I have Courser of Kruphix on the battlefield. I flip the top card, it's a land, play the land, change my life total, then forget to flip over the top card again. I pass the turn, my opponent passes back. I proceed to draw a card but before I draw my opponent points out that my top card is not flipped over. I understand this is a violation but can someone explain to me exactly how it works and if I can somehow undo this careless mistake. Thanks in advance!
It depends on the REL. At Regular REL (FNM, prerelease, Game Day, etc), the card would be revealed and you would both be told to play more carefully. There's no such thing as a Warning at Regular REL.
At Comp/Pro REL, you would receive a Warning for Game Player Error - Game Rule Violation and your opponent would receive a Warning for Game Play Error - Failure To Maintain Game State. The card would be revealed and you would continue playing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 2 Magic Judge
Cards do what they say they do. No more. No less.
Thank you for the responses and I'm referring to comp/pro REL.
So both players would get a warning? Is it both player's responsibility to maintain the courser of kruphix effect? Meaning if I forget to reveal my top card and this was my 3rd warning. My opponent notices it but does not mention it hoping to get a game loss. What would happen then?
It depends on the REL. At Regular REL (FNM, prerelease, Game Day, etc), the card would be revealed and you would both be told to play more carefully. There's no such thing as a Warning at Regular REL.
At Comp/Pro REL, you would receive a Warning for Game Player Error - Game Rule Violation and your opponent would receive a Warning for Game Play Error - Failure To Maintain Game State. The card would be revealed and you would continue playing.
Thank you for the responses and I'm referring to comp/pro REL.
So both players would get a warning? Is it both player's responsibility to maintain the courser of kruphix effect?
Yes. It is both player's responsibility to maintain a correct game state. Failure To Maintain Game State warnings do not get upgraded for subsequent offensives, but the DCI still wants to track them. Too many can start to look suspicious. Quick example: The last FtMGS penalty I handed out was because a player allowed his opponent to have two legendary permanents on the field for half a turn. The first player thought the 'legend rule' only kicked in at end of turn.
Meaning if I forget to reveal my top card and this was my 3rd warning. My opponent notices it but does not mention it hoping to get a game loss. What would happen then?
It would actually be in your opponent's best interest to call a judge at this point. As above, FtMGS penalties are not upgraded. He would receive a Warning and you would receive a Game Loss (upgraded from Warning due to it being your 3rd offense).
If a player notices a Game Rule Violation and intentionally ignores it hoping for a more severe penalty later on, then this is Cheating. Obviously, the penalty for Cheating is DQ.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 2 Magic Judge
Cards do what they say they do. No more. No less.
Thank you for the response DragonFox1001. Could I please get a second opinion on this matter, I just want to make certain that this is the correct way to play since I plan on playing with courser of kruphix in all of my decks now.
Thank you for the responses and I'm referring to comp/pro REL.
So both players would get a warning? Is it both player's responsibility to maintain the courser of kruphix effect? Meaning if I forget to reveal my top card and this was my 3rd warning. My opponent notices it but does not mention it hoping to get a game loss. What would happen then?
If your opponent is trying to get a game loss on you for it, he can just call a judge and say you forgot the trigger again. He doesn't have to pretend he didn't see it.
An error that an opponent has no opportunity to verify the legality of should have its penalty upgraded. These errors involve misplaying hidden information, such as the morph ability or failing to reveal a card to prove that a choice made was a legal one. If the information was ever in a position where opponents had the opportunity to verify the legality (such as on top of the library, as the only card in hand, or on the battlefield), do not upgrade the penalty and reveal the information if possible.
Since the card was on top of the library before it was drawn, it was in a position where the opponent could verify the information (in this case, by pointing out that it should be revealed). The solution is to reveal the card if possible (in addition to the warning).
An error that an opponent has no opportunity to verify the legality of should have its penalty upgraded. These errors involve misplaying hidden information, such as the morph ability or failing to reveal a card to prove that a choice made was a legal one. If the information was ever in a position where opponents had the opportunity to verify the legality (such as on top of the library, as the only card in hand, or on the battlefield), do not upgrade the penalty and reveal the information if possible.
Since the card was on top of the library before it was drawn, it was in a position where the opponent could verify the information (in this case, by pointing out that it should be revealed). The solution is to reveal the card if possible (in addition to the warning).
I recently had a Courser of Kruphix in play with the top card of my library turned face up. Prior to my draw step, I fetched, shuffled, and presented the deck for my opponent to cut/shuffle. He did. I then drew the top card without first revealing it. It went into my hand (it was not mixed in, but it clearly became part of my hand).
What would be the correct ruling in this case?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Because we cannot prevent draws in paper Magic we allow IDs. If we could prevent draws we would not have IDs in paper Magic. " Scott Larabee.
An error that an opponent has no opportunity to verify the legality of should have its penalty upgraded. These errors involve misplaying hidden information, such as the morph ability or failing to reveal a card to prove that a choice made was a legal one. If the information was ever in a position where opponents had the opportunity to verify the legality (such as on top of the library, as the only card in hand, or on the battlefield), do not upgrade the penalty and reveal the information if possible.
Since the card was on top of the library before it was drawn, it was in a position where the opponent could verify the information (in this case, by pointing out that it should be revealed). The solution is to reveal the card if possible (in addition to the warning).
I recently had a Courser of Kruphix in play with the top card of my library turned face up. Prior to my draw step, I fetched, shuffled, and presented the deck for my opponent to cut/shuffle. He did. I then drew the top card without first revealing it. It went into my hand (it was not mixed in, but it clearly became part of my hand).
What would be the correct ruling in this case?
Again, there would be a warning for Game Play Error-Game Rule Violation. A penalty for Drawing Extra cards specifically says you only use this penalty if no other Communication policy violation or Game play error has been committed. The violation began when you did not reveal the top card after receiving your deck back after it was cut. As such, you would get a warning for Game Play Error-Game Rule Violation. Once again, it is not upgraded because the card was in a "uniquely identifiable spot"(on top of the library) before you drew it.
An error that an opponent has no opportunity to verify the legality of should have its penalty upgraded. These errors involve misplaying hidden information, such as the morph ability or failing to reveal a card to prove that a choice made was a legal one. If the information was ever in a position where opponents had the opportunity to verify the legality (such as on top of the library, as the only card in hand, or on the battlefield), do not upgrade the penalty and reveal the information if possible.
Since the card was on top of the library before it was drawn, it was in a position where the opponent could verify the information (in this case, by pointing out that it should be revealed). The solution is to reveal the card if possible (in addition to the warning).
I recently had a Courser of Kruphix in play with the top card of my library turned face up. Prior to my draw step, I fetched, shuffled, and presented the deck for my opponent to cut/shuffle. He did. I then drew the top card without first revealing it. It went into my hand (it was not mixed in, but it clearly became part of my hand).
What would be the correct ruling in this case?
Again, there would be a warning for Game Play Error-Game Rule Violation. A penalty for Drawing Extra cards specifically says you only use this penalty if no other Communication policy violation or Game play error has been committed. The violation began when you did not reveal the top card after receiving your deck back after it was cut. As such, you would get a warning for Game Play Error-Game Rule Violation. Once again, it is not upgraded because the card was in a "uniquely identifiable spot"(on top of the library) before you drew it.
Does it matter that the card drawn is no longer in a "uniquely identifiable spot"? Would the card drawn have to be revealed? Since it is now in my hand, there is no way to prove that whatever card I show was the one I just drew.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Because we cannot prevent draws in paper Magic we allow IDs. If we could prevent draws we would not have IDs in paper Magic. " Scott Larabee.
An error that an opponent has no opportunity to verify the legality of should have its penalty upgraded. These errors involve misplaying hidden information, such as the morph ability or failing to reveal a card to prove that a choice made was a legal one. If the information was ever in a position where opponents had the opportunity to verify the legality (such as on top of the library, as the only card in hand, or on the battlefield), do not upgrade the penalty and reveal the information if possible.
Since the card was on top of the library before it was drawn, it was in a position where the opponent could verify the information (in this case, by pointing out that it should be revealed). The solution is to reveal the card if possible (in addition to the warning).
I recently had a Courser of Kruphix in play with the top card of my library turned face up. Prior to my draw step, I fetched, shuffled, and presented the deck for my opponent to cut/shuffle. He did. I then drew the top card without first revealing it. It went into my hand (it was not mixed in, but it clearly became part of my hand).
What would be the correct ruling in this case?
Again, there would be a warning for Game Play Error-Game Rule Violation. A penalty for Drawing Extra cards specifically says you only use this penalty if no other Communication policy violation or Game play error has been committed. The violation began when you did not reveal the top card after receiving your deck back after it was cut. As such, you would get a warning for Game Play Error-Game Rule Violation. Once again, it is not upgraded because the card was in a "uniquely identifiable spot"(on top of the library) before you drew it.
Does it matter that the card drawn is no longer in a "uniquely identifiable spot"? Would the card drawn have to be revealed? Since it is now in my hand, there is no way to prove that whatever card I show was the one I just drew.
No, it matters that at the time the error was made it is in a uniquely identifiable position. The rule says, once again: If the information needed to verify the legality was ever in a uniquely identifiable position (such as on top of the library or as the only card in hand
For GRV's judges normally have two options, they can either rewind to the point where the error occured or leave the game state as is (there are some exceptions to the rule, but those don't apply here). So to rewind they would have to take a card at random from that players hand and put it on top of that players library, and then have that player reveal the card. So the judge would have to decide in this case would keeping the game state as is be worse than a rewind? IMO it wouldn't be and I'd probably leave the game state as is and apply the penalties, then remind the players to be more careful in the future.
Thanks for the responses. When this happened, the GRV was upgraded to a game loss. I do not remember the judge's specific wording, though I do remember "upgraded". I tried to say that there was a remedy to my opponent not being given the information as to what card I drew and revealed my hand. I also said that this was not a case of an unverifiable choice I made. But, the judge repeated that it was a game loss and I said "ok". I did not know exactly what rule to cite (and turns out I had made the wrong argument, though the second one was pretty close to right).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Because we cannot prevent draws in paper Magic we allow IDs. If we could prevent draws we would not have IDs in paper Magic. " Scott Larabee.
Thanks for the responses. When this happened, the GRV was upgraded to a game loss. I do not remember the judge's specific wording, though I do remember "upgraded". I tried to say that there was a remedy to my opponent not being given the information as to what card I drew and revealed my hand. I also said that this was not a case of an unverifiable choice I made. But, the judge repeated that it was a game loss and I said "ok". I did not know exactly what rule to cite (and turns out I had made the wrong argument, though the second one was pretty close to right).
Yah,a game loss is most certainly an error. Clear reading of the rules says that the penalty for that is not upgraded due to the card having been in a uniquely identifiable position. Did you opponent not appeal to the head judge? Now this is all assuming the whole event took place exactly as you have indicated. I wouldn't want to rag on a judge if there were details that may have been slightly different. However, based on the information you have given us, it should only have been a warning, not a game loss.
I think the Narset and morph things are different because your opponent did not have a chance to verify the legality of the play. In the case of Courser, there is no doubt about the legality. Also, both players are responsible for the top card being revealed, only one is responsible in the other cases.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Because we cannot prevent draws in paper Magic we allow IDs. If we could prevent draws we would not have IDs in paper Magic. " Scott Larabee.
Thanks for the responses. When this happened, the GRV was upgraded to a game loss. I do not remember the judge's specific wording, though I do remember "upgraded". I tried to say that there was a remedy to my opponent not being given the information as to what card I drew and revealed my hand. I also said that this was not a case of an unverifiable choice I made. But, the judge repeated that it was a game loss and I said "ok". I did not know exactly what rule to cite (and turns out I had made the wrong argument, though the second one was pretty close to right).
Yah,a game loss is most certainly an error. Clear reading of the rules says that the penalty for that is not upgraded due to the card having been in a uniquely identifiable position. Did you opponent not appeal to the head judge? Now this is all assuming the whole event took place exactly as you have indicated. I wouldn't want to rag on a judge if there were details that may have been slightly different. However, based on the information you have given us, it should only have been a warning, not a game loss.
the head judge made this ruling. He was at the table because we were running late, but his head was turned and he was talking to someone else when this happened. I was the one who received the game loss. My "objection" was brief.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Because we cannot prevent draws in paper Magic we allow IDs. If we could prevent draws we would not have IDs in paper Magic. " Scott Larabee.
I sent a short note to the judge who made the ruling, asking what rule had been replied. He responded today, telling me that he had been thinking about the ruling and recognized that he made a mistake. He apologized. Thanks again for the responses here, as a result of the answers I will be better prepared should this sort of situation arise in the future.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Because we cannot prevent draws in paper Magic we allow IDs. If we could prevent draws we would not have IDs in paper Magic. " Scott Larabee.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
At Comp/Pro REL, you would receive a Warning for Game Player Error - Game Rule Violation and your opponent would receive a Warning for Game Play Error - Failure To Maintain Game State. The card would be revealed and you would continue playing.
Cards do what they say they do. No more. No less.
So both players would get a warning? Is it both player's responsibility to maintain the courser of kruphix effect? Meaning if I forget to reveal my top card and this was my 3rd warning. My opponent notices it but does not mention it hoping to get a game loss. What would happen then?
It would actually be in your opponent's best interest to call a judge at this point. As above, FtMGS penalties are not upgraded. He would receive a Warning and you would receive a Game Loss (upgraded from Warning due to it being your 3rd offense).
If a player notices a Game Rule Violation and intentionally ignores it hoping for a more severe penalty later on, then this is Cheating. Obviously, the penalty for Cheating is DQ.
Cards do what they say they do. No more. No less.
If your opponent is trying to get a game loss on you for it, he can just call a judge and say you forgot the trigger again. He doesn't have to pretend he didn't see it.
Since the card was on top of the library before it was drawn, it was in a position where the opponent could verify the information (in this case, by pointing out that it should be revealed). The solution is to reveal the card if possible (in addition to the warning).
I recently had a Courser of Kruphix in play with the top card of my library turned face up. Prior to my draw step, I fetched, shuffled, and presented the deck for my opponent to cut/shuffle. He did. I then drew the top card without first revealing it. It went into my hand (it was not mixed in, but it clearly became part of my hand).
What would be the correct ruling in this case?
Again, there would be a warning for Game Play Error-Game Rule Violation. A penalty for Drawing Extra cards specifically says you only use this penalty if no other Communication policy violation or Game play error has been committed. The violation began when you did not reveal the top card after receiving your deck back after it was cut. As such, you would get a warning for Game Play Error-Game Rule Violation. Once again, it is not upgraded because the card was in a "uniquely identifiable spot"(on top of the library) before you drew it.
New to Commander? Read the Above article.
No, it matters that at the time the error was made it is in a uniquely identifiable position. The rule says, once again: If the information needed to verify the legality was ever in a uniquely identifiable position (such as on top of the library or as the only card in hand
New to Commander? Read the Above article.
Yah,a game loss is most certainly an error. Clear reading of the rules says that the penalty for that is not upgraded due to the card having been in a uniquely identifiable position. Did you opponent not appeal to the head judge? Now this is all assuming the whole event took place exactly as you have indicated. I wouldn't want to rag on a judge if there were details that may have been slightly different. However, based on the information you have given us, it should only have been a warning, not a game loss.
New to Commander? Read the Above article.