Hi, here is an issue i had some times ago, and i would like to know how you would handle such a case.

We are in a TOP 4 of a Legacy tournament, REL competitive.

April casts a spell. In response November plays a snapcaster mage. It resolves, when the trigger resolves, he gives flashback to a Force of Will. Then he casts it with the alternative cost (losing one life and exiling a blue card of his hand), cause he has only one untapped land and no mana left in his mana pool.

After investigating, you find out that November didn't know you can"t pitch a FoW instead of the flashback cost.

How do you fix the situation (and more importantly, up to when?)

You rewind to the moment just before first illegal action. You put Force of
Will from the stack into owner's graveyard, return the blue card from your
graveyard to November's hand and he gains 1 life. FoW still has flashback
untill EoT.
14 cze 2014 13:03, “Olivier Besnard” <forum-10653-7b54@apps.magicjudges.org>
napisał(a):

This seems fairly straightforward. We would (with the HJ's permission)
rewind to the first illegal event. In this case, that would be attempting
to cast FoW for its alternative casting cost.
Specifically, we would return whatever card was exiled to November's hand,
have him gain one life, and return FoW to the graveyard. It would still
have flashback, and November would be sad, but there is absolutely no
reason to remind further than that in my opinion.
November would receive a Warning for GPE:GRV. Assuming April called a judge immediately, I wouldn't issue her an infraction or penalty.

Edited Violet Moon (June 14, 2014 08:31:21 AM)

In fact it looks to be a simple rewind case but you (we?) need to know how much time has past since the FoW was cast?

To do rollbacks you need to consider time AND the complexity. It must be safe to rollback but it needs to be done within a time that is also safe. You should not try to rollback a mistake made many turns ago.

So the first question is: when did the judge was called?

Edited Vinicius Quaiato (June 14, 2014 10:55:55 AM)

The judge was on site when the error occurs, so the rollback was easy. The fix applied was a rewind of the FoW cast, so i guess it was the good one. I wanted to be sure about that, since similar errors could occur in legacy tournaments.

But what do we do, if the player has got five untapped Islands, but doesn't
want to cast FoW for its normal cost, because he wants to use them at the
end of turn?


2014-06-14 19:52 GMT+02:00 Olivier Besnard <

I don't see why this should change anything. We backup to just after the
Snapcaster Trigger resolves. What the players do from there is up to them.
On Jun 15, 2014 12:27 PM, “Adrian Strzała” <

But shouldn't we rewind just to the point of paying the costs for the
spell? The game may continue legally from that point.


2014-06-15 13:13 GMT+02:00 Thomas Edgar <

Well, theoretically, if you wanted to get that granular, we'd have to
rewind to when the decision as to which cost was paid was made. They'd have
to choose the only legal choice (paying the flashback cost). At that point,
they're not obligated to tap any lands for mana, and if they can't pay the
costs, the CR will rewind the casting of the spell anyway, so we're back in
the same situation as if we had just rewound to before the casting in fhte
first place. No player ever has to pay costs, even costs of {0}, if they
don't want to (I think - correct me if I'm wrong.)
On Jun 15, 2014 1:24 PM, “Adrian Strzała” <

Originally posted by Adrian Strzała:

But shouldn't we rewind just to the point of paying the costs for the
spell? The game may continue legally from that point.

Well, I think you could get into specifics here about whether the first illegal action was the choice (CR 601.2b) to cast the spell via flashback using the alternative cost, or the determination of the cost (CR 601.2e), or the payment (CR 601.2g). Regardless of whatever point in the process we back the player up to is somewhat moot; we can't force the player to pay a cost, even if it would be a legal choice.

So, I would agree that backing up to the beginning of the process of casting the spell just makes the most sense here. Perhaps not the most exact per policy, but the most reasonable IMO.

Originally posted by Adrian Strzała:

But shouldn't we rewind just to the point of paying the costs for the
spell? The game may continue legally from that point.


2014-06-15 13:13 GMT+02:00 Thomas Edgar <

What you're proposing here seems like it would penalize the player unnecessarily by forcing them into a line of play they might not want. The player who committed the GRV is already at a disadvantage because of their mistake. We fix illegal actions and let the game proceed from that point. We don't make choices for players. (As much as we may want to at times :) )

In the case that April had no hand and therefore November waited for no
confirmation would we do the same? I mean, if November simply plays the
Snapcaster, puts the FoW in the stack, removes a card and pays one life,
all in a single string of actions, non-stop and asking nothing to his
opponent through the opponent, would we rewind to Snapcaster's ability
resolving? The intention of November couldn't be clearer and gained no
information of any kind thanks to the error. I'm aware we want consistence
on the ruling, but it doesn't seem the same to wait for confirmation for
resolving the Snapcaster or its ability and doing everything as it were a
single spell being played.


2014-06-15 15:38 GMT+02:00 Heidi Sitten <

Originally posted by Albert Masclans:

In the case that April had no hand and therefore November waited for no
confirmation would we do the same? I mean, if November simply plays the
Snapcaster, puts the FoW in the stack, removes a card and pays one life,
all in a single string of actions, non-stop and asking nothing to his
opponent through the opponent, would we rewind to Snapcaster's ability
resolving? The intention of November couldn't be clearer and gained no
information of any kind thanks to the error. I'm aware we want consistence
on the ruling, but it doesn't seem the same to wait for confirmation for
resolving the Snapcaster or its ability and doing everything as it were a
single spell being played.

Targeting Force of Will in the graveyard with Snapcaster's ability is a legal action. While it doesn't have the desired outcome (e.g., being able to cast via exiling a blue card and pay 1 life), that is not our concern. We would essentially be correcting for a poor, but legal, decision rather than correcting for the illegal action. And our responsibility should not be to correct for poor decisions.

The player could have asked to confirm the line of play before actually taking the action, and certainly that falls within expectations of the player's responsibility at Competitive REL to have an understanding of the rules. The interaction may be “weird”, but I would hold the player responsible for knowing it, or confirming it before taking the action.

Keep in mind that the Comprehensive Rules define how we handle Illegal Actions (CR 717). The IPG explains how to handle a GRV when it's noticed later; the Comp Rules determine what to do when an Illegal Action is attempted.

But both are consistent, and (I believe) fairly clear in this case: Snapcaster Mage is legal; targeting Force of Will with the triggered ability is legal. Both of those legal actions resolve. Casting Force of Will using its alternate cost? That's illegal.

Either the players apply CR717 and proceed, or we get involved, see that a GRV has occurred, and handle it according to IPG 2.5 - and we still end up at the same place. November has priority and may take another action or pass (per CR 717.2).

Note that my answer, above, doesn't change in any of those “what if” proposals that have been tacked on to the original question.

d:^D

Last thing on one point. If the judge is near the table and sees that the player will attempt to do this kind of error (November target FoW with snapcaster ability with un U remaining for example), when does he have to intervene exactly?

As explained in the general philosophy of the IPG :

Judges don’t stop play errors from occurring, but instead deal with errors that have occurred, penalize those who violate rules or policy, and promote fair play and sporting conduct by example and diplomacy.

So in this case, the judge waits for November to commit his error then intervene?