Welcome back to the Knowledge Pool! This week's scenario is rated SILVER, meaning it requires a solid knowledge of the IPG and is appropriate for L1 and newer L2 judges. If you don't fall into that category, please wait a day or so to allow other judges their chance to answer. Good Luck!

Alfred and Mr Nigma are at it yet again, this time at a Legacy GP.

Alfred casts Beacon of Unrest targeting his own Obzedat, Ghost Council, putting the creature onto the battlefield and the Beacon of Unrest in his graveyard. After noting the life total change, he proceeds to his end step and exiles the Obzedat, Ghost Council.

Several turns later, Mr Nigma notices the Beacon of Unrest in the graveyard and calls you over to resolve the situation. During your investigation, you discover that the Obzedat, Ghost Council is still exiled.

What are the most appropriate infractions/penalties/additional fixes?

The blog post for this scenario can be found here: http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/?p=776

Alfred did not resolve Beacon of Unrest correctly and has committed a GPE-Game Rule Violation. Mr. Nigma, by not noticing and calling a judge right away, has committed GPE-Failure to Maintain Game State. Both receive a warning for this. Since the infraction has occurred several turns in the past, there is no option to rewind. Shuffling the Beacon into Alfred's library would be a partial fix, so we don't do that.

In addition, Alfred has also committed GPE-Missed Trigger with regards to the delayed trigger returning Obzedat to play. Since it's a delayed trigger and caused the object to change zones, it is resolved immediately. There is no penalty.

I agree with David, but I have one objection: The Obzedat is not
necessarily returned immediately. Mr. Nigma chooses whether to do it
immediately or at the start of the next phase.


2013/7/17 David Carroll <forum-5069-3e61@apps.magicjudges.org>

David,

That is correct, my mistake!

After investigating, regarding the beacon in the graveyard, I would rule that Alfred has committed GPE - GRV, for not shuffling it back into his library. Mr. Nigma has committed GPE - FTMGS, for unintentionally allowing the beacon to remain in the graveyard. As for remedy, even though multiple turns have passed, I believe that it would not be too disruptive to the game state to shuffle the beacon back into the library. First, I would ask if there were any known cards in the library, such as from a brainstorm, scry effect, etc. Maintain the position of any such cards, shuffle the beacon back in, put the known cards back in place, write out the warnings, and carry on.

Regarding the exiled Obzedat, I would simply ask if it was exiled last turn, or has been exiled since the initial turn it was put into play. If Alfred has not been missing his Obzedat triggers, the fact that it is currently exiled is irrelevant, and game play can proceed after the beacon issue is resolved. (Assuming it's Mr. Nigma's turn) If it is discovered that Obzedat has been in exile for any period longer than Alfred's last upkeep, Mr. Nigma decides whether it resolves immediately, or the next time Alfred would be able to resolve it.

Edited George Bochenek (July 17, 2013 11:31:33 AM)

For Beacon, Alfred gets a GPE-GRV Warning and Nigma gets a GPE-FtMGS for not noticing the Beacon in the graveyard. In this situation, if it's simple enough to rewind, permission from the Head Judge could be sought and the game could be rewound to the point when Beacon is resolving. If it's not, the game state is left as-is and players should continue their game.

Assuming no cheating on Alfred's end for deliberately missing the delayed trigger, for Obzedat, I would refer to IPG 2.1 GPE - Missed Triggers.
Under “Additional Remedy”, quoting:
“If the triggered ability specifies a default action associated with a choice made by the controller (usually ”If you don't …“ or ”… unless"), resolve it choosing the default option. If the triggered ability is a delayed triggered ability that changes the zone of an object, resolve it. For these two types of abilities, the opponent chooses whether to resolve the ability immediately or at the start of the next phase. These abilities do not expire and should be remedied no matter how much time has passed since they should have triggered."
Therefore, Nigma has the decision to allow Alfred to resolve Obzedat's delayed trigger immediately (perhaps it's his turn and he has a sneaky Wrath of God in his hand), or to resolve it at the start of the next phase, and Alfred gets a Warning for this Missed Trigger infraction.

Remember: this scenario “ is appropriate for L1 and newer L2 judges. If you don't fall into that category, please wait”.

Thank you.

Originally posted by George Bochenek:

As for remedy, even though multiple turns have passed, I believe that it would not be too disruptive to the game state to shuffle the beacon back into the library.

Is there anything in the IPG, particularly under the additional remedies section for Game Rule Violations, that supports this (partial) fix?

Edited Eric Paré (July 17, 2013 12:06:31 PM)

Sort of.

The IPG says this much as an additional remedy.

Originally posted by IPG:

• If an object changing zones is put into the wrong zone, the identity of the object was known to all players,
and it is within a turn of the error, put the object in the correct zone.

The question is: Is it worth deviating on the “within a turn of the error” for the sake of “correcting” the game? That is tough to say, and while I believe that it wouldn't be too disruptive to do so (and I wouldn't fault a head judge who chose to deviate), there are far too many decisions that could have been made that were predicated based on the Beacon being in the graveyard (incorrectly). One such example might have been something such as Worldly Tutor for Diluvian Primordial (with intent to cast it and “steal” the Beacon), or Memory Plunder, or any other number of things.

I believe the best course of action is to issue a W-GRV to Alfred for putting the Beacon in the grave and give Nigma a W-FtMGS for not catching it in a reasonable timeframe. Because Obzedat's return trigger is generally beneficial, there is no Warning for Missed Trigger. It is resolved either immediately or at the beginning of the next phase, at Nigma's discretion. This type of trigger has no statute of limitations on resolving it.

Originally posted by Trey Cizek:

The question is: Is it worth deviating on the “within a turn of the error” for the sake of “correcting” the game?

What is significant and exceptional about this case that would indicate we should deviate from the very clearly-written fix?

Originally posted by Vincent Roscioli:

Trey Cizek
The question is: Is it worth deviating on the “within a turn of the error” for the sake of “correcting” the game?

What is significant and exceptional about this case that would indicate we should deviate from the very clearly-written fix?

In this case, I reached the conclusion that it's best not to deviate for reasons I outlined. However, I do not agree that judges should discard their judgement and critical thinking skills as soon as they put on their uniform in favor of a blind reading of written policy.

(Side note: I'm much more inclined to deviate in the reverse scenario - not moving the card even within one turn, if significant actions have been taken which are predicated on the erroneous action leading to the card being in the wrong zone, since I feel there's a lot of potential for abuse on either side.)

Edited Trey Cizek (July 17, 2013 11:59:16 PM)

The reason for having the IPG and a well-established policy is so that the policy can be applied as consistently as possible everywhere. The circumstances of the original situation are pretty tame, so the IPG should be interpreted in the usual way. Because it was noticed “several turns later”, the remedy shouldn't apply.

This is how I would manage this situation.

Alfred has committed GPE-GRV when resolving Beacon of Unrest wrongly
putting it into Graveyard instead of shuffling it into the library. Nigma
has also committed a GPE-FTMGS allowing Alfred's error. They've played
several turns when they notice the error. That's whay I don't think that we
can backup the game without disruption and since we are not within a turn
of the error we can't put the Beacon of Unrest in the correct zone (this is
one of the partial fix exceptions).
Simply shuffling the Beacon of Unrest back in the library may look as a
possible and coherent solution but is not allowed basing on the IPG, we
would deviate from the standard procedures and we are not under exceptional
circumstances to deviate. That fix is neither a complete backup nor a
exceptional partial fix.

Then we have the error of the missed trigger that it is discovered during
the investigation. In this case, Alfred missed his trigger and Nigma didn't
point it out. Since it is a Delayed triggered ability that changes the zone
of an object, we must resolve it. Nigma will choose if the ability resolves
immediately or at the begining of the next phase.
Returning an exiled creature to the battlefield seems not a detrimental
triggered so we should not asses any penalty to Alfred because of this
infraction.

So, Alfred will receive a Warning for a GPE-GRV, Nigma will recieve a
Warning for a GPE-FTMGS and Obzedat, Ghost Council will return to the
battlefield (immediately or a the begining of the next phase, depending on
Nigma decision).


2013/7/19 Michael Shiver <forum-5069-88ab@apps.magicjudges.org>

I would agree with the GPE-GRV for Alfred and the GPE-FtMGS for Mr Nigma. I also do not believe shuffling the Beacon of Unrest into the library at this point would be a good “fix” and would not be in the interest of the game or keeping with the philosophy and intention of the IPG. As has been stated, consistency in our rulings is the best way to keep things fair.

Also, Obzedat coming back from exile is not a may effect, it was supposed to happen at the beginning of Alfreds next turn after he was exiled. Obzedat should either come back then at that point or at the beginning of Alfreds next turn.

Edited Elliot Van Wormer (July 19, 2013 02:04:23 PM)