Welcome back to the Knowledge Pool everyone. This week we have another Silver scenario, so L2s should wait until friday to jump in. Enjoy!

Albert and Nadege are playing in a standard PPTQ. They call you over to the table, and Nadege explains that Albert played Metallic Mimic on his previous turn, which was turn two. Nadege played a land on her turn and passed, and now Albert has played Depala, Pilot Exemplar and Nadege has let it resolve. Albert went to put a +1/+1 counter on his Depala, and when Nadege asked why, he pointed out the Mimic, and they both realized Albert forgot to name a creature type. What do you do?

Edited Joe Klopchic (July 19, 2017 06:13:41 PM)

Howdy Mr. Joe, Nice question.

Following an investigation for cheating (why did Albert not name a creature and why did Nadege not inquire about a name) …which I will assume leads to a decision of honest errors… we then move to identifying the infraction, penalty, and fix.

The infraction for Albert is Game Play Error - Game Rule Violation. This results in a WARNING. There is, however, an additional FIX per the IPG. If a player made an illegal choice (including no choice where required) for a static ability generating a continuous effect still on the battlefield, that player makes a legal choice. Counter will remain on Depala.

There is also an infraction by and for Nadege. In this case it is a Game Play Error - Failure to Maintain the Game State (because both players are responsible for making sure the game is correct and clear in this way). The penalty is a warning. There is no “additional fix”.

At this point, the players will get a time extension for the time the investigation and resolution has taken, they will be invited to play more carefully and the warnings will be noted on their slip.

The impact in this case depends on when we rule the game to be, either with Depala on the stack or on the battlefield. As per the IPG, it is important to “handle errors consistently regardless of their impact on the game”.
Here, I would rule that since Nadege has let it resolve, Depala is already on the battlefield. The replacement effect of the Metallic Mimic would not apply for this occurrence.

GRV to Albert + FtMGS to Nadege, with Warnings to both players. Albert will choose a creature type at this moment.

Samuele, can you share with me why you think that fix better represents correcting the game state?

Something …was to be named… it wasn't.

We know the fix has us name something, yes? If we have ruled out cheating, the putting of the counter on tells uf what he intended. That intent does matter, does it not?

Let's consider a similar case. In modern someone plays a pithing needle and fails to name. Jund player casts Lilliana of the Veil and goes to plus it. And puts a card in hand face down in discard when the opponent looks quizzically and taps pithing need. “You can't activate that…” They realize the player didn't name something and you're called over. Player says, “I died last game to a Lilly ultimate, I totally meant to put the needle on that. We have only 8 mins left for our bumper match, I guess I just played too quickly.” Other player agrees they're rushing.

Do you think active player gets 1 activation of Lilly but no others? If so, would you let that player change to a minus since he chose +1 with the belief he could do something else next turn?

I would point out your comment about “handling things consistently” doesn't preclude one from consistently giving the counter as part of the replacement effect calls for…

Edited Mark Mason (July 24, 2017 07:20:01 AM)

Originally posted by Samuele Tecchio:

The impact in this case depends on when we rule the game to be, either with Depala on the stack or on the battlefield. As per the IPG, it is important to “handle errors consistently regardless of their impact on the game”.
Here, I would rule that since Nadege has let it resolve, Depala is already on the battlefield. The replacement effect of the Metallic Mimic would not apply for this occurrence.

I think the moment we are in is “Depala is trying to enter the battlefield and players are not agreeing how she is entering it”. We don't need to do a backup to put a +1/+1 counter on it. We just have let the player name a creature type and continue with Depala entering the battlefield.

Originally posted by Jaurès Chabalier:

I think the moment we are in is “Depala is trying to enter the battlefield and players are not agreeing how she is entering it”. We don't need to do a backup to put a +1/+1 counter on it. We just have let the player name a creature type and continue with Depala entering the battlefield.

Seen this way, you correctly make me doubt of my initial idea.

Thanks everyone for the discussion this week, once again Mark has hit the nail on the head. This is a Game Rule Violation situation as Albert has not made a required choice.

There was a bit of discussion about backing up here, and what the actual game state is here. I agree that it is a bit unclear. Albert has also put a counter on Depala for what appears to be no reason, so we need to either fix that, or leave the game in a place where it is legal.

Our solution:

Albert receives a Warning for Game Rule Violation, and Nadege a Warning for Failure to Maintain Game State. Making a choice now for a forgotten static ability is one of the fixes available in GRV, so Albert will make a choice now. In addition to the choice, perform a simple backup, as Depala has finished resolving and won't get a counter now. Back the game up to when Depala was on the stack, let Albert make his Mimic choice, and then give Nadege priority. Depala will resolve and get a counter if Nadege does nothing in response.

I would also like to note that this backup is optional. I don't think it is an unreasonable solution to have Albert choose a type now, and let him keep the counter if he chooses Dwarf. It is however, cleaner to back up and remove the complexity of deciding exactly where the game is. Giving Nadege the opportunity to respond with full information is also reasonable.

The new line in the IPG this last cycle is

Originally posted by MIPG 2.5, in part:

For each of these fixes, a simple backup may be performed beforehand if it makes applying the fix smoother.

I believe that removing the ambiguity about the game state and coming to a clear position makes our solution “smoother” than just applying the fix and leaving the game.

Edited Joe Klopchic (July 24, 2017 09:11:58 PM)