Hi

One of the changes from the previous version of the IPG is the fact that a previous GRV was commited, nor the fact of an opponent confirming the drawing, no longer saves a player from a DEC infraction. But in the Appendix C, all I can read about it is “Rewrite”.

Wouldn't it be better to point out more clearly these changes, or to state “definition rewritten”? Or am I giving too much importance to this change in the IPG?

Thanks

Hey Carlos,

A previous GRV still does “save” the player. That's what this line is for:

“If the cards were drawn as part of the legal resolution of an illegally
played instruction”

What that part is saying is if it was preceded by a GRV or CPV it's still
GRV or CPV. DEC doesn't apply in those cases because we have the GRV/CPV to
handle.

The “opponent confirmed the draw” portion really became unnecessary when
DEC became a warning, as now the penalty is a bit less harsh even if the
draw is confirmed.

Hi Carlos,

Typically a rewrite means “the whole thing is potentially different now.” In rewrites, often a summary of the changes would be the whole section itself.

However there are a few additions resources for making sense of the new DEC. The GRV clause, for one, is still in there, it's just hidden in some awkward wording.

Check out: http://judgecast.com/?p=859 where we discuss the new DEC
Or
http://wiki.magicjudges.org/en/w/Annotated_IPG/Drawing_Extra_Cards

———————————————
This space intentionally left blank

Thanks guys, but… I'm messing up things even more.

On the Annotated IPG you linked me, there's the following text:

“An easy way to remember the correct infraction is: if the first opportunity an opponent had to possibly notice a problem was when the card hit the hand, it is DEC. In the case of the Liliana example, everything is fine with the game until the card goes into the hand.

If it’s still Drawing Extra Cards at that point, then the penalty should be the same. If the situation was Game Rule Violation or Communication Policy Violation, then apply the appropriate penalty and fix. Such memory of when and how an error occurred should be confirmed by the opponent.”

BUT

on a recent topic, drawing 3 cards with a Brainstorm, having paid only U with a Thalia, guardian of Thraben on the battlefield, was marked as a DEC, if I properly understood, although the additional remedy has changed. Then, this philosophy would be directly against what is explained in the Annotated IPG, right?

Please, a bit of clarification :(

Edited Carlos Fernandez (Aug. 13, 2015 12:56:41 PM)

My interpretation of the change is that we no longer need to apply GPE-GRV because the DEC infraction additional remedy indicates that if that “If the cards were drawn by the legal resolution of an illegally played instruction…” “…a backup may be considered and no further actions is taken.”.

So we have a similar remedy to the GPE-GRV remedy and the same penalty - Warning. So if you assess the infraction is DEC but it was caused by illegally playing something, we consider a backup and no further action (ie. the opponent picking a card to be discarded).

The need to apply GPE-GRV for previous incarnations of the IPG were required to remove the Game Loss penalty from the situation and allow the backup. Now we have the same penalty and the same capability for a backup within Drawing Extra Cards.

I've researched this a bit more and also updated the AIPG to be a bit clearer (hopefully).

Bryan is correct, if the reason for having more cards than you are supposed to have is because of a GRV or CPV that still applies. If you look at what the actual infraction is - paying the incorrect mana for a spell that draws you cards tends to be a GPE-GRV rather than a DEC. The actual infraction was paying the incorrect cost of the spell, not the drawing of cards.

Ultimately now that GPE-DEC is the same penalty as GPE-GRV it doesn't fundamentally matter as long as the only remedy is consider a backup, and issue the warning.

Where the infraction is more likely to be a GPE-DEC than a GPE-GRV is the instances where the instructions of a spell or ability are followed incorrectly resulting in a card being drawn before it should such as where the instruction is to discard a card then draw a card. It still doesn't really matter if a GPE-GRV is given and a backup is considered or GPE-DEC and a backup considered. The result will be the same, it's just slightly more correct to issue a GPE-DEC warning than a GPE-GRV warning.

Mark, based on Toby comments on the change annoncement article, I have to disagree with you:

One question about:
“if the cards were drawn as part of the legal resolution of an illegally played instruction” part:

If I play Ancestrall Recall with White mana, I should get GRV Warning, DEC Warning, or both?
What infraction is activating Chromatic Sphere, Drawing a card, and then naming a colour?

telliott says:
July 14, 2015 at 8:24 am

Those are all DEC now. They just have different remedies.

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2015/07/13/magic-origins-policy-changes/#comment-2422

Are there any changes in “official interpretation”?

Unfortunately the Ancestral Recall for W has some issues being DEC.

Here's why:
I cast Ancestral Recall for W. My opponent counters it. Stack resolves. Error is discovered, and now we have a GRV.

I cast Ancestral Recall for W, my opponent does nothing. The Stack resolves. Error is discovered, and now it's a DEC?

Think about that. My infraction that *changes* based on the opponents actions?


Now Imagine Rummaging Goblin.
I tap, and draw a card, not discarding. Things happen. It's discovered I didn't discard. Judge determines that Too much has happened for a rewind. DEC doesn't have partial fixes, so I don't have to discard.

But for every other “{T}, discard a card” activation or “as an additional cost discard a card” spell where I don't actually discard, it's a GRV and I have to discard per the partial fix.



-bryan





———————————————
This space intentionally left blank

Edited Bryan Prillaman (Aug. 14, 2015 11:35:16 AM)

It's interesting Toby had answered my question with DEC, but for exacly the same question asked by Andrea week later - GRV. It was later so I find it stand and I accept it, but I find it really confusing.
I feel a little lost now. Lucky, I'm on my way to GP London, when I hope to talk with a few smart people about this:)

Originally posted by Adam Kolipiński:

It's interesting Toby had answered my question with DEC, but for exacly the same question asked by Andrea week later - GRV. It was later so I find it stand and I accept it, but I find it really confusing.
I feel a little lost now. Lucky, I'm on my way to GP London, when I hope to talk with a few smart people about this:)

Yes, early on I misspoke about that one. Fortunately, it ends up in the same place.

From a player perspective and end result it really doesn't matter if you issue a DEC with a simple backup and no further remedy (or no backup and no further remedy) or a GRV with either a simple backup or not. The outcome for the player is the same, the penalty and fix is the same.

The only issue is the fundamental accuracy of the actual ruling and being pedantically correct. Having spent a lot of time thinking about it and discussing with Toby and Bryan I'm pretty sure that essentially most illegal actions that cause cards to be drawn should be a GPE-GRV and not GPE-DEC. I've updated the AIPG to reflect this for that section.

> On Aug 15, 2015, at 12:32 AM, Mark Brown <forum-20527-f650@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:
>
> I've updated the AIPG to reflect this for that section.

<3 <3 <3