Hello Judges

The next situation happened to me past saturday in a Modern PPTQ. It was Albert first main phase and Nathan had a Leonin Arbiter in the battlefield. Albert taps all his lands to cast a Solemn Simulacrumand resolved it´s triggered ability. After Albert choosed the land he noticed that he didn't payed the extra mana and that he didn't had enough mana to pay for it. He then called a judge and I stepped in. He explained to me what happened. I identified the problem as a he didn't paid the extra cost for the ability. I fixed it by shuffling the deck and issued a Warning by GPE - GRV. RIght after I exposed the situation to a fellow L2 judge in the floor and he told me that if it was his call he would consider it a GPE - L@EC.
I was worried and went to the Head Judge with the situation. He said that I made the right decision. After a few rounds the HJ told me that maybe L@EC was a better decision, because it's a more specific error.

So, which of the penaltys is the correct one?
thanks for the help

Edited Tiago Lopes (Feb. 24, 2015 10:21:19 AM)

Hi Tiago,

I believe that you are correct. I'm pretty sure that if any infraction was commited that was the result of a GPE - GRV you are supposed to give a GPE - GRV and fix it if possible.

Matt

GPE-GRV is a catch-all for less specific infractions than the other GPEs.

First line of LEC: “A player looks at a card they were not entitled to see.” Didn't pay 2? Can't search your library to see the hidden face of the cards.

In this case, I think LEC is applicable and therefore more specific than GRV. Personally? I wouldn't sweat it if you ruled GRV.

Leonin arbiter creates a new game rule, “players cant search libraries”. By searching his library Albert has thus committed a GPE-GRV. Had the error been caught during the resolution of the ability I could see a L@EC however at this point it is a GRV. this seems like a simple back up so that is what I would do.

Evan's analysis is spot-on (no surprise!), and I agree that assessing GRV while applying the L@EC remedy is fine.

Arguably, the opponent should get Failure to Maintain Game State (FtMGS) for this, as they didn't stop the player from searching until after the land was chosen and put on the battlefield. If you're going to maintain a legal game state, you have to act a bit quicker than that. (If I believe that the search happened too quickly for the opponent to respond, then I'd skip the FtMGS.)

d:^D

Interesting thanks guys. It seems my understanding of the philosophy of the GRV was flawed. :)

Thanks a lot for the help!

Tiago

Hi Scott, if I would like to pick your brain on a different angle. I understand that you are choosing the more specific infraction here instead of the catch-all GRV, especially since the first line of L@EC fits the situation so well, but I see another argument for GRV here.
It is my understanding that one of the reasons behind giving penalties is to track specific behavior from players and we would like to educate them as to not commit the same mistake repeatedly. It seems to me that, in this case, he is looking at extra cards because he broke one of the restrictions enforced by a card on the battlefield. In a sense, the L@EC was a consequence of a subsequent GRV and, as such, shouldn't the penalty reflect what originated this behavior?
Especially since upgrades are predicted in the IPG for repeated infractions of the same nature, I see some benefits in recording that the player was not aware of all the rules affecting the game at that point in time. L@EC I think is a better fit for more accidental situations like errors of dexterity or absent minded actions, whereas here he actually meant to search at his deck because he thought he could.

Thank you very much in advance

I want to issue a GRV here. While AP was not supposed to be searching his library due to the Arbiter, the root cause of the problem is very much a GRV. Also, with L@EC, we shuffle, give some penalties, maybe a time extension, and move on with our day. With a GRV, we have the option to rewind, which I would very much like to do here, considering how trivial this rewind is, (stick the land back in the deck, shuffle) and how corrupted the gamestate would be otherwise.

I understand the concept of the final ruling but I'm not convinced. We have an illegal action that is the root cause of everything. This action was to search for cards in the deck. To look for extra cards is only a direct consequence of this action.

Take the case of drawing extra cards. If there’s a preceding GRV or CPV the infraction is not DEC.

For me this situation is the same but with L@EC instead of DEC. Or I’m missing something here?

Originally posted by Nuno Falcao e Cunha:

I understand that you are choosing the more specific infraction here

Nope - all I said was “I agree with Evan” - both that it's a neat, clean fit for L@EC, also that it'd be OK if you go with GRV.

Jorge Rua
I understand the … final ruling

What “final ruling”? I don't see a “final ruling” here.

What I see is way too much thought process going into the original question:

Tiago Lopes
So, which of the penaltys is the correct one?

Either one is fine.

What I'm really saying is “pick one and move on”. Lots of good reasons for either, no reason to continue to analyze this to this point… :/

d:^D

I agree with Jorge and Dan. My understanding of how this should be handled is to look at the root cause of the problem.

As Jorge already did, I was going to bring up a case of DEC as a result of a CPV. Such as Player A starting their turn and drawing their card because he thought that it was his turn, and Player N concluded it was also A's turn, due to a complicated end step. I've had that happen before and was told to go with the infraction that caused the DEC, not the actual DEC.

EDIT: I started writing this post before Scott's was posted.

Edited Ryan Wood (Feb. 25, 2015 09:52:54 AM)

I think that now I'm completely elucidated on this subject

Muito obrigado Scott for your patience. :-)

Edited Jorge Rua (Feb. 25, 2015 10:29:18 AM)