Thank you, Sean, for stating it far more clearly than I had time for… :)

Are there plans to modify the IPG to reflect this?

While I personally like the way it was explained, I don’t think it is covered anywhere officially that we can penalize for an infraction and then apply another fix we find suitable.

If you look at what happened in reverse order to apply fixes. essentially backing up . We need to randomize the part that is known. After that there is no other fix needed. The game state has returned being a correct game state.

Edited Nick Rutkowski (March 12, 2014 12:34:27 PM)

There is no policy stated that we need to apply fixes in the reverse order. I don’t see the problem in just treating this as L@EC, penalty and fix. If you recognize that two infractions happened either apply both (penalties and fixes) or apply only one because they have the same root cause.

If you choose to apply only one, why choose GRV in this case if it will create a deviation from policy when applying the fix?

Another way to look at it is that when we back up for a GRV, we return the game “to the point of the error.” At the point of the error, the library was randomized. After the error, the library is not randomized. So in order to return the game to the point of the error, the library should be re-randomized.

Originally posted by Casey Brefka:

Another way to look at it is that when we back up for a GRV, we return the game “to the point of the error.” At the point of the error, the library was randomized. After the error, the library is not randomized. So in order to return the game to the point of the error, the library should be re-randomized.

Except there is notably no provision in the IPG for rewinding a L@EC situation, while there is for DEC. The implication is that L@EC is L@EC, regardless of any GRV that may have led up to it. The overall remedy may be the same either way, but it leaves the question of whether we record this as a GRV, or a GRV+L@EC, because it appears on face that we can't apply a L@EC remedy without an actual L@EC having occurred.

OK, the longhand answers have helped me parse the shorthand ones as they were intended. Everything tracks. Thanks everyone.

Just necroing this post because I was totaly agreed that while playing a shocklands from top with Courser of Kruphix dont let you look at the next card before chosing or not to pay 2 lifes and then…I saw on horific video from someone streaming some Magic Online game…


I give you the link right here…

Originally posted by Pascal Gemis:

Just necroing this post because I was totaly agreed that while playing a shocklands from top with Courser of Kruphix dont let you look at the next card before chosing or not to pay 2 lifes and then…I saw on horific video from someone streaming some Magic Online game…

Magic Online occasionally deviates from the rules of paper Magic. My favorite example is that a Pithing Needle played in a Standard game will let you name Sarpadian Empires, Vol. VII, even though the latter isn't in Standard and CR 201.3 says that you can only name cards legal in the format you're playing. Sometimes (Selvala, Explorer Returned), this is intended, and sometimes (that day that Pillar of Flame didn't exile things), it's just a function of Magic rules being complex to program. I suspect that this is in the latter category.

When players point out that “That's how it works online!” in response to a ruling, I'd recommend advising them that the online behavior is not how it's supposed to work, ask them to continue their match, and tell that you'd be glad to talk with them afterward about why it works the way the rules say it does and not the way it works online.