On Wed Sep 02 17:41, Alexey Chernyshov wrote:
>

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

I definitely think that you should shuffle here (otherwise they can
> not play the temple and scry again next turn), although I concede your implied
> point that this is not a LEC infraction, consequent or otherwise. Therefore in
> some way this must be possible with just the GRV fix. I'm not sure that you can
> justify it with a literal reading of the IPG here.

> I agree.
>
>

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

I think this also has something to shed light on ‘illegal brainstorm - DEC or
> GRV’ case two. If you play your second land for the turn as a temple and scry?
> Are you giving GRV or LEC? I would give GRV, but the argument that DEC is more
> specific in the Brainstorm case would seem to also hold that LEC is more
> specific in this case?

>
> I'm also thinking this way. I would definitely give GRV at least because the remedy for L@EC leads us nowhere: alright, we've just shuffled the card into the library, now what are we going to do with this second temple?
>
> But still I have the question that started this whole thing. We just (almost) agreed on the point we don't use two fixes for two infractions. If it is true, why would DEC description mentions “legal resolution of illegal played instruction” at all?

Otherwise you would apply the DEC _fix_ as well as the GRV penalty, which you don't do because of that sentence.

Matt

We have already come to conclusion there's no such thing as “double fix”. There's no such instruction in IPG.
In case of GRV we perform a backup.

On Wed Sep 02 21:10, Alexey Chernyshov wrote:
> We have already come to conclusion there's no such thing as “double fix”. There's no such instruction in IPG.
> In case of GRV we perform a backup.

The IPG only describes how to fix one problem. When there are two problems, we
must do something about them both. “Double fix” is not a term I'm trying to
coin. All I'm trying to do is to describe what you do when two things have gone
wrong.

Out of interest, are you representing some specific group when you say “we” here?

Matt

In the previous post I used “we” meaning you and me. There is an example of double fix in the article. I think that's not a double fix, but just a GRV backup and I use Wrath story as a proof (just a GRV with the same backup, so L@EC is irrelevant).
Since there's no “double fix” approach, these additional comments in DEC additional remedy make no sense to me unless original case (Brainstorm with Thalia) is reported as DEC.

I think we are almost done with the arguments and stuck. So, we need some fresh blood to help me (or us) figure what's going on with this new iteration of DEC really.

The latest IPG states: “If a prior Game Rule Violation or Communication Policy Violation directly led to drawing the extra cards, it is treated as Drawing Extra Cards”. So, Brainstorm for U with the Thalia effect (situation D) should be DEC, not GRV.

Originally posted by Alexey Chernyshov:

The latest IPG states: “If a prior Game Rule Violation or Communication Policy Violation directly led to drawing the extra cards, it is treated as Drawing Extra Cards”.

I'm not sure which version of the IPG you're using, or which language. The current English IPG has no such language, but includes this:

“If the cards were drawn as part of the legal resolution of an illegally played instruction, due to a Communication
Policy Violation, or were as the result of resolving objects on the stack or multiple instruction effects in an incorrect
order, a backup may be considered and no further action is taken.”

Originally posted by Josh Stansfield:

I'm not sure which version of the IPG you're using, or which language. The current English IPG has no such language"

Hit refresh. New update has been posted.

Alexey, I really appreciate your enthusiasm for this article. Please keep in mind that this article was submitted and published weeks ago, prior to the very recently announced changes. We'll make it a point to update the article soon.

Edited Evan Cherry (Sept. 29, 2015 06:56:23 PM)