Welcome, judges to another enchanting and beatific edition of the Knowledge Pool! This week we have a rare Gold scenario. That means all judge candidates and judges of levels 1 and 2 are invited to participate right away. The floodgates are officially wide open, so without further dillydallying, here is the blog link and your scenario!

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/?p=1064

Abel is playing in a Standard PTQ. He controls a Pain Seer, which he untaps at the start of his turn. He then immediately draws a card for his turn. He pauses for a second, says, “Oh!” points to his Pain Seer, then reveals the top card of his library, which is a Swamp. He says “Swamp. Lose zero,” and puts it in his hand. At this point, his opponent Nancy calls for a judge.

What do you do?

It seems clear that Abel forgot his Pain Seer trigger, and then realised it almost immediately and assumed he could just resolve it now and everything would be ok.

Option A: He has committed a GPE-GRV by resolving a trigger at the wrong time. After checking with him if he has received penalties in the event already, we issue a Warning. Fix is to put the swamp back on top of the library. Do not shuffle though. Explain to Abel that he should never try to fix mistakes himself - always call for a judge (it's what we're here for) and we'll make sure everything gets sorted properly. Next we ask Nancy if she would like this Missed Trigger to go on the stack or not and proceed from there. No penalty for her. No Missed Trigger Penalty either (scenario doesn't mention life totals so I assume they're not relevant).

Option B: He has committed GPE-DEC. As before, check for previous penalties. Barring upgrades, this infraction would carry a Game Loss which we will downgrade to a Warning as we can identify which card it was, and easily return it to the correct zone. We return the card, give the same explanation as above, and ask Nancy if she wants to put the trigger on the stack.

In the end, I think Option A is more correct. Both situations give end up in the same place, but the infraction looks more correct to me.

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

It seems clear that Abel forgot his Pain Seer trigger, and then realised it almost immediately and assumed he could just resolve it now and everything would be ok.

Option A: He has committed a GPE-GRV by resolving a trigger at the wrong time. After checking with him if he has received penalties in the event already, we issue a Warning. Fix is to put the swamp back on top of the library. Do not shuffle though. Explain to Abel that he should never try to fix mistakes himself - always call for a judge (it's what we're here for) and we'll make sure everything gets sorted properly. Next we ask Nancy if she would like this Missed Trigger to go on the stack or not and proceed from there. No penalty for her. No Missed Trigger Penalty either (scenario doesn't mention life totals so I assume they're not relevant).

Option B: He has committed GPE-DEC. As before, check for previous penalties. Barring upgrades, this infraction would carry a Game Loss which we will downgrade to a Warning as we can identify which card it was, and easily return it to the correct zone. We return the card, give the same explanation as above, and ask Nancy if she wants to put the trigger on the stack.

In the end, I think Option A is more correct. Both situations give end up in the same place, but the infraction looks more correct to me.

I'm thinking more in the lines of Option B, as it's the “more severe” of the infractions he committed (Missed Trigger, GRV, DEC). You are correct, though, in that the card is uniquely identifiable, so we can downgrade, put that card back, and let Nancy have the option as we normally would. (We may also want to shuffle it away like we would for Looking at Extra Cards to eliminate the improper knowledge Abel has of the top card of his library.)

Originally posted by Michael Sell:

as it's the “more severe” of the infractions he committed (Missed Trigger, GRV, DEC).

Is there anything in the IPG description of any of these that might change the infractions committed?

I think that Option B: DEC with downgrade is the choice I would issue. The scenario described above seems very simliar to the following example from the IPG:

B. A player draws a card forgetting that a Howling Mine is no longer on the battlefield.

While the permanent is on the battlefied, the trigger was missed, so Abel is now resolving something that could ony exist with Nancy's permission.

I believe the correct penalty is GPE-DEC with a downgrade to a Warning because the card “was known to all players before being placed into the hand, and the card can be returned to the correct zone with minimal disruption.” (IPG 2.3 Philosophy) The player committed this error because he thought he could resolve his own missed trigger. Instruct him to call a judge before trying to fix anything in the future.

Now, we can deal with the missed trigger. Since this is a non-detrimental trigger, and it's within the turn that it was missed, ask his opponent if she would like to place the trigger on the stack. (IPG 2.1 Additional Remedy) If she does, resolve it like normal.

No penalty for Nancy since she is the one that called for a judge.

Edited Michael Grimsley (May 14, 2014 03:53:12 PM)

Am I missing something here? How can you identify the drawn card? I read the scenario as: Abel draws a card and then reveals ANOTHER card from the top of his library.

Originally posted by Milan Majerčík:

Am I missing something here? How can you identify the drawn card? I read the scenario as: Abel draws a card and then reveals ANOTHER card from the top of his library.

He revealed the Swamp before he put it into his hand, so it is identifiable.

Aha, ok, got it. I read your answer as that you penalize the first drawn card. Mea culpa :-)

Well, Abel missed his trigger when he drew a card, then tried to fix it afterward.

From IPG 2.1:
• A triggered ability that causes a change in the visible game state (including life totals) or requires a choice upon resolution: The controller must take the appropriate physical action or make it clear what the action taken or choice made is before taking any game actions (such as casting a sorcery spell or explicitly moving to the next step or phase) that can be taken only after the triggered ability should have resolved.


So, by not revealing the card at the point before he drew it, he demonstrated that he missed it. As the Pain Seer is a state trigger (CR 603.8), we have found an infraction. However, as this not considered generally detrimental, the result would be to play on, with no penalty. Thus we do not intervene here.

When Abel goes to try to “fix” it, he reveals the top card, which he wasn't entitled to do. Thus he earns a GPE:L@EC (IPG 2.2) warning and we will have him shuffle the random portion of his library including that revealed swamp.

Even though he “drew” that second card, IPG 2.3 states:

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 Communication Policy Violation had been committed … .


I don't think Nancy had time to stop him so I don't think she earned FtMGS.

My two cents, anyway.

Love, peace, and Goblin Grenades

-Matt Sauers
L2, Indianapolis.

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

No Missed Trigger Penalty either (scenario doesn't mention life totals so I assume they're not relevant).

Why would it be relevant? Game state shouldn't be taken into account when determining whether a trigger is considered generally detrimental or not.

As for the scenario: Seems to me this is a case of subtle semantics on this bit of the IPG:

IPG 2.3 Definition
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
Communication Policy Violation had been committed, and the error was not the result of resolving objects on the stack in an incorrect order.

(Emphasis mine)

This would be the distinction between Mark's options A and B.

The timeline, in my mind, of how this infraction occurred would be:

• Abel put Pain Seer's trigger onto the stack (a GRV, since the trigger was missed)
  
• Abel resolves this trigger, drawing the extra card
  

This suggests that DEC doesn't apply, since a GRV took place before hand.

However, Samuel makes an excellent point in bringing up the example of the extraneous Howling Mine trigger. If you suppose, for a moment, that instead of that trigger being Howling Mine, but perhaps a Sulfuric Vortex, the infraction would be a GRV (at least, I can't perceive any other infraction fitting better). Clearly there is a distinction in the philosophy due to the card being drawn.

I'd choose Option B: Abel receives a GPE-DEC infraction, with a downgrade from a game loss to a warning, since the identity of the card was made visible to both players when Abel improperly revealed it. It should be noted that since this is going for a downgrade path, this should be checked off with the Head Judge if that person isn't you.

I'm going to throw in my 2 cents with Matt Sauers' answer.

There is the notion that “improperly began to resolve the trigger” was a GRV that took place even before the LEC. That's not something an opponent can see or interact with. It's more a reason for the actual game actions taken illegally. So LEC was the first domino in the action chain.

The card draw happened afterwards, which isn't something that should be left alone. So I want to rewind through that. Putting the card back on top of the library. Then shuffling for the LEC fix. Then we offer the opponent the opportunity to put the trigger on the stack.

If the person has a low life total, that does effectively give the opponent a second chance at letting them kill themselves, but that's a game state call, not something we take into consideration.

Originally posted by Aric Parkinson:

Mark Mc Govern
No Missed Trigger Penalty either (scenario doesn't mention life totals so I assume they're not relevant).

Why would it be relevant?

I was just referring to the fact that if he was at 1 life and missed the trigger we may have more serious questions to ask him ;). I included that line to show I had considered it, and then dismissed it as not relevant to the scenario

Originally posted by Michael Grimsley:

I believe the correct penalty is GPE-DEC with a downgrade to a Warning because the card “was known to all players before being placed into the hand, and the card can be returned to the correct zone with minimal disruption.” (IPG 2.3 Philosophy) The player committed this error because he thought he could resolve his own missed trigger. Instruct him to call a judge before trying to fix anything in the future. Now, we can deal with the missed trigger. Since this is a non-detrimental trigger, and it's within the turn that it was missed, ask his opponent if she would like to place the trigger on the stack. (IPG 2.1 Additional Remedy) If she does, resolve it like normal. No penalty for Nancy since she is the one that called for a judge.

I agreee that GPE-DEC is the best “fit” for this infraction. GPE-GRV is only assigned for “violations of the Comprehensive Rules that are not covered by the other Game Play Errors.” And GPE-L@EC, whle tempting because the shuffle included as part of the fix returns the library to its previous random state, carries this reminder “Once a card has been placed into his or her hand or if a player takes a game action after removing the card from the library, the offense is no longer Looking at Extra Cards.”

Whether to shuffle is an interesting question - the IPG clearly states to put the drawn card back on top of the library if its identity is known so that's what we do. But I don't really have a good answer for “why” except “because the IPG says so.” I think perhaps in some situations there may be potential for abuse.

Thanks! Now why would we offer to put the trigger on the stack if we agreed we would take no action on it?

That's a fix for MT, not LEC.