Here is my take on this issues: the IPG states that “If not caught within a reasonable time frame, or backing up is impossible or sufficiently complex that it could affect the course of the game, the judge should leave the game state as it is after applying state-based actions and not attempt any form of partial ”fix“ - either reverse all actions or none, with the following exceptions: If a player made an illegal choice or failed to make a required choice for a permanent on the battlefield, that player makes a legal choice.”

Now I am not denying that Adam should receive GPE-GRV-Warning and Nelson should receive GPE-FtMGS-Warning.

I disagree with just about everyone about chained to the rocks going to the graveyard though due to how English sentence structure works. The IPG states that if you are not going to back the game up, then you apply SBA, and leave the game state as is, unless it meets one of the three exceptions, the first one involving a permanent on the battlefield where an illegal choice was made or a required choice was not made. In this particular case, Chained to the Rocks is currently targeting an illegal choice, and it is currently a permanent on the battlefield. It clearly meets the requirements for the exception. So you must fix the choice per the exception. Now had Chained to the Rocks been on the stack still when the illegal target was called, that would not meet the guidelines of the exception.

I have seen this type of situation mix plenty of other people up before and I believe it is due to how the sentence is structured. The portion of the sentence with “-either reverse all actions or none,” can be dropped without affecting the overall sentence (it is amplifying information as denoted by the separation from the main sentence with - and ,). So you could reword the sentence to be “the judge should leave the game state as it is after applying state-based actions and not attempt any form of partial ”fix“ with the following exceptions: …” You could just as easily add the amplifying information “either reverse all actions or none” as a final note or sentence after the exceptions.

I hope this helps clear up this slightly confusing rules scenario, and I am sorry if my post was a bit long winded.

Glenn, given the fact that both players are always responsible for the game state and that this error is quite easy to avoid (“hey man, that temple isn't actually a mountain”) - do you truly believe it is correct to deviate from the IPG in this scenario?

Sure, if you believe some players may try and take advantage of it that is reasonable. But those players are quickly caught and educated/cautioned to why their behaviour is not cool at the event - and that's fine.

I disagree we should be trying to alter how we handle situations for the sake of the players when in reality, it is simpler for them to just enchant the correct permanent :)

Originally posted by Joe Steinhoff:

I disagree with just about everyone about chained to the rocks going to the graveyard though due to how English sentence structure works. The IPG states that if you are not going to back the game up, then you apply SBA, and leave the game state as is, unless it meets one of the three exceptions, the first one involving a permanent on the battlefield where an illegal choice was made or a required choice was not made.

Joe, thats the core of the problem. There was no choice made for Chained to the Rocks. An illegal choice in made for a permanent means something like I said “Goblin” for Iona, Shield of Emeria in my understanding. There's no choice for Chained to the Rocks. It enchants a Mountain and its triggered ability exiles a target creature when it enters the battlefield.

Edited Daniel Mähr (April 6, 2014 07:45:52 PM)

Joe, are you arguing to let them choose to attach the enchantment to another permanent now? Would you let them do the same thing if they had enchanted a Stormbreath Dragon with Unflinching Courage?

I'm going to walk-back my earlier post a little though where I thought of choices being resolution things, and targets being casting things. CR 601.2c “The player announces his or her choice of an appropriate player, object, or zone for each target the spell requires.” So it does seem choices are related to targeting, but I still think it's focusing on the wrong thing.

From the IPG: “If a player made an illegal choice or failed to make a required choice for a permanent on the battlefield, that player makes a legal choice.”

The wording is a little complex because of the “and”. I think it's clearer if we unwrap the “and”… “If a player (made an illegal choice for a permanent on the battlefield) or (failed to make a required choice for a permanent on the battlefield), that player makes a legal choice.”

Seen that way, when cast as a spell, the Chained to the Rock was a spell with the illegal choice was made, not a permanent.

“If a player made an illegal choice or failed to make a required choice for a permanent on the battlefield, that
player makes a legal choice.”

You make the choice when it's not a permanent, but a spell, and when it's not on the battlefield, but on the stack. This doesn't apply here.

Originally posted by Glenn Fisher:

I think that a dexterity issue is extremely likely to be at play here. Even if a dexterity issue is not at play, applying the SBE resolution sets a horrible precedent where legitimate dexterity issues would be punished in an incredibly draconian manner.

Given the number of rules questions in online forums that I see where players think that a land that produces red mana is automatically a mountain, I think that such a misunderstanding is at least as likely as a simple dexterity issue.

As you guys discuss scenarios, keep in mind that we carefully craft them behind the scenes before presenting them to our readers. If the scenario says that the Chained to the rocks was originally put on the temple, that's what happened. If we give a fact, assume you've already determined it is true.

Originally posted by Patrick Vorbroker:

As you guys discuss scenarios, keep in mind that we carefully craft them behind the scenes before presenting them to our readers. If the scenario says that the Chained to the rocks was originally put on the temple, that's what happened. If we give a fact, assume you've already determined it is true.

Thanks Patrick. Given how simply that fact was stated, I wasn't sure if it meant we had investigated that or just saw it next to a Temple.

This is a GPE-GRV for the Chained player. The penalty is a Warning. We are not backing this up, there are no applicable partial fixes, we will apply state-based actions and the Chained to the Rocks goes to the graveyard, the creature it was exiling is returned to play. The opponent is issued a GPE-FTMGS, also with a warning.

The partial fix for illegal choices made as a permanent enters the battlefield applies to things like True-Name Nemesis or Cavern of Souls with an illegal player or creature type names. This choice was a target made while casting. Further, it is subject to a state-based action sending the Aura to the graveyard, which the IPG implies would be resolved before applying any partial fix anyway.

Firstly, I would take care of the dexterity issue. A simple way would be to ask “what is that Chained to the Rocks enchanting?” This sounds like a loaded question, but most of the time the controller of the Chained to the Rocks will not understand the intent of the question and will answer truthfully. I would first ask the controller the question, then the opponent. The reason being that if there is a dexterity issue, the opponent will likely not object to the controller (from now on, opponent = NAP, controller = AP for simplicity) moving the cards around to make a legal game state, while if there is sketchiness involved, NAP will object immediately and vehemently.

If there is a dexterity issue, AP moves the cards around, and NAP does not object, I would give a Caution to AP to play less sloppy and walk away. If there is no dexterity issue, it's a GRV for AP and a FtMGS for NAP. Since 2 turns have passed, no rewind, and then apply SBAs so the Chained to the Rocks goes away and NAP gets his guy back.

(Edited after reading Patrick's post above)

Edited Lyle Waldman (April 7, 2014 04:01:45 PM)

Thanks to everyone who participated in this week's Knowledge Pool!

As everyone mentioned, this is a Game Rule Violation for Adam and a Failure to Maintain Game State for Nelson.

To determine the remedy in this scenario, let's refer to

Originally posted by IPG 2.5:

If not caught within a reasonable time frame, or backing up is impossible or sufficiently complex that it could affect the course of the game, the judge should leave the game state as it is after applying state-based actions and not attempt any form of partial ‘fix’ – either reverse all actions or none, with the following exceptions:

•If a player made an illegal choice or failed to make a required choice for a permanent on the battlefield, that player makes a legal choice.

A complete back up would be too complex, as two turns have passed and many decisions may have been made. Thus, we will fix the current game state by applying the State-Based Actions: Chained to the Rocks is put into Adam's graveyard, which will return the Arbor Colossus from exile.

The GRV Partial fix referring to an object on the battlefield with an illegal choice does not apply to this scenario. The choice mentioned in the Partial fix refers to a choice mentioned explicitly by the card. An example of a choice can be seen from the card Voice of All.

Originally posted by Samuel Tremblay:

“If a player made an illegal choice or failed to make a required choice for a permanent on the battlefield, that
player makes a legal choice.”

You make the choice when it's not a permanent, but a spell, and when it's not on the battlefield, but on the stack. This doesn't apply here.

That does make a lot of sense. Thank you for pointing out when the choice is made and reminding me of that part.