Please keep the forum protocol in mind when posting.

Competitive REL » Post: Planeswalker Statics - double GRV or GRV + FtMGS?

Planeswalker Statics - double GRV or GRV + FtMGS?

June 24, 2019 05:20:21 PM [Original Post]

Tim Boura
Judge (Level 1)

United Kingdom, Ireland, and South Africa

Planeswalker Statics - double GRV or GRV + FtMGS?

Nadia has Narset in play.
Anton draws a 2nd card in their turn
Nadia fails to spot this.

Later on they realize and call a judge (or an onlooker does).

Is the penalty double GRV (as AP failed to follow the game rules by drawing a card, NAP failed to follow the game rules by not enforcing their static ability).
Or GRV-FtMGS as only AP has actually broken the rules.

This can be extended to the other Planeswalker statics such as Teferi that change the rules of the game.

I can definitely see arguments both ways on this and at our most recent tournament the HJ said for consistency at that tournament we should issue double-GRV for these cases. However this does make me worry that this would cause people to fail to call a judge if they already have 1 or more warnings. As I understand it that is the rational between FtMGS not being upgraded - we want people to feel confident to call a judge when they notice a mistake.

Is there any guidance on this available?

I've heard that there is a precedent that “can't draw cards” vs “draw cards” is double GRV but I don't know the details of that precedent. Does anyone know it?

June 25, 2019 02:10:01 PM [Marked as Accepted Answer]

Scott Marshall
Forum Moderator
Judge (Level 3), Regional Coordinator (USA - Northwest), Hall of Fame

USA - Northwest

Planeswalker Statics - double GRV or GRV + FtMGS?

Tim, this was covered in a very recent thread. In that thread, I answered your question, I believe:
To me, the dividing line between ruling GRV with Failure to Maintain Game State (FtMGS), or double GRV, is this: if the AP and NAP are both taking actions to resolve an effect, and it's not done correctly, it's double GRV. If NAP doesn't actively participate in the error, but they don't stop it from occurring, it's GRV & FtMGS.

If anyone missed that thread, it might be beneficial to ensure your notification settings alert you to new threads. Yes, that might be a lot of e-mail, but only a few electrons are ever harmed in the making of millions of emails…

d:^D

June 24, 2019 06:02:47 PM

Àre Maturana
Judge (Level 2), Scorekeeper, GP Team-Lead-in-Training (TLTP)

France

Planeswalker Statics - double GRV or GRV + FtMGS?

Hey Tim,

I am not an official source, nevertheless here are some tips from my policy philosophy understanding.

Double GRV usually implies both players actively taking part of the event that ended up being illegal.
The classic example is Path to Exile and my opponent putting their creature into the greveyard : because of my action, they also did an illegal one.

Now for Narset, there's no active involvement from the player controlling her. Narset is just there and her static ability passively applies. This means that no, Narset issues with her static ability shouldn't be double GRVs.

Although if it makes you feel any better, a player that knows their Narset should be applying and still let's the opponent draw a card without warning them with the purpose of calling a judge to get a ruling on their favor could be cheating, as long as you are convinced they know that this is illegal as well. That's why making an announcement at the beginning of your event with this reminder can be helpful in future investigations.

For your last question I'm not sure what you are referring to.

June 24, 2019 06:43:42 PM

Tim Boura
Judge (Level 1)

United Kingdom, Ireland, and South Africa

Planeswalker Statics - double GRV or GRV + FtMGS?

Yes, playing on without calling a judge would clearly be cheating but nearly impossible to prove.

My initial reaction was GRV+FtMGS but other judges thought it would be double GRV so I thought a discussion would be useful.

June 25, 2019 03:09:43 AM

Francesco Scialpi
Judge (Level 2)

Italy and Malta

Planeswalker Statics - double GRV or GRV + FtMGS?

First things first:

if Anton draws without confirmation, we have HCE.
If Anton asks “draw?”, and Nadia answers “sure”, then we have GRV.

(One of my favorite advices ever is: “always ask for confirmation before drawing extra cards”)

I would go for GRV-FtMGS, since the only player “acting” is Anton.

June 25, 2019 02:10:01 PM [Marked as Accepted Answer]

Scott Marshall
Forum Moderator
Judge (Level 3), Regional Coordinator (USA - Northwest), Hall of Fame

USA - Northwest

Planeswalker Statics - double GRV or GRV + FtMGS?

Tim, this was covered in a very recent thread. In that thread, I answered your question, I believe:
To me, the dividing line between ruling GRV with Failure to Maintain Game State (FtMGS), or double GRV, is this: if the AP and NAP are both taking actions to resolve an effect, and it's not done correctly, it's double GRV. If NAP doesn't actively participate in the error, but they don't stop it from occurring, it's GRV & FtMGS.

If anyone missed that thread, it might be beneficial to ensure your notification settings alert you to new threads. Yes, that might be a lot of e-mail, but only a few electrons are ever harmed in the making of millions of emails…

d:^D

June 26, 2019 02:55:22 AM

Emilien Wild
Forum Moderator
Judge (Level 3), Grand Prix Head Judge

BeNeLux

Planeswalker Statics - double GRV or GRV + FtMGS?

Originally posted by Tim Boura:

Yes, playing on without calling a judge would clearly be cheating but nearly impossible to prove.
When investigating, a judge doesn't need to prove they believe an opponent cheated, they just need to believe they have enough elements to think it's the most likely scenario. You can find multiple ressources on investigation on the judge blog, one of my favourite being this three parts serie.

- Emilien

June 26, 2019 05:48:26 PM

Tim Boura
Judge (Level 1)

United Kingdom, Ireland, and South Africa

Planeswalker Statics - double GRV or GRV + FtMGS?

Originally posted by Emilien Wild:

Originally posted by Tim Boura:

Yes, playing on without calling a judge would clearly be cheating but nearly impossible to prove.
When investigating, a judge doesn't need to prove they believe an opponent cheated, they just need to believe they have enough elements to think it's the most likely scenario. You can find multiple ressources on investigation on the judge blog, one of my favourite being this three parts serie.

- Emilien

Sure, but unless there is a pattern how do you tell the difference between “OP drew despite Narset and I noticed the following turn” and “OP drew despite Narset and I never noticed”?

Unless they just blurt out an admission or something (stranger things have happened) you'd have to stretch pretty hard to get balance of probability into “cheating” here since if they noticed the failure immediately they could call a judge immediately and not get a warning at all. So they by definition have “missed” it and the cheating in this case would be continuing the legitimate “miss” with an illegitimate “miss”.

The actions are identical, you are trying to establish that intent changed at some point between the original error and the judge call…

June 26, 2019 05:54:09 PM

Tim Boura
Judge (Level 1)

United Kingdom, Ireland, and South Africa

Planeswalker Statics - double GRV or GRV + FtMGS?

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Tim, this was covered in a very recent thread. In that thread, I answered your question, I believe:
To me, the dividing line between ruling GRV with Failure to Maintain Game State (FtMGS), or double GRV, is this: if the AP and NAP are both taking actions to resolve an effect, and it's not done correctly, it's double GRV. If NAP doesn't actively participate in the error, but they don't stop it from occurring, it's GRV & FtMGS.

If anyone missed that thread, it might be beneficial to ensure your notification settings alert you to new threads. Yes, that might be a lot of e-mail, but only a few electrons are ever harmed in the making of millions of emails…

d:^D

Thanks, I had read that thread but before your reply was written. I'll stick with GRV+FtMGS in future then unless the head judge says otherwise for their event.

June 27, 2019 03:30:10 AM

Emilien Wild
Forum Moderator
Judge (Level 3), Grand Prix Head Judge

BeNeLux

Planeswalker Statics - double GRV or GRV + FtMGS?

Originally posted by Tim Boura:

Sure, but unless there is a pattern how do you tell the difference between “OP drew despite Narset and I noticed the following turn” and “OP drew despite Narset and I never noticed”?
This is not really the topic at hand here, and I strongly suggest reading up the existing ressources or starting a new discussion on investigation techniques, but for example things that will tilt your judgement one way or the other are previous behaviour in similar situations, how badly the offending player needed the offense to happen to win or not lose the game, any effort made to conceal the offense before, during, or after it was commited, how cooperative the play was the player during the investigation, etc.

Any game mistake can be Cheating, this is not specific to Narset. That's why every judge call is an investigation.

- Emilien

July 10, 2019 01:04:37 AM

Brook Gardner-Durbin
Judge (Level 2), TLC

USA - Northwest

Planeswalker Statics - double GRV or GRV + FtMGS?

In case anyone had missed it, we have an update here. According to the new IPG:

Originally posted by IPG:

If the judge believes that both players were responsible for a Game Rule Violation, such as due to the opponent controlling the continuous effect modifying the rules of the game that led to the Game Rule Violation or a player taking action based on another player’s instruction, both players receive a Game Play Error — Game Rule Violation.

I believe this means that missing the planeswalker static abilities will now result in double GRV.

July 10, 2019 08:49:07 AM

Scott Marshall
Forum Moderator
Judge (Level 3), Regional Coordinator (USA - Northwest), Hall of Fame

USA - Northwest

Planeswalker Statics - double GRV or GRV + FtMGS?

Brook is correct; now, if an effect like that of Narset (opponent can't draw more than once per turn) or Thalia (non-creature spells cost 1 more), is misplayed by the opponent and the controller of that static effect doesn't immediately realize and correct the error, both players will receive Game Play Error - Game Rule Violation. This philosophy recognizes the responsibility of a card's owner to ensure it is played correctly.

d:^D