This might be specific to the BeNeLux region but I have had various L2s tell me that they would not issue any infractions at all in the “Path to Exile” example. It is considered unnecessary nitpicking, harsh, and disruptive to the players. Their preferred solution is to just quietly remind the players to move the card to the correct zone. The discussions on these forums generally tend towards a harder line, however, so I'm a bit confused now. What is a humble L1 to do?

If caught within one turn, I can see an argument (I disagree with it, by the way, but I can understand how a reasonable person might make such an argument) for not issuing a penalty and simply performing a backup to fix the game state assuming you have ruled out Cheating. However, I agree with Brook on the previous page that if I believe decisions have been made which hinges on an accurate representation of the game state, then a rewind is off the table. In general, those decisions are codified in IPG as “a turn cycle”, which is what we're supposed to follow, but as Brook demonstrated, sometimes I wouldn't rewind even within a turn cycle if I believe something relevant has occurred.

As for “how do you know when too many significant changes have occurred?”, it's mostly by feel. Looking at the cards on the table, do you think the game would have played out mostly as it has played out since, assuming the game state was “as it should be”? That's really a question of judgment and not something that's a hard and fast rule. For example, if there is a spell on the stack, cast with incorrect mana, and that spell has been responded to (but is still on the stack), I would be inclined to rewind, personally, although Brook said he would not. I don't think either of us is strictly right or strictly wrong, but his definition of “significant” differs from mine, and that's ok.

Edited Lyle Waldman (Feb. 7, 2017 06:33:49 PM)

Just to make things interesting, let's adjust the timing slightly from the original scenario.

Instead of you being the one to notice the error, you return your attention to the match just as Ann says “oh, hey, your Champion had Protection, it should've survived”; Ned says “yeah, you're right” and puts it back in play, Ann nods and says “geez, sorry ‘bout that!”, and they’re ready to carry on.

Consider how you'd handle that, vs. how you handle it when you happen to point out the oversight. Does one circumstance of timing change your thoughts about handling the other?

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Just to make things interesting, let's adjust the timing slightly from the original scenario.

Instead of you being the one to notice the error, you return your attention to the match just as Ann says “oh, hey, your Champion had Protection, it should've survived”; Ned says “yeah, you're right” and puts it back in play, Ann nods and says “geez, sorry ‘bout that!”, and they’re ready to carry on.

Consider how you'd handle that, vs. how you handle it when you happen to point out the oversight. Does one circumstance of timing change your thoughts about handling the other?

d:^D

Thanks for the comment, Uncle Scott!

Yeah, it would change it for me. If both players agree that the Champion can be put back into play without negatively impacting the game state, I would allow it, especially if the opponent (of the person controlling the Champion) was the one who suggested the fix. However, as an outside observer, I would not enforce such a fix myself. In either case I'd still give double-GRV.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Instead of you being the one to notice the error, you return your attention to the match just as Ann says “oh, hey, your Champion had Protection, it should've survived”; Ned says “yeah, you're right” and puts it back in play, Ann nods and says “geez, sorry ‘bout that!”, and they’re ready to carry on.

Right after the Anger resolves? No penalty.
During Ned's End Step? I'd double GRV but investigate because Ned not having that creature during his turn is pretty advantageous for Ann. (Ask her to step away from the table, “How long was that Champion on the field? Had the protection been relevant before?” etc kind of stuff)
If the timing didn't change, just who noticed it - same as above really.

Does one circumstance of timing change your thoughts about handling the other?

Sure - and it should. Context is everything.

Rob, I didn't make myself clear, apparently.

You see the Anger of the Gods being cast, you get distracted by a judge call, when you turn back some time later, the players are just realizing and fixing their mistake.

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Rob, I didn't make myself clear, apparently.

You see the Anger of the Gods being cast, you get distracted by a judge call, when you turn back some time later, the players are just realizing and fixing their mistake.

d:^D

So this applies then:

I'd double GRV but investigate because Ned not having that creature during his turn is pretty advantageous for Ann. (Ask her to step away from the table, “How long was that Champion on the field? Had the protection been relevant before?” etc kind of stuff)

As far as applying a fix -
Ordinarily I'd look at this clause if a card is in the wrong zone:

Originally posted by IPG:

If an object is in an incorrect zone either due to a required zone change being missed or due to being put into the wrong zone during a zone change, the identity of the object was known to all players, and it can be moved with only minor disruption to the state of the game, put the object in the correct zone.

Based on the AIPG however, it doesn't apply here, so I can't move the Champion out of Exile:

Originally posted by AIPG:

Additionally, this partial fix does not include fixing things that shouldn’t have moved but did. For example, a 4/4 with 3 damage is put into the graveyard, and later discovered that it shouldn’t have been. This partial fix does not include returning it to the battlefield.

So no partial fixes apply. I can't do a backup because too much times has passed. The only fix I could offer would be to leave the game state as is - which would mean the Champion stays in Exile.

The problem with that is that the players have returned it to the Battlefield already. I'd be inclined to leave it on the Battlefield, but I can see and understand an argument for asking the players to leave the Champion in Exile.

@Rob: Here's where my problem is: Assuming the Champion was in exile and nobody noticed it shouldn't have been, which is more advantageous for Ann: To have the Champion stay in exile and not mention it, or to suggest to Ned to bring it back? I don't think you can argue that it is more advantageous for Ann to have Ned not have an Etched Champion, all else being equal. So, while I would also investigate as to whether or not Ann was cheating when she didn't originally correct Ned for putting the Champion into exile in the first place (and according to the OP we've ruled out cheating on that so I won't go too deep into that rabbit-hole), I wouldn't investigate too much here, nor would I insist that the Champion remain in exile; if Ann wants to return it to play, that's good sportsmanship and we should be happy about that, not interrogate her on it.

I'm not saying I'd grill her anything like spotlights, dark room, uncomfortable metal chair, digging into her past, etc.

For any real investigation I ask the player to step away from the table - it allows them to be more free with their answers IME.

It's possible Ann realized she could bolt the non-metalcraft Champion and then Surgical Extraction it so there's an advantage there Yes, it's probably just good sportsmanship but it's an uncommon enough situation that it should garner at least a 5 second look.