Originally posted by Chuck Pierce:

Nicolas Mihajlovic-Gendron
If you believe AP skipped his draw step, the card he drew after playing a land would be GPE-DEC and would result in a game loss? I don't believe that the GRV commited when AP skipped his draw step can be considered the root cause for the card drawn after playing a land. He skipped a draw, played a land, then illegaly drew a card.

In any case, I would still tend to treat the situation as if AP played a land during his upkeep, but I'm open to new ideas.

If she skipped her draw step, then she committed a GRV prior to drawing the extra card, so the infraction cannot be DEC. It doesn't matter whether skipping the draw step was or was not the “root cause for the card drawn,” all that matters is that she had already committed a GRV before drawing the extra card.

So, in this case, it doesn't really matter whether we decide that the player skipped her draw step, played a land in her main phase, then drew for her turn; or played a land during her upkeep and then drew for her turn. In both cases the infraction is a GRV (and the GRV happens prior to the card draw so we don't run into DEC). The justification changes what we write on the slip, but from the standpoint of the infraction, penalty, and fix, it's the same either way.

I personally would request a backup in this situation, regardless of whether the card was revealed or not. If it was, we can do a clean backup by putting the most recent card back on top, then the land (and adjusting the life totals accordingly) and have the player start their draw step correctly. If the card wasn't revealed, it's a bit messier because we have to take a random card from Anna's hand to undo the card draw, but I feel like that is less damaging to the game state than letting Anna keep the extra card she drew as a result of clearing a land off the top before drawing.

I would like confirmation about that. From what I read and what seems logic to me, the IPG says the card has to be putted in hand as the result of a previous incorrect action. If you take this situation as if the player simply drew an extra card during his main phase, then none of the prior GRV led to it.

The phylosophy behind giving a game loss for DEC is that ''Though this error is easy to commit accidentally, the potential for it to be overlooked by opponents mandates a higher level of penalty''
If any unrelated GRV commited prior (no defined timeframe) to the draw transforms it into a GRV, it would oppose that phylosophy.

-Hey did you just draw two cards?
-Eeee… yes but I forgot to untap this creature, so it's a GRV.

If I could get an official answer about this issue it would be awesome and would prevent me from doing more judging mistakes during my next events.

Originally posted by Nicolas Mihajlovic-Gendron:

I would like confirmation about that. From what I read and what seems logic to me, the IPG says the card has to be putted in hand as the result of a previous incorrect action. If you take this situation as if the player simply drew an extra card during his main phase, then none of the prior GRV led to it.

The phylosophy behind giving a game loss for DEC is that ‘'Though this error is easy to commit accidentally, the potential for it to be overlooked by opponents mandates a higher level of penalty’'
If any unrelated GRV commited prior (no defined timeframe) to the draw transforms it into a GRV, it would oppose that phylosophy.

-Hey did you just draw two cards?
-Eeee… yes but I forgot to untap this creature, so it's a GRV.

If I could get an official answer about this issue it would be awesome and would prevent me from doing more judging mistakes during my next events.

From the definition of DEC in the IPG:

IPG 2.3
A player illegally puts one or more cards into his or her hand and, at the moment before he or she began the instruction or action that put a card into his or her hand, no other Game Rule Violation or Communication Policy Violation had been committed, and the error was not the result of resolving objects on the stack in an incorrect order.

(Emphasis mine) So if a GRV had occurred before the extra card was drawn, then it doesn't fit this definition. While there is a small chance of a player leveraging that to avoid a GL, they also run the significant risk of getting a DQ for intentionally breaking the rules for an advantage.

Originally posted by Chuck Pierce:

Nicolas Mihajlovic-Gendron
I would like confirmation about that. From what I read and what seems logic to me, the IPG says the card has to be putted in hand as the result of a previous incorrect action. If you take this situation as if the player simply drew an extra card during his main phase, then none of the prior GRV led to it.

The phylosophy behind giving a game loss for DEC is that ‘'Though this error is easy to commit accidentally, the potential for it to be overlooked by opponents mandates a higher level of penalty’'
If any unrelated GRV commited prior (no defined timeframe) to the draw transforms it into a GRV, it would oppose that phylosophy.

-Hey did you just draw two cards?
-Eeee… yes but I forgot to untap this creature, so it's a GRV.

If I could get an official answer about this issue it would be awesome and would prevent me from doing more judging mistakes during my next events.

From the definition of DEC in the IPG:

IPG 2.3
A player illegally puts one or more cards into his or her hand and, at the moment before he or she began the instruction or action that put a card into his or her hand, no other Game Rule Violation or Communication Policy Violation had been committed, and the error was not the result of resolving objects on the stack in an incorrect order.

(Emphasis mine) So if a GRV had occurred before the extra card was drawn, then it doesn't fit this definition. While there is a small chance of a player leveraging that to avoid a GL, they also run the significant risk of getting a DQ for intentionally breaking the rules for an advantage.

We just don't interpret “at the moment before” the same way I guess. I don't want to get off topic so I won't continue this conversation here, but you can move it to comp REL if you want to.

Edited Nicolas Mihajlovic-Gendron (March 3, 2015 08:55:42 AM)

Chuck's interpretation is correct - the GRV doesn't have to be the cause of the card draw (although that's most common).

d:^D

Alright, thanks for the reply

After a great week discussing the fine points between Game Rules Violations and Drawing Extra Cards, we are ready for the answer. The first area to address as part of our investigation is to clarify the situation. In this scenario, it was stated that no cheating was involved, so we need to focus on what other aspects of the IPG may apply and investigate what the players believed to have happened.

Many of you correctly identified that there were several problems that occurred. The first incorrect action was that Anna played the revealed land from the top of her library prior to drawing a card for the turn. Anna has committed a Game Play Error – Game Rules Violation (IPG 2.5).

The next action Anna performed was to draw a card for the turn. However, the Courser of Kruphix requires the player to play with the top of their library revealed, which was not performed after the revealed land was played.
A number of you also correctly pointed out that because a Game Rule Violation had been committed, this should not be a Game Play Error – Drawing Extra Cards (IPG 2.3).

Anna has committed a Game Rule Violation and the best solution is for the Head Judge to authorize a backup. Because the incorrectly drawn card was unknown, a card should be taken at random from Anna’s hand and placed face down on her library. The land that was incorrectly played (and known to both players due to being face up on the library) should then be placed on top of Anna’s library and turned face up per the Courser of Kruphix. If Anna’s life gain from the Courser of Kruphix was recorded, that also needs to be corrected as part of the rewind.

While we recognize the card returned from Anna’s hand to the top of her library may not be the one that was drawn, this is an acceptable fix and the chance of Anna gaining any advantage is extremely small.

Though Anna performed several incorrect actions, they were performed in one continuous action and should result in only one penalty. A Game Play Error – Game Rule Violation should be issued to Anna. No penalty is assigned to Nicole as she called for a judge immediately (IPG 2.6). When issuing the penalty, the judge should verify if Anna has received any other previous penalties in the tournament.

Thank you to everyone who participated this week. We look forward to seeing your discussion in tomorrow’s scenario.

May I ask why the answer was ninja-edited with no comment? Many
people will have seen the conclusion to the thread and missed the fact
that the second answer mailing contradicts the first, with no comment
thereupon.

If you're going to change the answer, please explain why and own up. :)

On 4 March 2015 at 14:12, Lee Fisher
<forum-16513-366b@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

Thank you Devin Smith for asking what happened about the ninja-edited conclusion. This is my explanation and apology for any confusion that may have resulted.

In the process of developing the KP scenarios and solutions, a number of revisions are often performed to ensure the content and solution are appropriate for the intended lesson. In the process of revising and submitting my solution to the KP team, I accidently copy-paste posted a very DRAFT solution to the wrong forum (this one instead of the KP team). Within about 5 seconds I deleted the post that was left on the wrong forum, thought it was truly deleted, and posted the draft solution to the KP team. The internet has a great memory and it appears that at least some people saw that DRAFT.

The draft incorrectly incorporated a few aspects that were being discussed for the resolution. In short, I misunderstood one of the draft resolution comments and somehow managed to talk myself down the wrong path (two GRV's).

The correct answer is the one posted on 3/3/15 at 10:11:59 PM.

Hopefully this answers any confusion and satisfies the *owning up* request.
I do not often use forums and made a mistake. Maybe you can down grade my internet shame penalty =)

Thanks for the answer, Lee! I have just one question:

Originally posted by Lee Fisher:

While we recognize the card returned from Anna’s hand to the top of her library may not be the one that was drawn, this is an acceptable fix and the chance of Anna gaining any advantage is extremely small.

Is it possible to elaborate further on why this fix is acceptable here?

I understand that the chance of Anna getting any advantage is small, however I'm concerned about the chance of Anna getting a disadvantage:

• The random card we return to the top of her library might be a nonland card that Nicole hadn't seen before.
  
• The card Anna is about to draw for her turn (once the back-up is implemented as described) is the land that she incorrectly played.
  
• The card that we return at random is going to be revealed by Courser of Kruphix's ability immediately after Anna draws that card.
  

So we are potentially removing a spell that Anna had in her hand all along, from her hand for her full turn and her opponent's next full turn (if the randomly returned card is not a land). The card we return will also be revealed, which feels like it exacerbates things.

I can begin to see how the back-up is acceptable, I'm just wondering if you (or other judges) have any guidance to help me get over that lump in my gut that is worried about the risk of wrecking Anna's hand for a full two turns. Thanks again!

Edited Mani Cavalieri (March 12, 2015 02:55:52 PM)