Today, basically, my friend tried targetting something with hexproof at the same time as the thing giving it hexproof. This isn't allowed, it was one instance of a card. The other player didn't notice until a few turns later when he looked in his graveyard and noticed it was one instance, not two. He said he wasn't aware it was one instance, as the player said that he could do it like that. The other player said he didn't know that wasn't allowed.
1. Given that I believe both players, what should I do about this? It WAS something that could have drastically changed the game.
2. In a tournament, how would they handle it?
It is a little hard to say for sure without knowing exactly what the card was he was using, but generally in a friendly game, you can handle it any way that is acceptable to both players.
In an actual tournament, it would likely be left the way it was, since it wasn't noticed until a few turns later. If it had been noticed immediately then the card would be returned to his hand, and if it was Comp REL, he would get a warning for a game rule violation. Either way, it isn't a huge deal, players make mistakes like that every day, that's why we have judges to help sort out the situation! It can certainly be a learning experience for both players.
Today, basically, my friend tried targetting something with hexproof at the same time as the thing giving it hexproof. This isn't allowed, it was one instance of a card. The other player didn't notice until a few turns later when he looked in his graveyard and noticed it was one instance, not two. He said he wasn't aware it was one instance, as the player said that he could do it like that. The other player said he didn't know that wasn't allowed.
1. Given that I believe both players, what should I do about this? It WAS something that could have drastically changed the game.
2. In a tournament, how would they handle it?
What card are you talking about? I only know of cards such as Ranger's Guile and you can target an opponent's creature with it just fine. There isn't any card I am aware of that would result in this situation.
As for the question at hand, it is up to both players to maintain the game state. Due to the error not being caught until several turns later, there isn't much that can be done to "fix" the error. The game will just continue from the current state and, depending on the REL, each player may receive a warning.
Sorry, I usually tag them. I was on mobile at the time and I hate my mobile keyboard.
Here's the situation.
Regular creature. Regular creature is enchanted to gain shroud. ( Lightning Greaves )
Aether Gale is played. Since this is all done in one instance, he wouldn't be able to target the regular creature.
This is because he has to choose targets before the spell resolves. He has chosen Lightning Greaves, but it still exists until the spell resolves, so he would need a second card to get rid of regular creature, as he cannot target the creature with Aether Gale until the spell resolves and the greaves are gone.
Essentially, he cannot target regular creature yet. Aether Gale can only remove lightning greaves, because until the spell resolves, lightning greaves is still in play and giving the creature shroud.
Yup, the creature with Shroud can't be targeted until it loses Shroud, which in this case only happens after Aether Gale resolves. As for what you do about it as far as the game state is concerned, nothing (because of how long it's been since the error occurred) except explain what the issue was from a rules standpoint. In a tournament, depending on the REL, as has been said by others in this thread there may be a warning issued for failure to maintain game state.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
These visions of mine... are they still daydreams if the sun is dead? Are they waking nightmares, instead, or is that what they always were?
Wouldn't it be failure to maintain game state on the person who didn't notice the mistake, and a different action on the person who committed it?
It really does bother me though that in a tournament it is let go. At a pre-release, I saw someone, Person A, who was playing a card that let them play the top card of their library. Person A insisted that it lets him play it for free, Person B insisted it did not. So Person A went up to ask a judge. Later I found out what he asked a (preoccupied) judge "I can just cast the card right?". He asked just like that, and the judge said "yes". Keep in mind I do happen to know Person A, and yes, I believe he legitimately thought it meant he could cast it for free.
So I don't pay attention after this until after I finish my game 3. I look over, and Person C, another friend, comes over and points out that he is not allowed to cast it for free. Person B got really annoyed, because Person A told him the judge said it could be cast for free, AND he had been doing so for the past 3 games, so it drastically changed the outcome.
In this situation the judges were only going to issue failure to maintain game state. What a sham! Some people said Person B should have had the judge come over and not trust Person A to do it himself, but I was there. Person A, again, someone I know, got up and just walked off to ask. Person B did indeed see he was talking to a judge, and so he assumed that he asked the proper question. It's even easier to sympathize with B because these cards were new to him as well.
I feel there should be a worse penalty when a person, honest mistakenly, claims that a card acts in a way that it does not. It is his card, and it is his responsibility to understand the mechanic, and it is his fault for asking such a poor question.
In my opinion...
Failure to maintain game state should be used when a mistake is made and not noticed. Yes, B deserved one.
Failure to maintain card mechanics (or something along those lines) should be issued to someone who claims the card does something that it does not.
Game state penalty, if I am correct in saying this, is typically given to player B when Player A reads a card correctly, but uses it wrong. For example, targeting a shroud creature. He was using the card mechanics right, but breaking game mechanics.
Card mechanics penalty, I feel, should be used when a card is misread. For example, my friend has a habit of saying that Geth, Lord of the Vault makes you discard cards. In his mind, he means discard from library, but he does not say that. He is breaking card mechanics. It is his card, and it is his fault.
I feel this is especially useful in things like EDH league. It's a more crowded and casual format, so people are less likely to check every single card.
Either way, these were honest mistakes, and I am perfectly ok with that. It isn't these honest mistakes that bother me, but more so, that it could be very easy for someone to exploit cards against newbies and not be punished for it unless it was a repeated infraction.
1. Given that I believe both players, what should I do about this? It WAS something that could have drastically changed the game.
2. In a tournament, how would they handle it?
In an actual tournament, it would likely be left the way it was, since it wasn't noticed until a few turns later. If it had been noticed immediately then the card would be returned to his hand, and if it was Comp REL, he would get a warning for a game rule violation. Either way, it isn't a huge deal, players make mistakes like that every day, that's why we have judges to help sort out the situation! It can certainly be a learning experience for both players.
As for the question at hand, it is up to both players to maintain the game state. Due to the error not being caught until several turns later, there isn't much that can be done to "fix" the error. The game will just continue from the current state and, depending on the REL, each player may receive a warning.
Here's the situation.
Regular creature. Regular creature is enchanted to gain shroud. ( Lightning Greaves )
Aether Gale is played. Since this is all done in one instance, he wouldn't be able to target the regular creature.
This is because he has to choose targets before the spell resolves. He has chosen Lightning Greaves, but it still exists until the spell resolves, so he would need a second card to get rid of regular creature, as he cannot target the creature with Aether Gale until the spell resolves and the greaves are gone.
Essentially, he cannot target regular creature yet. Aether Gale can only remove lightning greaves, because until the spell resolves, lightning greaves is still in play and giving the creature shroud.
It really does bother me though that in a tournament it is let go. At a pre-release, I saw someone, Person A, who was playing a card that let them play the top card of their library. Person A insisted that it lets him play it for free, Person B insisted it did not. So Person A went up to ask a judge. Later I found out what he asked a (preoccupied) judge "I can just cast the card right?". He asked just like that, and the judge said "yes". Keep in mind I do happen to know Person A, and yes, I believe he legitimately thought it meant he could cast it for free.
So I don't pay attention after this until after I finish my game 3. I look over, and Person C, another friend, comes over and points out that he is not allowed to cast it for free. Person B got really annoyed, because Person A told him the judge said it could be cast for free, AND he had been doing so for the past 3 games, so it drastically changed the outcome.
In this situation the judges were only going to issue failure to maintain game state. What a sham! Some people said Person B should have had the judge come over and not trust Person A to do it himself, but I was there. Person A, again, someone I know, got up and just walked off to ask. Person B did indeed see he was talking to a judge, and so he assumed that he asked the proper question. It's even easier to sympathize with B because these cards were new to him as well.
I feel there should be a worse penalty when a person, honest mistakenly, claims that a card acts in a way that it does not. It is his card, and it is his responsibility to understand the mechanic, and it is his fault for asking such a poor question.
In my opinion...
Failure to maintain game state should be used when a mistake is made and not noticed. Yes, B deserved one.
Failure to maintain card mechanics (or something along those lines) should be issued to someone who claims the card does something that it does not.
Game state penalty, if I am correct in saying this, is typically given to player B when Player A reads a card correctly, but uses it wrong. For example, targeting a shroud creature. He was using the card mechanics right, but breaking game mechanics.
Card mechanics penalty, I feel, should be used when a card is misread. For example, my friend has a habit of saying that Geth, Lord of the Vault makes you discard cards. In his mind, he means discard from library, but he does not say that. He is breaking card mechanics. It is his card, and it is his fault.
I feel this is especially useful in things like EDH league. It's a more crowded and casual format, so people are less likely to check every single card.
Either way, these were honest mistakes, and I am perfectly ok with that. It isn't these honest mistakes that bother me, but more so, that it could be very easy for someone to exploit cards against newbies and not be punished for it unless it was a repeated infraction.
What is the upgradeable penalty for people who make game rule violations? What about for regular ftmgs?