Originally posted by Sam Sherman:

to all the people who are worried about punishing technically correct play
of the arbor elf player: he just cast trostani for GGGGW. this player is
not playing technically correctly.

I think the concern was that when treating the 2 scenarios differently, if he played sloppily he'd get the rollback. But if he tried to play precisely (and made a mistake in the process), it might not get rolled back. So if you treat them differently, you are punishing him for trying to play correctly.

As a player, I'd find that extremely discouraging, and inconsistent with what we're supposed to be trying to do.

I think there shouldn't be a problem to untap the elves as well, you could also assume that the situation is not that the player tried to play Trostani with an incorrect combination of mana, but that the player tried to untap a plain with the elf. In the later, the GRV would be on the activation of the elf ability, thus rewinding the whole situation.

Whatever the approach you take, I think the quid of the question passes through thinking that, while using the elves, most of players incorrectly (technically) use the ability to cast spells but that implicitly, both the player and the opponent use a shortcut to go over the steps tap land, tap elf to untap land, tap land again, cast spell, whereas, when using the O-ring there is no mutually implicit agreement on assuming the shortcut of casting O-ring, resolves, target FOO with its triggered ability.

From my point of view, untapping the elves would be consistent when backing up the situation.

Wow, quite the discussion here!

From a technical perspective, you can't use the Arbor Elf's ability during the casting of a spell, you have to “float” mana and then use the Elf before you announce a spell.

So, from that same technical perspective, the player who taps the Elf after announcing Trostani gets to unwind everything that was illegal, while the player who used an Elf correctly does not.

And you're all right - that really doesn't seem fair.

If I'm Head Judge of a local event (say, a GPT or PTQ), then I'd be inclined to deviate, and rewind the entire thing - and then educate the player on how to do it correctly, and why.

If I'm Head Judge of a GP or PT, I won't set that precedent; I'll stick to the technically correct solution. (And still educate the player, if they'll let me.)

One thing to keep in mind, however: no matter which order the player did things, he still failed to think through his actions before making a mistake. It would be quite simple to avoid this whole snafu, if he simply checks his mana before he takes any actions - and, he'd have the bonus side-effect of not revealing Trostani from his hand… (heh)

And, by rewinding all actions - whether technically correct to do so, or not - isn't necessarily the best customer service. For one, you've rewarded sloppy play (again, no matter which order he did things); for another, you've told the entire tournament that you'll do so. Be very careful with that one…

Personally I think I'd be more inclined to rule that the player who tapped his Arbor Elves after announcing the spell was using out-of-order sequencing to speed up gameplay, and I wouldn't rewind tapping the Elves. I'm not really partial to the idea of untapping the Elves in either case, though, except at an FNM or other similar Regular REL tournament.

Originally posted by Emilien Wild:

Why do we allow players to untap their mana sources when applying a fix for illegally casting a spell or activating an ability, even is tapping their mana sources is, by itself, a perfectly legal play?
My understanding is that, in case of rules mistakes, we want to fix the game in the most organically way possible, and leave the game state as close as possible as it was before the core mistake happened.

From my understanding, this was initially (and wisely) introduced, so that it doesn't make a difference whether you tap lands before or while playing a spell. The Magic rules allow us to untap lands tapped while illegally playing a spell, but not to untap lands tapped before playing the spell. This doesn't make a lot of sense, therefore we have this procedure.

Back on topic: Personally I believe both allowing or not allowing to untap the elves to be fair rulings. I would not overrule either ruling by a floor judge (except for consistency's sake). Personally, I probably would not allow untapping the elves, though. The comparison to the O-Ring situation sways me.

For the record, do we care that this player passed priority with mana in his pool without announcing that mana?

The reason some abilities are “mana abilities” and some are not is that the opponent can respond to regular abilities. In most cases, Arbour Elf is used as a mana ability simply because your opponent is not going to respond to it. If your opponent does not respond to it and the targets remain legal, there is no difference between a mana ability and a non-mana ability. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, we can treat it like a duck.

Just like I'm not going to pass priority every upkeep, I'm not going to pass priority when tapping my arbour elves. If you want to stop me, you will have to speak up.

Niko

In this situation is it not relevant that they declared casting the spell before activating the Arbor Elves which the player cannot do while drawing mana from mana abilities so that is where the GRV would have occured before the Arbor Elves had even been tapped? Or do we just assume this to be OOS, which is still an illegal action (because they would have needed to target a Plains in order to cast the spell) for the at least one Arbor Elf and therefore a minimum of one should be rewound?

Originally posted by Niko Skartvedt:

For the record, do we care that this player passed priority with mana in his pool without announcing that mana?

The reason some abilities are “mana abilities” and some are not is that the opponent can respond to regular abilities. In most cases, Arbour Elf is used as a mana ability simply because your opponent is not going to respond to it. If your opponent does not respond to it and the targets remain legal, there is no difference between a mana ability and a non-mana ability. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, we can treat it like a duck.

Just like I'm not going to pass priority every upkeep, I'm not going to pass priority when tapping my arbour elves. If you want to stop me, you will have to speak up.

Niko

So what happens if Nina wanted to respond to Andrew's activating Arbor Elf by removing the Forest with some sort of instant land destruction and its the same sequence of plays(Andrew taps 2 Arbor Elves, 2 Forest, and 1 Plains to play Trostoni) Would we unwind this too? Seems real bad for Nina.

Originally posted by Frank Rodriguez:

So what happens if Nina wanted to respond to Andrew's activating Arbor Elf by removing the Forest with some sort of instant land destruction and its the same sequence of plays(Andrew taps 2 Arbor Elves, 2 Forest, and 1 Plains to play Trostoni) Would we unwind this too? Seems real bad for Nina.

This strikes me as a completely different scenario. NAP would be interrupting the shortcut, meaning AP wouldn't have the opportunity to incorrectly cast Trostani.

Originally posted by Frank Rodriguez:

So what happens if Nina wanted to respond to Andrew's activating Arbor Elf by removing the Forest with some sort of instant land destruction and its the same sequence of plays(Andrew taps 2 Arbor Elves, 2 Forest, and 1 Plains to play Trostoni) Would we unwind this too? Seems real bad for Nina.

I think this is where you have to apply some judgment in how the situation is handled. Especially when players approach the games in different fashions; with one realizing the “technical” difference and playing accordingly, whereas the other player is going strictly for the “functional” elements. In which case, you may have to rule that you can't rewind Arbor Elf's ability, and the player has mana in pool.

But, I think that goes to the point that, with every ruling, you have to approach the situation in a somewhat open fashion and use judgment to handle things. While we have several sections of the MTR that help us deal with situations, and even guidence in the MIPG when it comes to deciding upon (and ultimately handling) infractions, there is still the human element that we very much need to realize and apply. In some cases, there is no “correct answer”, just a “best answer” given the circumstances.