Originally posted by Alex Moore:

Unfortunately, while the argument could be made, I doubt very seriously that the controllers intent was “I resolve Boon Satyr, it goes to the graveyard.” We can infer due to the normal rules followed for illegal targets on resolution that the player incorrectly assumed the spell was countered and therefore did not resolve it. This is a GRV. The GRV was that he did not resolve the spell. Both players allowed a spell on the stack to just NOT resolve…

If a spell “just does not resolve”, as you suggest, it should be exiled as per Time Stop (the only effect in Magic thus far that allows a spell to “just not resolve”, and as such the precedent-setter in this instance). Based on the fact that the Boon Satyr was not exiled, I would hesitate to agree with your ruling by intent here.

Originally posted by Nick Short:

Are you sure on that? It appears that they thought it went to the graveyard
because it was countered *on resolution*. So the opponent already had the
chance to respond when it was originally cast.

This is a really good point Nick, and it makes apparent a possibly different interpretation of the IPG additional remedy in 2.5. It says that a judge rewind backs the game up “to the point of the error”, and technically that's only to the point where Boon Satyr is actually resolving. Previously, I incorrectly assumed that a judge rewind would rewind to the most recent legal game state before the GRV occurred, and that's when Boon Satyr is on the stack, no legal target, and a player has priority. Depending on your interpretation of “point of the error”, we may only be able to rewind as far as the Boon Satyr's resolution, and resolve it correctly.

You asked if this perspective would change my answer, and I think it would. I seem to have had a fundamental misunderstanding of Judge rewinds, and it seems that the game states are the same.

Lyle Waldman
If a spell “just does not resolve”, as you suggest, it should be exiled as per Time Stop (the only effect in Magic thus far that allows a spell to “just not resolve”, and as such the precedent-setter in this instance). Based on the fact that the Boon Satyr was not exiled, I would hesitate to agree with your ruling by intent here

CR 608.3 states “If the object that’s resolving is a permanent spell, its resolution involves a single step (unless it’s an Aura). The spell card becomes a permanent and is put onto the battlefield under the control of the spell’s controller.”

The spell is a permanent spell, so resolving it would mean putting on the battlefield. Since Boon Satyr never entered the battlefield, I interpret this to mean that the spell never resolved. The spell was on the stack but the players did not resolve it. Instead, they countered it, committing a GRV.

Thanks to Toby, Nick, and others in this thread for the good mental exercise here. I certainly have a better understanding of IPG 2.5 as a result.

Assuming no cheating, the intent of the players isn't relevant here.
They have to resolve the spell correctly (with a judge's assistance if necessary).


I have seen responses that imply that the GRV partial fix exception should not apply here.

Originally posted by IPG 2.5:

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.

Is there any reason that we would treat a Stack->Graveyard mistake (should have been Stack->Battlefield) any different than Battlefield->Graveyard instead of Battlefield->Exile (the example in the IPG)?

-mf

Originally posted by Matt Farney:

I have seen responses that imply that the GRV partial fix exception should not apply here.

IPG 2.5
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.

Is there any reason that we would treat a Stack->Graveyard mistake (should have been Stack->Battlefield) any different than Battlefield->Graveyard instead of Battlefield->Exile (the example in the IPG)?

-mf

At its heart the discussion comes down to what that sentence means exactly, specifically the “is put into the wrong zone” part.

1. If you apply that to the larger game state, we look at Boon Satyr and see that it is in the graveyard whereas it should be on the battlefield, thus yes it is put into the wrong zone.
   
2. If you apply it only to the specific action described as “an object changing zones”, we see a Boon Satyr that went to the graveyard after being countered on resolution, so no it is not put into the wrong zone. That being countered was a GRV itself does not matter for this check. We only check in isolation whether it's put into the wrong zone after being countered upon resolution.
   

At first I thought like #1, but the previous Knowledge Pool taught me to take the IPG very literal so now I lean towards #2.

Edited Toby Hazes (Oct. 28, 2013 06:08:42 AM)

I too used to implement the IPG with a degree of rigidity. I've learned through a bit of a sabbatical, and getting back into Competitive, that this is actually somewhat of an error, and that, as judges, sometimes we have to *gasp* make a judgment call. This, while it really isn't one of them, could be seen as such based on the interpretation of the IPG.

In order to do this, we take a look at the rules for Bestow:

702.102a Bestow represents two static abilities, one that functions while the card with bestow is on the stack and another that functions both while it's on the stack and while it's on the battlefield. "Bestow “ means ”You may cast this card by paying rather than its mana cost.“ and ”If you chose to pay this spell's bestow cost, it becomes an Aura enchantment and gains enchant creature. These effects last until one of two things happens: this spell has an illegal target as it resolves or the permanent this spell becomes, becomes unattached." Paying a card's bestow cost follows the rules for paying alternative costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2e–g.

702.102b If a spell's controller chooses to pay its bestow cost, that player chooses a legal target for that Aura spell as defined by its enchant creature ability and rule 601.2c. See also rule 303.4.

702.102c A spell's controller can't choose to pay its bestow cost unless that player can choose a legal target for that spell after it becomes an Aura spell.

702.102d As an Aura spell with bestow begins resolving, if its target is illegal, the effect making it an Aura spell ends. It continues resolving as a creature spell and will be put onto the battlefield under the control of the spell's controller. This is an exception to rule 608.3a.

The bolded section is the important part, as such, we can safely determine that the Boon Satyr was moved into the incorrect zone, per rule 702.102d. Because of this, Nick is given a warning for GPE - GRV, Alex a warning for GPE FtMGS, Sam a nonchalant pat on the back for bringing the problem to our attention, and the Boon Satyr put onto the battlefield per the IPG section as quoted.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

If the MTR and IPG aren't interpreted in a strict sense every time, it adversely affects the consistency that the overall policy is trying to encourage across all rulings. Yes, a Judge has to be willing to stick his or her neck out there and apply an interpretation when the situation calls for it, but to me this isn't a “gray area” scenario. Nick didn't put a resolving creature spell into the wrong zone. Rather, he let an aura spell get countered by the rules after violating the rules of Bestow.

In order for the spell to be countered the players would have had to violate 702.102d. The spell could just as easily wind up in the graveyard because the players violated 608.3 or misapplied 608.3b. To those arguing that Boon Satyr was countered, I ask, how do you know?



702.102d As an Aura spell with bestow begins resolving, if its target is illegal, the effect making it an Aura spell ends. It continues resolving as a creature spell and will be put onto the battlefield under the control of the spell's controller. This is an exception to rule 608.3a.

608.3 If the object that’s resolving is a permanent spell, its resolution involves a single step (unless it’s an Aura). The spell card becomes a permanent and is put onto the battlefield under the control of the spell’s controller.

608.3b If a permanent spell resolves but its controller can't put it onto the battlefield, that player puts it into its owner's graveyard.

It's Tuesday night, so it's time to wrap things up.

Thanks for another great week of discussion, everyone!

Let's start with the easy part: There was a general consensus that Alex should receive a Warning for Game Play Error - Game Rule Violation and Nick should receive a Warning for Game Play Error - Failure to Maintain Game State. And that consensus was absolutely correct!

Now, how do we fix it? As with all GRVs, we (the HJ) start by deciding whether backing up to the point of the error would be too disruptive to the game. If we decide that backing up is okay, we would undo each action that occurred up until the point of the error. However, based on the amount of actions and decisions made since the GRV, we believe that it *is* too disruptive to back up. So now we look at whether we can apply a partial fix, and we see:

“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.”

There was some great discussion about whether this partial fix applies here. Many of you believed that it doesn't. The reasoning was that the Boon Satyr went to the graveyard because it was incorrectly countered on resolution, not because it was simply placed there accidentally. This was an interesting viewpoint, but ultimately erroneous. The Boon Satyr was changing zones, and it was put into the graveyard instead of onto the battlefield. This fits the above partial fix perfectly.

Put the Boon Satyr on the battlefield, issue the appropriate penalties, and remind the characters to play more carefully in the future.

See you next time for another exciting edition of the Knowledge Pool!