Hello

I'm talking about the expressly provided fix such as
If an object is in an incorrect zone either due to a required zone change being missed or
due to being put into the wrong zone during a zone change, the identity of the object was
known to all players, and it can be moved with only minor disruption to the state of the
game, put the object in the correct zone

It is intended where we encounter a GRV related to an instruction that only contains this specified case such as Anafenza, the Foremost or can be applied also in cases where the instruction contains the case but also another action such as the new Kalitas, Traitor of Ghet?

Long story short, if after X turns I notice that I put the creature in the graveyard and not in exile you will apply the fix in both cases (if not disruptive for the state of the game)?

Thank you

Originally posted by Andrea Sciarrotta:

if after X turns I notice

I think the chance of “minor disruption” decreases as X increases. Also, Kalitas' additional action - get a 2/2 Zombie - is not covered by this, but it does reduce the likelihood of Kalitas' controller forgetting. :)

But, yes, to your question - as long as we determine that the disruption is only minor, the fix (exiling the creature card) can be applied.

d:^D

The situation with Kalitas, Traitor of Ghet still fits with the default fix. A card was put into the wrong zone during a zone change (graveyard instead of exile). Note that the fix only says to put the object into the correct zone, it doesn't say anything about any additional actions associated with that zone change. So you can move the card to exile, but the controller of Kalitas wouldn't get their Zombie token.

Hi :-)

Scott, are you actually suggesting that we should perform partial fixes leaving the situation otherwise unchanged?

I'm quite curious because there are a countless number of situations that we nowadays fix with “backup or leave as it is” where similar partial fixes could be applied.

Originally posted by Luca Romano:

I'm quite curious because there are a countless number of situations…

This suggests that what I meant to say, and what you think I meant, may not be the same at all. Perhaps a few of those countless examples would help?

d:^D

Well, basically everytime an effect does “something” and “something else” where “something else” involves a player drawing, discarding, or returning card from hand to library, or a card changing zone.

A trivial example might be this: a player plays Repeal and then forgets to resolve it (a counterwar happens involving multiple flusterstorm and he thinks his spell has actually been countered while it should resolve).
Should we allow him to draw a card, without bouncing any permanent?
A similar case can be made with a player copying his opponent's Electrolyze with a Twincast, and the opponents forgets to resolve his own Electrolyze mistaking the Twincast for a counterspell of any sort.
I know they're stupid examples, I can look for more cards with such effects - and easier to forget than a spell on the stack - but my question is more general:

Given the IPGs:

"Additional Remedy
If the infraction falls into one of the following categories, perform the fix specified unless a
simple backup is possible:
"

what happens when the infraction falls partially into one of the categories?

Should we always apply all possible fixes, eventually splitting the resolution of spell and abilities in all their single components? I guess I know the general answer, but I'd like to know where to draw a line.

Edited Luca Romano (Jan. 25, 2016 03:35:45 PM)

A required zone change refers to an instruction being missed or SBA not being followed.

In the situations described, the error is not a card failing to be moved when called for, but an effect not resolving that would have generated such an instruction. The partial fix does not apply in these situations.

Don't you think this is splitting awfully thin hairs, Toby? Is there a
difference between “He didn't resolve Repeal” and “I forgot to bounce this
guy and he forgot to draw”?

Originally posted by Toby Elliott:

A required zone change refers to an instruction being missed or SBA not being followed.

In the situations described, the error is not a card failing to be moved when called for, but an effect not resolving that would have generated such an instruction. The partial fix does not apply in these situations.

Sorry mean you the situations as Luca described or my original question?

Edited Andrea Sciarrotta (Jan. 25, 2016 05:52:37 PM)

Originally posted by Dan Collins:

Don't you think this is splitting awfully thin hairs, Toby? Is there a
difference between “He didn't resolve Repeal” and “I forgot to bounce this
guy and he forgot to draw”?

Those don't sound that close, and the fact that the second situation sounds silly should point towards the answer here.

Originally posted by Toby Elliott:

In the situations described, the error is not a card failing to be moved when called for, but an effect not resolving that would have generated such an instruction. The partial fix does not apply in these situations.

Let's try a simpler example:

Andrea casts Divination and doesn't draw any card when it should be resolving. A turn later the players notice the infraction.

I would apply the partial fix and let Andrea draw those two cards. What you are saying is Andrea didn't resolve the effect of Divination and I should not apply the partial fix. Correct?

I came up with a better example, even though making corner cases examples wasn't really my point here.
A player cast Careful Study, draws one card and discards one. Here the effect has been resolved, at least partially, but I would've ruled it with “backup or leave as it is”, since the infraction doesn't fall under one of the categories specified by the IPGs, but rather into two (a player forgot to draw and to discard).

But, really, coming up with examples is not my best quality, and it's not what the original discussion between me and Andrea Sciarrotta (and other judges) was about.
The main point is: so far I always interpreted the “If the infraction falls into one of the following categories” as logically exclusive. If the infraction doesn't fall exactly into one of the categories, then the fix cannot be performed.

Now, from the Kalitas situation it seems that the right interpretation is logically inclusive: if the infraction falls partially under one of the categories (and partially into another, or outside of any of them), then apply all possible fixes, then leave the rest as it is.
Or I just don't understand what this is all about :-)