Originally posted by Piotr Łopaciuk:

Chris Nowak
This looks like it fits the situation where the effect is controlled by one player (destruction), but the action is taken by the other (graveyard), and we should be issuing GRV warnings to both players.

I can't find anything illegal in destruction of the Minotaur with Hero's Downfall. Downfall resolved properly. Both Minotaur and Downfall were put in correct zones. Satyr is put into the graveyard clearly by N's train of thought, which led him to believe that a Bestow spell is countered on resolution because of its targets becoming illegal. It's all controlled by one player.

The IPG just says the effect has to cause the infraction. The example of Path to Exile is a very direct cause, but this seems close enough to count for me, since the removal of the target caused the countering of the ability… but I'll admit I might be playing it too loosely.

Some of the posters on this thread are treating the Boon Satyr as having been placed into the wrong zone, and using the partial-fix exception to put it onto the battlefield. But the original error isn't that Boon Satyr is being put into the wrong zone - it is that the Boon Satyr is being treated as having been countered when it has not.

The “wrong zone” exception is intended for cases where the actions are clear, but a card is put into the wrong zone as a result of those actions. In this case, it's clear that both players believe that Boon Satyr has been countered on resolution. If it had been countered, putting it in Alex's graveyard would have been correct.

I would treat this case as similar to putting an indestructible creature in the graveyard after a wrath or allowing a creature to be countered with Gaea's Herald on the battlefield. In each case, it is a violation of the game rules, and we do not apply partial fixes.

Since far too much has happened for me to consider a backup in this case, I would give the penalties and leave the board state as it is.

Originally posted by Oren Firestein:

Some of the posters on this thread are treating the Boon Satyr as having been placed into the wrong zone, and using the partial-fix exception to put it onto the battlefield. But the original error isn't that Boon Satyr is being put into the wrong zone - it is that the Boon Satyr is being treated as having been countered when it has not.

But in the same way you can say that a creature put into a graveyard after Path to Exile is being treated as having been destroyed when it has not (it was exiled).

Destroyed, exiled, resolved, countered… these are all just verbs that indicate moving from one zone to another.
Why would this one be different?

Edited Toby Hazes (Oct. 24, 2013 10:50:35 PM)

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

Destroyed, exiled, resolved, countered… these are all just verbs that indicate moving from one zone to another.
Why would this one be different?

It also would be weird that players with even less rules knowledge (i.e. players who think that you just put in a graveyard an aura when it resolves without anything to enchant, but would not use the word “counter”) would receive a different fix.

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

Oren Firestein
Some of the posters on this thread are treating the Boon Satyr as having been placed into the wrong zone, and using the partial-fix exception to put it onto the battlefield. But the original error isn't that Boon Satyr is being put into the wrong zone - it is that the Boon Satyr is being treated as having been countered when it has not.

But in the same way you can say that a creature put into a graveyard after Path to Exile is being treated as having been destroyed when it has not (it was exiled).

Destroyed, exiled, resolved, countered… these are all just verbs that indicate moving from one zone to another.
Why would this one be different?

I think the “wrong zone” exception for GRVs exists because most such cases can be fixed without changing the game state very much. When a player puts a Pathed creature into the graveyard, that is a small step over a dexterity error.

In this case, it is the difference between Boon Satyr's being countered and its resolving successfully. That is a much more dramatic change to the game state, so the partial fix is less appropriate. I understand that countering a spell does cause a zone change, as does resolving that spell, but I don't think that choosing the wrong action (when each action causes a zone change) is the same as using the wrong zone for the correct action.

Originally posted by Oren Firestein:

In this case, it is the difference between Boon Satyr's being countered and its resolving successfully. That is a much more dramatic change to the game state, so the partial fix is less appropriate.

Why is that the case?

Edited Brian Schenck (Oct. 25, 2013 05:33:08 AM)

Originally posted by Oren Firestein:

In this case, it is the difference between Boon Satyr's being countered and its resolving successfully. That is a much more dramatic change to the game state, so the partial fix is less appropriate. I understand that countering a spell does cause a zone change, as does resolving that spell, but I don't think that choosing the wrong action (when each action causes a zone change) is the same as using the wrong zone for the correct action.

Another example (used last week, no less) was that of a creature being sent back to hand instead of to the top of the library, which is a pretty big deal, and yet receives the same partial fix. Another example of a dramatic partial fix is the forgotten Obzedat trigger…

Originally posted by Nathanaël François:

Another example (used last week, no less) was that of a creature being sent back to hand instead of to the top of the library, which is a pretty big deal, and yet receives the same partial fix. Another example of a dramatic partial fix is the forgotten Obzedat trigger…

To be more specific, in last week's example we apply DEC's partial fix (as it was finally stated that it's DEC), not GRV's partial fix (although they sound simular here), so I can't say that last week's example is of value here.

Also - why do we even start discussing other examples if we actually don't need to? We need to define if we can apply our partial fix here. To do that, we need to decide if it's the case of “an object changing zones”, or it's not. If it is, we apply our partial fix, if not - we don't apply it, and it shouldn't matter how dramatic the change to game state could be (as we can't use game state as a factor that can influence our decision).

Personally, i think that it's definitely an object; and my opinion is that it was changing zones (during resolution it had to be moved from stack to battlefield; instead a player thought it was countered = moved from stack to graveyard). So we should apply the fix. However, I can't say I'm 100% sure, and I couldn't find any strict definition of “changing zones”.

Edited Alex Zhed (Oct. 25, 2013 10:00:10 AM)

Given that it's a GPE - GRV and a GPE - FtMGS, the problem here is if to apply the partial fix or not.
Personally, I think the reasoning of Oren is correct, but the ipg states:

“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.”

Now. In my opinion, the object is changing zone: from the stack to the battlefield, but it is put in the wrong zone, the graveyard.
I believe this could be a case in which we could apply the partial fix, since we're within a turn of the error…

Originally posted by Chris Nowak:

I find this logic pretty convincing, he's improperly failing to resolve the spell, treating it as a normal enchantment, so it isn't just strictly changing zones incorrectly.

This would still apply as changing zones. When you announce the Boon Satyr, it changes zones (from the hand to the stack) then, while on the stack, when resolved, it changes zones AGAIN as the final step of resolution. Normally, with an object of this type, the zone it goes to is the battlefield. You could argue that the Satyr just went to the wrong zone.

Unfortunately, while the argument could be made, I doubt very seriously that the controllers intent was “I resolve Boon Satyr, it goes to the graveyard.” We can infer due to the normal rules followed for illegal targets on resolution that the player incorrectly assumed the spell was countered and therefore did not resolve it. This is a GRV. The GRV was that he did not resolve the spell. Both players allowed a spell on the stack to just NOT resolve…

I would rule GRV/FTMGS to both players. Warnings. Boon Satyr stays where it is because I don't want to back up the game in this particular circumstance with the information given. There was no zone change that was handled incorrectly, but rather, the players never tried to resolve the spell in the first place.

Originally posted by Oren Firestein:

I understand that countering a spell does cause a zone change, as does resolving that spell, but I don't think that choosing the wrong action (when each action causes a zone change) is the same as using the wrong zone for the correct action.

At first I disagreed with this position, but after thinking about it some more I see the merit of it. The players weren't resolving/applying an effect that caused a zone change or applying a rule that caused a zone change when this happened. They failed to apply the correct rules for Bestow and accidentally allowed Boon Satyr to remain an Aura spell on the stack after its target became illegal. After that mistake, they applied the regular rules for Aura spells and countered it.

The IPG is written in a very particular way, and to me the “if an object changing zones…” condition for the clause being quoted fails for this example. I don't know if it's the intent of the policy to make this distinction, but at my limited level of experience and understanding of the policy I would make it.

Originally posted by Oren Firestein:

But the original error isn't that Boon Satyr is being put into the wrong zone - it is that the Boon Satyr is being treated as having been countered when it has not.

How do we know that this is the actual error. Unless one of the players used the word “countered” this is an assumption. The only thing we know for certain is that the Boon Satyr went to the wrong zone.

If we ask Nick why he put Boon Satyr in his graveyard he will probably answer “because the minotaur died.” I've found that most players don't have that technical an understanding of the rules. They just know that if the target of an aura dies the aura goes to the graveyard.

I think the error was putting the card into the wrong zone. I think making the distinction between countering and resolving the spell would be assigning an intent to the players that probably wasn't there. I would be comfortable applying the partial fix in this case.

Originally posted by Brian Denmark:

think the error was putting the card into the wrong zone. I think making the distinction between countering and resolving the spell would be assigning an intent to the players that probably wasn't there. I would be comfortable applying the partial fix in this case.

After reading your philosophy, I still would not. If one were to do a full judge rewind of this GRV, one would back the game up to the point where Boon Satyr is still on the stack, no legal target, with the active player having priority. This is the most recent point before a GRV is committed, and both players have a chance to cast spells and activate abilities before the Boon Satyr resolves.

This is very different game state than just giving the active player his boon satyr back because it “went to the wrong zone”. If one were to implement the partial fix, one would be giving the controller of Boon Satyr a pretty big gift. He's getting a Satyr without his opponent having the chance to respond to the satyr being on the stack.

I believe this partial fix is philosophically intended for things like a creature was destroyed by a legal action with rest in peace in play, the player put it in his yard, some stuff happened, they called judge. The end result after the partial fix is the same as if you did a full rewind, but without all the headache. With this week's knowledge pool, that's just not the case. Furthermore, I believe this partial fix best applies in situations where the GRV itself is the placing of an object in the incorrect zone. In this knowledge pool scenario, the players didn't resolve the boon satyr and put it into the wrong zone, they never resolved it at all. That's a separate GRV that caused illegal actions to be taken (Boon Satyr in the yard) rather than a legal game state in which an object was just put into a different place.

I must admit that when given limited information in a knowledge pool scenario, I may be assigning intent to the players on this one. I think this is a safe assumption. If Scott comes by and says, no, they meant to resolve the Boon Satyr as a creature and they moved it from the Stack to the Graveyard, then my ruling would change significantly. Brian is absolutely correct that I'm assuming that the players in the hypothetical countered the Satyr due to no targets. If it were a real person I'd be able to find that out, but since its just the scenario, I made that guess.

I stand by my interpretation that its GRV/FTMGS, but that its not eligible for the partial fix. Some judges may want to back up to the point where Boon Satyr is on the stack, with no legal target. Some may feel it isn't a good time to back it up (this seems to be the more common opinion in this thread, but it all depends on being there). I believe the partial fix doesn't give the players the appropriate chance to take actions that they could have taken if a full rewind were performed, and isn't applicable to this GRV.

>>If one were to implement the partial fix, one would be giving the
controller of Boon Satyr a pretty big gift. He's getting a Satyr without
his opponent having the chance to respond to the satyr being on the stack.

Are you sure on that? It appears that they thought it went to the graveyard
because it was countered *on resolution*. So the opponent already had the
chance to respond when it was originally cast.

Also, why would a backup have rewound to the active player having priority
with the Satyr on the stack. The illegal action happened during the
resolution, so wouldn't a rewind go back to the *resolution*? Would this
change your answer at all?

Nick Short
L2
Chicago, IL, USA

Originally posted by Alex Moore:

I believe the partial fix doesn't give the players the appropriate chance to take actions that they could have taken if a full rewind were performed, and isn't applicable to this GRV.

Sometimes partial fixes are pretty nasty. I've seen some devastating Phyrexian Revokers for example (make a legal choice and nobody is allowed to respond to that).
How it affects the game is simply not a factor for those partial fixes, you always apply them if applicable.

Brian Denmark

Oren Firestein
But the original error isn't that Boon Satyr is being put into the wrong zone - it is that the Boon Satyr is being treated as having been countered when it has not.

How do we know that this is the actual error. Unless one of the players used the word “countered” this is an assumption. The only thing we know for certain is that the Boon Satyr went to the wrong zone.

If we ask Nick why he put Boon Satyr in his graveyard he will probably answer “because the minotaur died.” I've found that most players don't have that technical an understanding of the rules. They just know that if the target of an aura dies the aura goes to the graveyard.

I think the error was putting the card into the wrong zone. I think making the distinction between countering and resolving the spell would be assigning an intent to the players that probably wasn't there. I would be comfortable applying the partial fix in this case.

I do not agree with this reasoning at competitive REL. We always say in our introduction how players are assumed to know the rules and are accountable for their own mistakes, etc. I don't think Nick not knowing how it works exactly should be a free pass for anything.

Edited Toby Hazes (Oct. 27, 2013 06:28:55 PM)