Touché, I was operating there under the understanding that GP & PT titled events were all run at the PRO REL for the entire event unless stated otherwise in the pre-event announcements.

Cheers for the heads up. 🙂

Day 1 of a GP is actually run at Competitive REL, Day 2 is Professional.

I don't necessarily disagree with your thoughts, I just thought I would point this out 🙂

First thing I see is a communication issue. The rolling down of the die from 3 to 2 is a clear selection of the -1 ability. The supporting statement and I quote of "draw a card" is highly ambiguous. Does it mean AP draws or OP draws. From my experiences on the OP side of a similar activation, as a player I must make sure all players are aware of the game state and the targeting choices. AP should have specified target and when he did not, OP should have required specification before resolution. (I play Vintage, I'm finicky about timing/specifications/responses because there are so many ways to interfere with things up more so than in any other format).

In an ideal world, I would want to take both players aside individually to determine what they thought was happening. My strategy here would be to rule out a PCV. However this IS a PRO REL event, Starwarer's first paragraph pretty much said it. I would be slapping a game loss on OP but I would also be placing a warning on AP for PCV about not being clear. As if i recall correctly, a player receiving multiple warnings for the same offense then can have them upgraded to a game loss.

I'll say it again. It's a GP, it's not your local FNM, there are arsehole players out there. The IPG is designed to provide a consistent guideline on this sort of thing. There is also a reason why there are various grades of REL. PRO REL means exactly that, serious prizes, serious event, if you are here then you should know how to play, play clearly AND know how to watch your opponent and when to call judge.

Personal Analysis:
The two different draw abilities on Jace allow for some unfortunate ambiguity. Small details could have been included to avoid the problem altogether. Simply adjusting a die is subtle.

Best suggestions for players to help avoid these cases :
* Jace player could have stated "I draw?" or more clearly, "Jace's -1 on me?"
* The opponent could have double checked the die, or clarified with his opponent which ability was utilized.

I would first investigate the player communication violation. 'Draw a card' sounds like the imperative to me, because in English when we omit the subject, that implies 'you.' This sounds pretty similar to "Esper Charm targetting myself." In that case, since the Jace player said "[you] draw" and ticked the die down, then he puts a card back OR we tick the die up to 5. One of those two actions will put the game state into sync with what he communicated. I think the second would be more agreeable, but the first is probably more consistent.

The delay in the opponent's draw seems suspicious to me – if the opponent had been under the impression that the +2 ability was used, why did he wait? And if he watched his opponent roll the die down to 2, then his opponent's draw makes it apparent who the Jace player wanted to draw. If the opponent somehow got the impression that he was being targeted with the -1 ability, he needed to call a judge when his opponent then drew a card. These factors would lead me to investigate the opponent for cheating.

If it is determined, that the opponent of the Jace player is not cheating, then the penalty is also clear. The opponent of the Jace player has committed a Game Rule Violation, and we apply the fix described in the article. With the provision that the opponent is not cheating, Drawing Extra Cards does not apply, as a game effect has been resolving, and was resolved incorrectly by the opponent.

To penalize the Jace player with a Player Communication Violation seems incredibly far-fetched, as the Jace player has been sufficiently clear about his intended game actions. Many players, with Jace, the Mind Sculptor, will go so far as to simply put 3 counters on it, tap the card with their finger, then proceed with resolving the '0' ability. This is sufficiently clear for tournament play. In the situation from the article, the player has done similarly by ticking the Jace die down, and saying 'draw'.

The final option also seems ill-advised to implement. For a player who has taken sufficient steps to be clear, to then be forced to take a different game action than stated, based on his opponent's mistakes, should be strictly discouraged. To do otherwise would open the door for cheating that is incredibly hard to catch.

Note that I would tell the Jace player that saying 'I draw' is a clearer way to state his intentions. Doing so does not change that the Jace player was sufficiently clear in the game.