At the recent GP Phoenix, I was speaking with someone (I unfortunately don't remember who) and discussing when we issue both players a GRV vs when we give one a GRV and the other FTMGS. The IPG says:

Originally posted by IPG:

For most Game Play Errors not caught within a time that a player could reasonably be expected to notice, opponents receive a Game Play Error — Failure to Maintain Game State penalty. If the judge believes that both players were responsible for a Game Rule Violation, such as due to the existence of replacement effects or a player taking action based on another players instruction, both players receive a Game Play Error — Game Rule Violation. For example, if a player casts Path to Exile on an opponent’s creature and the opponent puts the creature into the graveyard, both players have committed this infraction.

I had always thought this description of double-GRVs included scenarios where one player had one of the many creatures that mess with the opponent, such as Thalia, Guardian of Thraben or Leovold, Emissary of Trest. For example, scenarios like: AP controls one of these creatures, NAP taps one island and casts Brainstorm, and AP says “That resolves.” NAP resolves the spell normally, both players move on with the game, then notice the mistake some time later - these would be a GRV for both players.

The logic here being that the Thalia/Leovold player should know what their cards do, but they let the opponent mess things up - they're certainly more responsible for the error than a clear-cut GRV-FTMGS scenario like AP sacrifices Windswept Heath and gets Watery Grave.

In my conversation, the other speaker said they had discussed this exact scenario with multiple L3s, who had unanimously decreed that this was actually NOT a double GRV.
So … is this scenario not a double GRV? How would you rule here?

Edited Brook Gardner-Durbin (March 21, 2018 05:32:51 AM)

Based on my understanding, I would rule GRV-FTMGS.

I believe the difference between those cases and the classical Path to Exile case that is used as an example for the double GRV is that the resolution of the Path is an active effect that is instructing the opponnent to take action on it as it resolves. So, if a player commits an error while following the instructions of a spell controlled by his opponent, then both players are at fault. I believe the same logic can be applied to replacement effects as well.


Thalia's and Leovold's static abilities that influence the state of the game for either one, many, or all players. Therefore, if a player commits an error related to those abilities, who is at fault ? The one who commits the error. And if the controller of the effect fails to prevent this error from impacting the game state, FTMGS should apply.

Originally posted by David Lachance-Poitras:

Based on my understanding, I would rule GRV-FTMGS.

I believe the difference between those cases and the classical Path to Exile case that is used as an example for the double GRV is that the resolution of the Path is an active effect that is instructing the opponnent to take action on it as it resolves. So, if a player commits an error while following the instructions of a spell controlled by his opponent, then both players are at fault. I believe the same logic can be applied to replacement effects as well.


Thalia's and Leovold's static abilities that influence the state of the game for either one, many, or all players. Therefore, if a player commits an error related to those abilities, who is at fault ? The one who commits the error. And if the controller of the effect fails to prevent this error from impacting the game state, FTMGS should apply.

Agree.
In my understanding, the focus shouldn't be on which player controls what - it should be on which player actively takes action, and which one doesn't.

See also Annotated IPG:
https://blogs.magicjudges.org/rules/ipg2-5/

“As always, both players are responsible for maintaining a clear game state. If my card tells you to take an action, and you do it incorrectly, whose fault is it? Yours for doing the action incorrectly, or mine for not making sure my spell resolved correctly? Turns out, in this case, it’s reasonable to say we are both equally at fault. It’s important to realize this is only for active effects. If player A forgets to pay 1 more when casting a shock because he forgot about player N’s Thalia, Guardian of Thraben, that is not considered an active effect on player N’s part. In that case, the error is on player A’s shoulders, and player N should get a Failure to Maintain Game State.”

So Brook's example uses static effects, but the IPG calls out replacement so let's try an example of that. Let's say we have Thalia, Heretic Cathar and our opponent puts a creature into play untapped. This seems to be very much in line with the IPG's double GRV to me. Which raises the question of if this is meaningfully different from the example Brook posted. To me it really isn't different, even if the strict text of the IPG says it is. Both cases involve 1 player with a card that changes the rules, and the other not abiding by that change. To me that means both should be double GRV, and the problem lies with the IPG, which should have it's wording updated accordingly.

Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:

Agree.
In my understanding, the focus shouldn't be on which player controls what - it should be on which player actively takes action, and which one doesn't.

From the blog article about the rewording:

if you think both players share the responsibility for the error (thanks to replacement effects or participation in the action), then they do.

https://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2016/01/18/ogw-policy-changes/

For Reference:

https://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/39439/

Which includes this post from Scott Marshall on these effects.

https://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/241138/

The IPG is not saying that every single replacement effect violation is a double GRV. It's just an example. I believe the one that was in mind when writing that line was Kalitas, Traitor of Ghet. If AP controls a Kalitas and NAP's creature dies, both AP and NAP have failed to take the proper action (NAP didn't exile the card, AP didn't create a Zombie), so they both get GRVs. A Rest in Peace on the other hand is only an “active effect” for NAP, so only NAP would receive the GRV in that situation.

Quoting Scott's post from the other forum:

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

I'm inclined to use double GRVs only for situations where both players are acting - i.e., the classic example of Path To Exile - and not for a static effect that the controller missed during another player's action.

Also, if you're playing with a card like the Sunwing, it's because of the effect it has on your opponents, and it's in your best interests to remember it. Forgetting that is almost never going to benefit you, when you Fail to Maintain the Game State. Receiving a GRV for your forgetfulness seems like “piling on”, to me.

Many of us remember when double GRV was strictly for Path to Exile, and perhaps a few odd corner cases. The frequency with which this list was dragged into those dark corners, to ask “is this double GRV?”, led us to relaxing the firm boundaries around the concept. (We also considered that there were other situations where it might be an acceptable outcome.)

However, it's good to keep in mind the original intent: both players are taking actions to resolve an effect, and it goes wrong - i.e., Path to Exile.

The focus that he and several others here have on taking a physical action is interesting to me, and not how I'd heard this framed in the past. I'd learned the difference between GRVx2/GRV-FTMGS as focusing on responsibility, not action. For example: “Do you think it was almost entirely one player's responsibility that the game state became incorrect? Then it's GRV-FTMGS. If you were assigning blame for the error and think it's closer to 50-50, it's more likely double GRV.”

The Thalia example feels philosophically the same to me as one I think we'd all call a doubleGRV - say AP controls Kalitas, Traitor of Ghet and kills an opponent's creature, NAP put it in the graveyard in stead of exiling it, and AP doesn't make a token.

That seems to fit the exact wording of the IPG's doubleGRV section more perfectly, as it's a replacement effect. But it feels the same as the Thalia example to me – one player has a card that changes how the game works now, and the other messed up following the new rules. It doesn't make any sense to me that these would be different infractions. What's the difference?

Edited Brook Gardner-Durbin (March 22, 2018 03:19:58 AM)

Because having to pay more is something the player has to look out for himself.

On the same token, if a player searches with a Leonin Arbiter under the control of his opponent, only one player gets a GRV, not both.

Originally posted by Johannes Wagner:

Because having to pay more is something the player has to look out for himself.

Can you elaborate here? I'm not sure what you're saying with this.

Originally posted by Johannes Wagner:

On the same token, if a player searches with a Leonin Arbiter under the control of his opponent, only one player gets a GRV, not both.

This also feels inconsistent, philosophically.