So let's say both players already have two GPE:GRV Warnings already assessed.

Paul casts Path to Exile and John puts the creature into his graveyard.

The double GRV upgrades to double, but offsetting, Game Losses.

Do they start a new game or just keep playing in their current one?

I believe they start a new game, as a GL ends the current game and I don't think they offset to that extent.

That's also how I interpretate the IPG: although the Game Losses do not count towards the match total, you awarded a GL and that immediately ends the match game.
I agree it feels a bit weird though, as this seems like a very easy to fix GRV… but consistency is extremely important!

EDIT: at 6 in the morning just before the start of a GP and without coffee/breakfast… sorry for typing match instead of game!

Edited Dustin De Leeuw (Aug. 31, 2015 05:45:13 PM)

Originally posted by Dustin De Leeuw:

That's also how I interpretate the IPG: although the Game Losses do not count towards the match total, you awarded a GL and that immediately ends the match.
I agree it feels a bit weird though, as this seems like a very easy to fix GRV… but consistency is extremely important!

I stumbled about your first sentence, but I guess you meant to say "… that immediately ends the game." since the GLs are offsetting ;)

This seems correct, to quote the annotated ipg on offsetting GL : “To remedy this, you record both penalties, end the current game (if it is still being played) and both players continue to the next game. For the purpose of reporting the score, that specific game didn't happen”. The only difference is that our GLs are upgraded from GRVs, but that shouldn't change anything.

I agree that consistency is important, but ending a game where nothing is seriously broken is taking the principle too far. If both players commit infractions that are naturally GLs, then it makes sense to end the game (since the infractions are serious enough that we probably can't fix things). If I am going to have a player actually lose the game, then it makes sense to end the game.

This case is a weird quirk that the IPG does not directly address, since it almost never comes up, and since we need the document to be simple enough to be usable. If I were the HJ here, I would deviate to the extent of allowing this game to continue.

Oren,

How is that logic different from any 3rd GRV?

On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Oren Firestein
<forum-20913-2521@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

Originally posted by Oren Firestein:

If I am going to have a player actually lose the game, then it makes sense to end the game.

But they will actually lose the game, both of them. That is why we upgrade the penalties anyway. The only reason the GLs doesn't affect the score here, is that we would effectively end up only penalizing one of the players for the same behavior if we did. I see no reasons for deviating here, we aren't supposed to consider the board state, and the ipg is clear on how to deal with GLs in general. If upgraded GRVs were to be treated differently, it should have been stated at least in the annotated ipg.

At least for the other kind of upgraded GRVs, and for other GLs that could be fixed during a game (illegal decks), the annotated ipg is clear:

"If simultaneous Game Loss penalties are issued to each player, they are recorded, but do not affect the match score. This covers situations where both players have an illegal deck, or when both players forget to reveal a morph at the end of the game, or other similar circumstances. … To remedy this, you record both penalties, end the current game (if it is still being played) and both players continue to the next game."

We had this situation (almost) come up at PPTQ on Saturday. Both players were collecting warnings on Anafenza's replacement ability (by putting creatures in the graveyard instead of exile). The third warning almost came up on the last round, playing for top8, and we - judges - discussed whether we would issue the GL or not (in the end they did not screw it up).

Of course, you can “cancel GLs out” to save time and have the game go on. But then you are actually benefitting one of the players - whoever has the upper hand in the current game. If you believe the correct ruling is a GL, then issuing GL to both players should mean a new game has to start.

Then this leads to another question - what if the player who is about to lose the game chooses to make the mistake, knowing they will both get a GL and the game will be restarted? But that path leads somewhere else ;)

Originally posted by Raül Rabionet:

We had this situation (almost) come up at PPTQ on Saturday. Both players were collecting warnings on Anafenza's replacement ability (by putting creatures in the graveyard instead of exile). The third warning almost came up on the last round, playing for top8, and we - judges - discussed whether we would issue the GL or not (in the end they did not screw it up).

Of course, you can “cancel GLs out” to save time and have the game go on. But then you are actually benefitting one of the players - whoever has the upper hand in the current game. If you believe the correct ruling is a GL, then issuing GL to both players should mean a new game has to start.

Then this leads to another question - what if the player who is about to lose the game chooses to make the mistake, knowing they will both get a GL and the game will be restarted? But that path leads somewhere else ;)

Anafenza's ability is not treated the same as Path though.

IPG
If a player takes an action called for by an effect controlled by his or her opponent, but does it incorrectly, both players receive a Game Play Error – Game Rule Violation.

A creature dying is not an action called for by Anafenza, and a replacement effect is not controlled by anyone (or an effect for that matter), so it's just GRV + FtMGS.

Edited Toby Hazes (Aug. 31, 2015 08:38:49 PM)

Assuming that the penalty would be a double GRV if both miss the error
then the player trying to cause this would be taking a risk because if
the opponent spots the mistake as it happens only the player making the
error gets the GRV and only he/she would receive the penalty? Is this
correct.

Also would not deliberately doing so constitute cheating and a potential DQ?

Graham

On 31/08/2015 12:13, Toby Hazes wrote:

That depends. In order to determine whether someone was cheating, we look at these points:

1) Were they breaking a rule? (yes)
2) Were they attemting to gain an advantage?
3) Were they aware that what they were doing is illegal?

If we do not establish intent and awareness, then it cannot be Cheating. If we do establish it, then it is cheating.

First off - mishandling Anafenza, the Foremost's exile instruction is not a double Game Rule Violation (GRV).

Path to Exile is the most commonly cited example of a double GRV, but there are plenty of similar examples (including what might be the original, Exile itself…).

In short, one player casts a spell that instructs another player to do A, but that other player does B instead. Both players took an action, it wasn't the correct action, and both players allowed that to happen. It truly is a fairly small subset of all the infractions that could occur.

So, my creature dies - for any reason - while you control Anafenza (or Rest in Peace, maybe), and I put it in the graveyard instead of the Exile zone. That's my action, and I just earned a GRV; if you let it persist beyond a reasonable time, then Failure to Maintain Game State (FtMGS) should apply to you.

* * *

Now, as for the very unusual circumstance in which two players earn a double GRV, and both already had two previous GRV Warnings, thus both have earned an upgrade to Game Loss - well, just because it has happened doesn't change the fact that it's an extreme corner case.

But even in corner cases, it's advisable to apply policy consistently. Assess both Game Loss penalties, end the current game, and continue the match, as those simultaneous Game Losses offset.

* * *

To riff a bit on Jeff Foxworthy's shtick: if your scenario begins with “So let's say…”, then you might be a Corner Case.

d:^D

Edited Scott Marshall (Sept. 1, 2015 01:13:16 AM)