Hallo, und willkommen! This week's scenario is Silver, so as usual please don't respond or guide discussion until Thursday if you are L2+.

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/?p=886

Anton is attacking Natalie during their local GPT. Natalie casts a German Azorius Charm targeting Anton's attacking Aurelia, the Warleader. Anton isn't quite sure what the card does, so he asks, “Bounce it?” Natalie is distracted by combat math and simply replies, “Yep”. Anton puts the card in his hand, then they resolve combat damage. In his second combat phase Anton attacks Natalie again, and before damage she casts Sphinx's Revelation for 5 in order to survive the attack. In his postcombat main phase, Anton sees that Natalie has mana available and says to himself “Hmm, should I risk you countering Aurelia or go for something else“? Natalie says “You have another one”? When Anton says no they realize they have a problem, and call a judge. You investigate and feel confident that no cheating has occurred. What is your ruling?

Looks like Game Rule Violations for both players - Anton for putting the card in the wrong zone, and Natalie because it was her spell that was resolved incorrectly. Both players are issued a warning.

In terms of additional remedies, while we could simply rewind, that seems problematic given how much the game has changed since the Azorius Charm was played; Natalia casting Sphinx's Revelation for 5 means that not only has she revealed that card from her hand, but she's drawn another five cards - returning five random cards to the top of her library could give her a completely different hand, which seems pretty disruptive to me. I'd probably hold off on the rewind.

Fortunately, we do have a partial fix: move the Aurelia from Anton's hand to the top of his library, since its identity is known to both players and it's been less than a turn.

I'd implement the partial fix, issue warnings, remind Natalia to play more carefully, and remind Anton that if he doesn't know what a card does, he can always ask a judge for the Oracle text.

Natalia didn't control what Aurelia put in the correct zone. It's too complex to apply a roll back. The card is known by all players and I think that the best choice, is to place aurelia ine the correct zone, on the top of Anton's library.

Natalia is responsible of her decks. So I give to Natalia a GPE - GRV, Warning and recommende to Anton, to be more attentive and it's possible to ask a judge to have the oracle text.

(Sorry for my mistakes in english)

Edited Jean-François DURMONT (Oct. 16, 2013 07:23:19 PM)

Anton has committed GPE-Game Rule Violation and receives a warning. Anton illegally put the Aurelia into his hand instead of on top of his deck and Natalie confirmed he could do so. Normally if you put extra cards into your hand for any reason, it would be considered a Drawing Extra Cards infraction. However this won't be the case for Anton because Natalie confirmed his illegal action by replying with “Yep” after Anton asked her “Bounce it?”

Natalie has committed GPE-Game Rule Violation and also receives a warning. Her opponent took an illegal action as a result of an effect she controlled.

We can choose to rewind the game all the way back to the mistake but that could cause more disruption than leaving the game where it is. When the players continue the game after everything is fixed Anton can make decisions based on the knowledge that Natalie has a way of not dying from lethal damage during the second combat phase and he may do things differently. Natalie could also do things differently with any of the 5 cards she drew from the SR that were not returned.

With all of that said, I would not rewind the game. I'd apply the partial fix of “If an object changing zones is put into the wrong zone, the identity of the object was known to all players, and it is within a turn of the error, put the object in the correct zone.” The error was noticed within the same turn it happened and Natalie can confirm that Aurelia is the illegal card in Anton's hand so we fix the game by simply putting the Aurelia card on top of Anton's deck from his hand.

Anton should be informed that he can always request Oracle text from a judge for cards in languages that he can't read just so he can be 100% sure what the card does. Natalie needs to be cautioned to pay closer attention to her opponent's questions before she answers them.

Originally posted by Eric Paré:

Anton should be informed that he can always request Oracle text from a judge for cards in languages that he can't read just so he can be 100% sure what the card does. Natalie needs to be cautioned to pay closer attention to her opponent's questions before she answers them.

If you believe that Anton misrepresented the card text, shouldn't you be issuing a CPV rather than a GRV?

Edit: Sorry, got the names mixed up!

Edited Talia Parkinson (Oct. 17, 2013 04:48:28 AM)

Natalie misrepresented her charm un-knowingly. So I would at first consider a TE-CPV… but it has a specific clause… “This infraction only applies to violations of that policy (MTR 4.1, Player Communication) and not to general communication confusion”

So, considering it is agreed upon that she said it in the confusion of combat math it makes me re-consider. It specifically says “communication confusion” and I am not fully convinced that combat math and calculating damage would/should be considered communication confusion.

Therefore, I believe that the first infraction that occurred was TE-CPV. I would not even consider a US-Cheating because it is agreed that it was due to a form of confusion, and logically Natalie probably could not gain an advantage by bouncing the warleader to Antons hand instead of the library.

As for the fix, that is a bit complicated. I don't think there is any way to logically re-wind the game without contradicting the IPG in the process. It lists that you can chose random cards that were incorrectly drawn and place them on top of the library. But if you were to back up in order you might end up shipping the warleader in hand. There is no specified way that you can set out cards from the hand that were known to all players and then randomly choose. (that I know of) You also can't do a partial fix like randomly throwing one card on top of the library bringing him to the amount of cards he would have had since he would have drawn the warleader anyways.

final answer:
I:TE-CPV for Natalie
P:Natalie gets a warning for TE-CPV
F:There is none. leave the state as is. (too complicated to back up and no partials allowed)

Although I am not happy with it, this is what I am considering as the viable route. There is the possibility of a GE-GRV instead, which will have the same penalty and fix as the TE-CPV, but it will not have a GE-FTMGS attached with it to Anton. This is because he is not required to know what the charm does, and therefore isn't expected to be able to spot an error such as that (baring that he isn't playing azourious charms himself). The only reason I decided to discount the GE-GRV is because the root of the problem is an error in how the card was represented.

Originally posted by Aric Parkinson:

Eric Paré
Anton should be informed that he can always request Oracle text from a judge for cards in languages that he can't read just so he can be 100% sure what the card does. Natalie needs to be cautioned to pay closer attention to her opponent's questions before she answers them.

If you believe that Anton misrepresented the card text, shouldn't you be issuing a CPV rather than a GRV?

Why Anton? Natalie is the owner of the azourious charm, and is being asked a question about how the charm functions by Anton. Did you just get the names mixed up?

Originally posted by Austin Brown:

Why Anton? Natalie is the owner of the azourious charm, and is being asked a question about how the charm functions by Anton. Did you just get the names mixed up?

Yeah, got the names scrambled. Sorry about that.

I'd say that we should issue a penalty to Natalie: TE - CPV, Warning. Since the identity of the card is known, and it's not passed a turn, or events like drawing cards and manipulating library occurred, I would simply put Aurelia on the top of A's library. I may be wrong, but that's what I would do :)

Originally posted by Giorgio Maldarizzi:

Since the identity of the card is known, and it's not passed a turn, or events like drawing cards and manipulating library occurred

but Natalie drew 5 for her Sphinx's Revelation…

Edited Christian Genz (Oct. 17, 2013 09:19:18 AM)

Wooops. Missed that. Mmmhhh that's messing up the situation… We then have two ways: leave tha game state as it is, or backup at the Charm's resolution, putting 5 random cards from Natalie's hand on the top of her library.
Personally, I don't like the second. Yet, giving a “free draw” to A isn't pleasant to me either. I guess I would backup, but I still don't like it :)

Oh yeah, I'm forgetting: I say to A that he always has the right to ask for the english oracle text of a card, if he can't understand it, and is encouraged to do so.

Edited Giorgio Maldarizzi (Oct. 17, 2013 09:37:07 AM)

Heh, great scenario. Really like it as it's quite interesting to analyze :)

It's tempting to try to fix the situation right away; however, we can't find right fix without defining the infraction first. So, I'd try to define what infraction happened here.
To do this, let's look at the sequence of events one step after another.

(1) Natalie casts an Azorius Charm targeting Aurelia.
Completely legal action.
(2) Natalie answers “Yep” to a question “Bounce it?”.
Illegal: Natalie is misrepresenting derived information (I'd assume here that she misrepresented Oracle text).
If we would consider (2) as a separate action, it's a clear TE-CPV, and a Warning for Natalie.
(3) Anton puts card in his hand.
Illegal: he should have put it on top of his library.
This is not a GRV; one of GPE-DEC's textbook examples states “A player puts a creature with lethal damage on it into her hand instead of her graveyard.” If I'd consider (3) as separate infraction, I'd consider it as DEC. However, by DEC definition from IPG:
A player illegally puts one or more cards into his or her hand and, at the moment before he or she began the instruction or action that put a card into his or her hand, no other Game Play Error or Player Communication Violation had been committed, and the error was not the result of resolving objects on the stack in an incorrect order.
Clearly, TE-CPV was committed at (2) step; thus, we don't have any DEC here.
(4) Natalie casts Sphinx's Revelation for 5.
Completely legal by itself.

So, we have TE-CPV here for Natalie, and we have appropriate penalty: Warning.

Now we're looking for the fix. It's clearly tempting to simply put Aurelia to the top of the library; however, that's a partial fix, one of additional remedies for fixing GPE-GRV. We have TE-CPV, not GPE-GRV, which, I'd assume, means, that we can't use any partial fixes from GRV chapter of IPG.
As we look at TE-CPV chapter, we see that we have two possible courses of action - we either rewind, or leave game state as it is. As extra cards were drawn as part of Sphynx's Revelation resolution, I'd rather not rewind here and leave game state as it is.


So, to sum up:
TE-CPV, Warning for Natalie.
No additional remedy or fix, leave game state as it is.

Edited Alex Zhed (Oct. 17, 2013 10:31:13 PM)

I'm seeing a lot of calls for CPV. Just curious what specifically was said that constitutes CPV and why.

Originally posted by Alex Zhed:

Natalie answers “Yep” to a question “Bounce it?”.
Illegal: Natalie is misrepresenting derived information (I'd assume here that she misrepresented Oracle text).

I like that you mentioned it is derived information. A lot of people I know answered it a free information, but oracle text is considered derived.

Riki Hayashi
I'm seeing a lot of calls for CPV. Just curious what specifically was said that constitutes CPV and why.

Natalie falsely answered a derived information question about her azourious charm. When Antony asks “Bounce it?”, he is asking if the spell is supposed to bounce the warleader. Natalie doesn't necessarily need to answer derived information, but since she chose to do so, she needed to answer it truthfully. Since she did not, that is the first point of error.

Originally posted by Austin Brown:

Natalie falsely answered a derived information question about her azourious charm. When Antony asks “Bounce it?”, he is asking if the spell is supposed to bounce the warleader. Natalie doesn't necessarily need to answer derived information, but since she chose to do so, she needed to answer it truthfully. Since she did not, that is the first point of error.

Does “Bounce it?” necessarily mean that Natalie was asking for oracle text? Furthermore, is answering “yes” to that question necessarily false?