Was this ruling correct? (Eternal Weekend, round 7)

[TheWhiteDragon]

Yes, I do think you can activate Jace without announcing activation - albeit it is a rule infraction as well - just like revealing a card to bob and putting it to hand without announcing "I'm revealing for bob" (happens all the time).

Regardless, decisions are made based on game state.  At the time GI chose to "end the turn", the game state was moxen from hand on top of library.  The game state was incorrectly created, however the decision to end was based on that state.  If you change the game state by rewinding in any part, you HAVE to allow decisions to be remade based on that altered game state.  You can't say "we'll change the game state to fix an error, but then force you to make all the exact same decisions based on a completely different game state.

For example - my football team kicks a field goal and now is leading your team by 1.  On the kickoff, your team fumbles and I get the ball back.  I then kneel the ball since there is 5 seconds left on the clock and win the game.  But wait!  The ref watched a replay and says I had 12 men on the field during my field goal, so decides I don't get the three points.  I could run a play and try to score with time left on the clock (since it was rewound and I would now be losing), but the ref says, "no, you knelt the ball and ran time out on the clock, so game is over and you lose."

When the game state is retro-changed, all decisions thereafter are null and need to be remade.  You can't say GI would have ended the turn had the game state been such that he hadn't put 2 cards on top of his library.  Even if he didn't declare Jace and ended the turn....why would he declare Jace since the game state was such that he already put two cards back?  If you change the state so that there are 3 cards in hand and none back on top of the library, then any decision thereafter would be different based on different conditions, so you have to give opportunity for a different decision to be made.

[Godder]

This is still not the right place to discuss what we'd like the rules to say or do.

Locked.

[Clariax]

Shockwave, what you're completely missing here is that the individual decisions do not exist in a vacuum.  Each decision made is based heavily on the decisions made before it.  The idea here is to maintain the integrity of the game as much as possible.  This is why the two options are what they are.  If it's still possible to rewind, you undo everything done since the illegal play and continue with the game state as it should have been.  Or, if it's not possible, you leave the game state as it is.  And the whole 'not possible' is based on two much happening since then, because those things that happened since then were all based on the things that happened before them.

To change the state of the game on which various decisions were based while keeping those decisions locked in leaves you with a game state that is neither what the players arrived at with their decisions (and illegal play), nor where it should have been if everything happened properly.  You instead end up with "Well, if he had 2 more cards in hand I would've wanted to do..."