of thing where we often side with “we don't stop bad plays” thinking. I think the “communicate clearly” lesson for both players (1 for almost losing, the other for not getting a free win he as hoping for) is better than “be vague in the hope of a free win” lesson that might come otherwise.

Though at competitive, I would not rewind this. I'd also explain that to them, and why.

At Regular REL? I'd snap rewind. One player is making decisions based on incorrect information. I'd use this as a very good opportunity to remind him to take the time to correctly record life totals so as not to run into this situation in the future. I'd also remind Nathan that if he spots a life total difference, he should bring it up so that it can be corrected. And that situations like this can easily be avoided by announcing your new life total every time it changes.

Life totals are free information and decisions based on incorrect free information are worthy of a rewind. I would be inclined to use this as my reasoning for rewinding at Comp Rel also.

Originally posted by Nick Rutkowski:

Life totals are free information and decisions based on incorrect free information are worthy of a rewind. I would be inclined to use this as my reasoning for rewinding at Comp Rel also.

My understanding is that this would only be justification for a rewind at Competitive if Nathan had given Andy incorrect free information (i.e. there's been a Tournament Error — Communication Policy Violation). I can't find any policy supporting a rewind based on Andy's error alone.

(Setting aside for the moment that the discrepancy SHOULD have come up earlier at some point) From a policy-making perspective, Andy having his own life total incorrectly recorded can't reasonably be used as a justification for a rewind. It is a problem he's brought on himself, and it could reasonably be used to ask for a takeback on just about anything.

This incident is pretty clear. But what if Andy was at 9 but thought he was at 11, and activated Griselbrand only to be Lightning Bolted in response? Do we use the “I thought my life total was different” as a reason to rewind? It becomes very difficult to handle these cases in a consistent way once we start deviating.

Let's keep this one to Regular REL guys - if people think this discussion is interesting enough for its own thread in the Competitive REL forums, then go for it.

Regarding this situation and Regular REL, we should be looking to the JAR for help. We have some guidance to do with the expectations of players and the environment that you as a judge want to foster (or, that the players want). That is, if your playgroup is perhaps more casual, a fair deal of education and a probable backup as alluded to above is more than likely.

If your playgroup is more competitive, especially given that we are playing with top-tier Legacy decks, here, it may be prudent to educate while not fixing - the actions taken were legal, and players noticing that they have different life totals is not necessarily a problem as long as they can come to agreements on how the life was lost - here; it's clear how that happened. As Glenn eloquently points out above, would you rewind for any life total discrepancy, whether relevant or not? It's a slippery slope.

In short, there are multiple routes to multiple end points, as you alluded to in your original post. I know that in my playgroup, I would want to foster the more casual atmosphere at an FNM, but that is by no means definitive. There are a lot of events that are Competitive REL in all but name, and those environments do need to be considered. In any case, Andy will learn a lot about the importance of recording life totals, announcing them, and ensuring that things are done methodically - it could be a close call, or it could have just lost him the match.

Edited Jack Doyle (Oct. 13, 2014 08:44:11 PM)

I think Jack gave a really nice answer.
Depending on the competitive atmosphere of your regular event, you may or may not rewind the situation.

If there's one thing that should happen, whatever your choice about rewind is, is to educate your players about life totals and communication.
A life pad and pen are a better way to count life totals than a spindown for exemple, and everytime you lose life, you should have a mutual confirmation with your opponent of the life totals. In this case, something like “I lose 7 to draw 7 cards, i'm at 2 right ?” and Nap: “mmh nop, you're at 0 if you do this”. As it's a regular event, to this point even in a “competitive” FNM, NAP would agreed with a rewind most of the time.