Hey there Knowledge Pool Readers! This week's scenario was created by Josh Feingold. As it is a silver level scenario, we ask L2+ judges to wait to contribute to the discussion until tomorrow.

The blog post for this scenario can be found here: http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/?p=1318

Arnold and Nadine are playing in a PPTQ. Arnold plays a Temple of Mystery, then scries. He puts the card back on top, slightly askew from the rest of his library. He then attacks with a face-down creature, which Nadine does not block. As Nadine is setting her pen down after recording her life total change, she accidentally bumps Arnold's library and flips the top card onto the table face up. Both players immediately call for a judge.

What do you do?

This is kinda awkward.

First off, Nadine is probably going to get a L@EC penalty, with the Warning associated (assuming no previous penalties). However, Arnold's situation is a bit more awkward. I wouldn't give him any penalties, as he called for a judge immediately and it was Nadine's actions that revealed the card, and it was already known to him anyway (although I'm not sure whether this matters).

It feels awkward to me, but I would follow the IPG's remedy for L@EC by figuring out what part of the deck was randomized (in addition to the revealed card), shuffling it, and then putting the known cards back in their proper places, including the card that was accidentally flipped over.

The infraction is Looking at Extra Cards for Nadine, who will get a Warning.

Though the IPG says to shuffle the randomized portion of the deck, that won't accomplish anything in this situation. The only card that the players saw was one in a known position. The randomized portion of the deck is just as random as it was before the error and other known cards didn't move. Letter-of-the-law says shuffle, but I wouldn't waste anyone's time doing it.

EDIT: And I would clearly explain to the players what the remedy for L@EC is and why it's being glossed over in this situation.

Edited Michael Shiver (March 5, 2015 12:38:24 PM)

Warning for L@EC for Nadine. She wasn't entitled to see the card she turned over. Because the card on top of the library was legally known to one of the players (Arnold), put it back where it was - on top of the library. Assuming no other cards were moved significantly from the library, do not shuffle the remainder of the deck.

EDIT: Ditto what Michael Shiver said about explaining why I'm not shuffling even though the letter of the IPG says to do so.

Edited Nathen Millbank (March 5, 2015 12:41:51 PM)

Nadia receives a warning for L@EC.
As for the fix the IPG explicitly states to shuffle the randomized portion of the deck, and then goes on to say leave out cards that have been manipulated to the top or bottom. However shuffling the random part is not very productive so I would return the card to the top issue the warning and remind both players to play more carefully.

Edit: grammer

Edited Walker Metyko (March 5, 2015 02:13:08 PM)

Nadia is going to receive a warning for L@EC. Nothing for Arnold as he called for a judge right away. as for the fix it is my thought that we should return the card to the top of the library and stop there.

I know the IPG says to shuffle the random portion of the deck taking into account all known positions, but I feel like that wouldn't accomplish anything here. I think it best to explain to the players why we aren't shuffling the deck and remind them to be more careful.

Before reading other responses:

Both Arnold and Nadine have now seen a card in a hidden zone that neither of them were entitled to see. Even though Arnold has legal knowledge of what the top card is, he's still not allowed to look at it. That said, the card was revealed due to a manual dexterity error on Nadine's part, through no fault of Arnold's.

I'd say Nadine has committed L@EC, and Arnold has not committed any infraction. Nadine receives a warning. To fix, we randomize the unknown portions of the deck. Shuffle the rest of the deck (taking into account any scries on the bottom), and put the known, scried-to-top card back on top of the library.

Since the only revealed card was part of the known portion of the deck, I'd be comfortable deviating ever so slightly and not actually shuffling the rest of the deck, as part of the fix.

After reading other responses:

This seems to be exactly what everyone's saying this week. Just to clarify, the actual text of the IPG on the fix is:

Shuffle the randomized portion of the deck (which may include the cards that were seen, if they were part of the
random portion of the library). This requires first determining whether any portion of the deck is non-random, such
as cards that have been manipulated on the top or bottom of the library, and separating those. Once the deck has
been shuffled, any manipulated cards are returned to their correct locations.

Because the revealed card had been scry'd, it is no longer part of the randomized portion of the deck. We first apply the shuffle to the actual random part of the deck, and then put the known card in its correct location.


Since everyone's in agreement about being able to skip the shuffle, are there good reasons to not deviate here? i.e., actually determine all known portions of the library and re-shuffle it?

(Without peeking)

Looking at Extra Cards and a warning for Nadine. Since a judge was called immediately, no warning for Arnold–although in this case I might caution him if I felt like the incident wouldn't have happen if the card was placed properly. Card goes back on top since it's a known card due to scry–this feels bad, since Nadine gets free information that could impact the match, but there is no fix supported by policy.

Nap will get gpe - laec, warning. Ap gets nothing as he called a judge immediately. No fix, keep playing kids.

Nadine would get a warning for L@EC no matter the remedy.
The situation is a big weird, as leaving the card on top either with or without shuffling would get Nadine information that she is not supposed to know, and as such gives her a slight edge. I would personally shuffle the entire deck, minus any cards that the players know the position of, as per the usual remedy, but shuffle in the flipped card and either leave it at that or give Arnold the chance to know the top card, but not to change the position of it (scry it to the top essentially). I know this isn't following the IPG to the letter, but this isn't something that is going to happen every round, I hope anyway.

Nadine has earned a warning for L@EC.

I'd caution her to be more careful in the future.

After determining no other cards in the library had been scry-ed to either the top or bottom, I'd shuffle the library save for the top card.

Play proceeds.

Without looking at other posts:

GPE - L@EC for Nadine and a Warning and a admonishment to be more careful. I wouldn't shuffle to remedy. I might also ask Arnold to keep his deck tidy - just to make this problem less likely in the future.

I also agree with GPE - L@EC for Nadine and a Warning. The mail question here is about the necessity to leave the scried card on the top of the deck after shuffle. I assume that Arnold has placed that card on top after scry because he liked that card and shuffling that card will ruin his plans. Nadine has already received a Waring for L@EC and nothing elde special needs to be done.

I would issue Nadine a GPE-L@EC; explaining to her exactly what that means and remind her to be more carefule about bumping her opponent's library.

I would not issue any penalty to Arnold, but remind him to be more careful about his card placement.

The only card revealed was a known portion of the library to one player so there is no need to shuffle the deck. Continue playing.

I am curious tho if playing with the top card askewed would be violation of 401.2

401.2Each library must be kept in a single face-down pile. Players can't look at or change the order of cards in a library.

The scry ability obviously supersedes the second part of the rule. I may confere with others judges on their views. Is the deck considered to be in a single pile of one card is askewed. If it did that would be a GPE-GRV for Arnold but seeing as I have never heard of a penalty for someone playing with the top card askew I would be inclined to ask opinions.

Edited Markus Wilson (March 9, 2015 11:53:34 PM)

Hi, judges! Time to bring this one to a close. You guys knocked this one out of the park, so the solution should come as no surprise.

What we have here is a case of Game Play Error - Looking at Extra Cards. Nadine has seen the top card of Arnold's library. This wasn't intentional, but as the definition of LEC says, “this includes errors of dexterity.” Arnold was somewhat sloppy putting his card back on top of the library, but there is no infraction for that. Each player immediately called for a judge, so Arnold doesn't need to worry about Failure to Maintain Game State.

So Nadine receives a Warning, but the question is what to do about card that she has now seen. The Additional Remedy of LEC tells us to “shuffle the randomized portion of the deck.” In this case, even though Nadine was not supposed to know the identity of the top card, it was not random. It may be tempting to try to implement some fix that negates the advantage that Nadine has gained. However, this type of creative solution is not supported by policy and should not be attempted. (It is slightly awkward that Nadine has gained an advantage by her error, but slight awkwardness is nowhere near grounds for deviation.) We leave the deck as-is, with the known card on top and have the players resume their match.

Thanks to everyone who participated, and we'll be back tomorrow with a new scenario!