I am a level one from Las Vegas, NV. I and a few of my Judge program mentors are unsure of the way an M14 effect should be handled at Comp REL. I thought I'd turn here for insight.

Scenario:
Andy and Naomi, comp REL event, Andy's Declare Attackers Step.

Andy declares his Colossal Whale as attacking, and acknowledges the triggered ability of the Whale, targeting Naomi's Bear Cub. The players resolve the triggered ability, exiling the Cub. No blocks, and nothing else relevant happens this turn. On Naomi's turn, she kills Colossal Whale, and both players continue playing, forgetting about Naomi's exiled Bear Cub. Several turns pass, when the players realize that they forgot about the duration of the exile effect on the Cub. Hands fly into the air and you are called.

Upon arriving to the table, both players accurately explain what happened. Neither player has received a penalty of any kind up to this point in the tournament. What infractions and penalties do you give, to whom, and what (if any) additional remedy would be appropriate?

****
My own ruling and concerns follow:

This first part is pretty simple.
I would rule that this is not a missed trigger, as obviously the triggered ability had to be acknowledged in the first place in order to exile the cub. I would rule that Andy, as the controller of the triggered ability that isn't being followed, would receive a GPE-GRV for unintentionally failing to follow a previously acknowledged trigger, and give a warning.

IPG Section 2.1: “Once any of the above obligations has been fulfilled, or the trigger has been otherwise acknowledged, further problems are treated as a Game Play Error — Game Rule Violation.”

This next part is a bit sticky.
THE NEW IPG (July 19, 2013), defines FtMGS as follows:

A player allows another player in the game to commit a Game Play Error involving an effect or action that he or she does not control, and has not pointed it out immediately.

Under this policy, Naomi would only receive a FtMGS infraction if she allowed Andy to commit a GPE involving an effect or action he doesn't control. One of the peculiarities with these new M14 abilities, is that Andy controlled the effect that should have returned Colossal Whale to play, so according to the literal wording of the IPG, Naomi did not commit an FtMGS even though it was her permanent that should have returned. I think most judges would give her one anyway, but (maybe due to ambiguous working in IPG 2.6) that doesn't seem appropriate.

What's potentially even more interesting, is that for additional remedy, I would NOT return the Cub to the battlefield. This is not a delayed trigger that changes the zone of an object, you can't resolve it in that way. Another Level One I have spoken with believes this would fall under IPG 2.1, subheading Additional Remedy, paragraph 2:

If the triggered ability creates an effect whose duration has already expired or the ability was missed prior to the current phase in the previous player's turn, instruct the players to continue playing.

The duration of this ability is up… so…. do we return the cub? No? I don't think so. Ultimately, I decided that since I ruled its a GRV, I have to remedy for a GRV. GRV's must be either backed up completely, or not at all, with a few exceptions. The “object changing zones” clause would apply as an exception:

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.

but it clearly states that it only applies if the ruling was given within a turn of the error, so I would rule that the cub stays exiled.

So ultimately, players are left with Naomi's cub exiled, a *GPE-GRV– warning* to Andy, and no penalty to Naomi.
For some reason, this just doesn't feel like I'm right.

Thanks very much for your time and input.

Alex Moore
Level One Judge
Las Vegas, NV

Edit: I recently re-read the IPG 2.5, where the last paragraph of the section states:

In a situation where the effect that caused the infraction is controlled by one player, but the illegal action is taken by another player, both receive a Game Play Error – Game Rule Violation. For example, if a player casts Path to Exile on an opponent’s creature and the opponent puts the creature into the graveyard, both players receive a Game Play Error — Game Rule Violation infraction.

Does this mean that Naomi would receive a GPE-GRV as well, since it was her permanent?

Edited Alex Moore (July 18, 2013 01:11:27 PM)

Note: this is a great question, seeking an Answer, which I'll be providing … soon. Until then, the topic isn't really appropriate for discussion, so I've closed it.

Alex, you are correct that returning the Bear Cub is not covered by the Missed Trigger section of the IPG, and that it's really an example of “further problems are treated as (GPE-GRV)”.

As for GPE-GRV vs. FtMGS for Naomi - yes. (heh)
I'd go with Failure to Maintain Game State - Andy forgot to return the Bear Cub (hmmm… make sure there's nothing fishy there), and Naomi allowed that to happen. The illegal action - leaving the Bear Cub in the Exile zone - is Andy's, not Naomi's, so your other citation doesn't apply. That's for things like Path to Exile - oh, wait, that's exactly what the IPG says! :)

Now, for the good news: the most common physical action re: Colossal Whale's exile ability is just to slide the creature card under the Whale. When the Whale leaves the battlefield - presto! there's the exiled cards, ready to return! That's how most people will play it, anyway. And those who don't, just need to pay close attention. (And that never hurts, anyway.)

Edited Scott Marshall (July 18, 2013 02:20:09 PM)

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Alex, you are correct that returning the Bear Cub is not covered by the Missed Trigger section of the IPG, and that it's really an example of “further problems are treated as (GPE-GRV)”.

As for GPE-GRV vs. FtMGS for Naomi - yes. (heh)
I'd go with Failure to Maintain Game State - Andy forgot to return the Bear Cub (hmmm… make sure there's nothing fishy there), and Naomi allowed that to happen. The illegal action - leaving the Bear Cub in the Exile zone - is Andy's, not Naomi's, so your other citation doesn't apply. That's for things like Path to Exile - oh, wait, that's exactly what the IPG says! :)

Now, for the good news: the most common physical action re: Colossal Whale's exile ability is just to slide the creature card under the Whale. When the Whale leaves the battlefield - presto! there's the exiled cards, ready to return! That's how most people will play it, anyway. And those who don't, just need to pay close attention. (And that never hurts, anyway.)

While I agree with how most people will play with Colossal Whale and Banisher Priest (since that's how most people play with Angel of Serenity and Fiend Hunter), I don't think it's unreasonable or even necessarily unlikely for the return to be legitimately forgotten, whether because the cards were placed somewhere else or what have you. As I understand the policy, that means a creature that is exiled and forgotten by Fiend Hunter is handled fundamentally differently than one that is exiled and forgotten by Banisher Priest. Are we ok with that?

-Justin Miyashiro
L1 Fort Collins CO

Well, the wording on the cards is quite different. It may confuse players, at least some of them - but that's why we have judges.

It will also confuse some players when someone does the trick of bouncing Fiend Hunter before it's first trigger resolves, thus exiling the target forever. And it will confuse them even more when they try the same trick with Banisher Priest, only to learn that doesn't work…

Scott, thanks so much for the quick reply.

In this application, when the IPG says “…allows another player in the game to commit a Game Play Error involving an effect or action that he or she does not control…” It would mean “Allows Andy to commit a GPE involving an effect/action Naomi doesn't control”?

I always interpreted that clause to mean “allows Andy to make a GPE involving something that Andy doesn't control” I must have had the wrong idea about the definition of FtGMS. Thanks for clearing that up.

The last part of your reply did bring up a philosophical question, however. There's no need to reply to this part if you are busy.

You indicated that putting cards which are in the exile zone underneath a battlefield permanent is a clearer way to play the game. You mention that if players keep the exile zone separate then the players need to pay close attention, and I think we all agree that paying attention is never bad. When judges are educating players on how to play and communicate in tournament magic, should we encourage these trends?

What happens when players need to interact with the exile zone (such as with Pull from eternity)? They would look to the exile zone and see a few choices, and potentially not be able to see the card that is obstructed by Colossal Whale, even though its technically in the same zone as the other cards.

As a vintage player, I always like my exiled cards in the same place, regardless of the effect that put them there. I feel that putting my opponents O-ring on top of my permanent, or allowing my opponent to place my permanent under his/her colossal whale, creates more problems than it solves. People end up with other people's cards in between games, people sometimes touch my cards without my permission, etc.

Because of these personal biases, I always encourage players in my area to play with an organized style, with clearly defined public and hidden zones. Am I letting my own opinions about the battlefield interfere with my ability to guide new players? Should I, as a judge, be more relaxed regarding exiled cards, since many newer players play that way?

Thanks again for your time and responses. It's great to be a part of a community where I and my peers can receive such a high-level response in such a short time.

Edited Alex Moore (July 18, 2013 03:29:08 PM)

Justin, this is very similar to the difference between forgetting to discard for Jin-Gitaxias vs Sire of Insanity. Even though the results are similar, one is a Missed Trigger and the other is GRV, with penalties and fixes varying accordingly.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

It will also confuse some players when someone does the trick of bouncing Fiend Hunter before it's first trigger resolves, thus exiling the target forever. And it will confuse them even more when they try the same trick with Banisher Priest, only to learn that doesn't work…

I thought the rules were updated (610.3a) so that effects like Fiend Hunter and Oblivion Ring will work in the same way Banisher Priest…

On Thu Jul 18 22:32, Gareth Tanner wrote:
>

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

It will also confuse some players when someone does the trick of bouncing Fiend Hunter before it's first trigger resolves, thus exiling the target forever. And it will confuse them even more when they try the same trick with Banisher Priest, only to learn that doesn't work…

>
> I thought the rules were updated (610.3a) so that effects like Fiend Hunter and Oblivion Ring will work in the same way Banisher Priest…

They did not errata the old cards. Hunter and Ring will still behave as they always have with a pair of triggers.

Matt

The trouble as I see it is that judges will be put in the awkward position
of explaining the difference. It largely seems to boil down to a nuance of
the IPG trigger rules vs. the GRV remedy instructions. Because a trigger
instructs a player to return a creature exiled by Fiend Hunter, we will
honor that no matter how much time has expired. However, because an
effect's duration ended and should have returned a creature exiled by
Banisher Priest, our hands are tied by how long ago the error occurred.
The disconnect between the two is a pretty challenging one to explain. Not
impossible, of course, but I would suggest it might be unnecessarily
awkward.

I admit I am uncertain as to the exact wording that would need to be
changed to bring these types of effects into sync, and I don't know that
other examples beyond Colossal Whale and Banisher Priest exist. Effects
like Sower of Temptation are similar in duration but deal with control
effects rather than permanents changing zones, so they're slightly
different. I assume that, if Player A's Sower of Temptation took Player
B's Bear Cub and then died, we would return the Bear Cub to Player B even
if it was missed for several turns?

Joshua, although I see what you're getting at, and I fully understand the
rules implications of the differences, I feel like this scenario has a
major difference. Players have become accustomed to the new Missed Trigger
rules, and more importantly to the idea that if they miss a trigger they
generally won't get that trigger. Thus, failing to discard to Sire of
Insanity viewed through that lens. The difference between Banisher Priest
and Fiend Hunter is the exact opposite in that missing Fiend Hunter's
trigger will result in the creature returning while forgetting Banisher
Priest will result in the creature staying exiled. Those differences will
feel very strange for players, and I don't think it's necessary for those
differences in execution to exist. Again, however, I freely admit that I
do not know what exact wording change would be needed to bring about the
desired effect, or if such a change to the policy documents is viewed as
generally worthwhile. It may well just be a reaction to a new card effect
on my part.

-Justin Miyashiro
L1 Fort Collins CO

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

On Thu Jul 18 22:32, Gareth Tanner wrote:
>

Scott Marshall
It will also confuse some players when someone does the trick of bouncing Fiend Hunter before it's first trigger resolves, thus exiling the target forever. And it will confuse them even more when they try the same trick with Banisher Priest, only to learn that doesn't work…

>
> I thought the rules were updated (610.3a) so that effects like Fiend Hunter and Oblivion Ring will work in the same way Banisher Priest…

They did not errata the old cards. Hunter and Ring will still behave as they always have with a pair of triggers.

Matt

They do but the second trigger doesn't happen if the first one hasn't already resolved, at least this is how I read Matt Tabak's update bulletin.

EDIT: Re-reading it, its the other way around it won't move it if the return ability has already happened.

Edited Gareth Tanner (July 18, 2013 03:46:25 PM)

Gareth, the section Matt Tabak referred to specifically handles Colossal
Whale and Banisher Priest, preventing them from working like O-Ring et al.

Gareth, 610.3a is for things like - oddly enough - Colossal Whale, and doesn't apply to cards like Fiend Hunter.

Colossal Whale has a one-shot effect with an “until” duration - exactly what's described in 610.3. Fiend Hunter still has two triggers. If you check Gatherer, you'll see the one ruling listed for Fiend Hunter - and it's still correct.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Gareth, 610.3a is for things like - oddly enough - Colossal Whale, and doesn't apply to cards like Fiend Hunter.

Colossal Whale has a one-shot effect with an “until” duration - exactly what's described in 610.3. Fiend Hunter still has two triggers. If you check Gatherer, you'll see the one ruling listed for Fiend Hunter - and it's still correct.

Ok, thank you for clearing up my confusion

Fiend Hunter does not have a delayed trigger. It does not get resolved many turns later.