A partial fix of getting N to discard his remaining card is possible, and supported under the IPG. However, it doesn't fix the game state 100%, so let's look at what a backup achieves.

We can assume that the stack is Bolt 1 - Ascendancy Trigger 1 - Bolt 2 - Ascendancy Trigger 2. N showed awareness of the triggers by drawing two cards. So have A put a random card on top of her library, return the land to N's hand, so he has two cards in hand, then N puts both on top of his library, so he has no cards in hand. N then gets to resolve the triggers properly, one at a time. Since the triggers are “may” abilities, N, could choose not to draw and discard each, giving him knowledge of the top one or two cards of his library.

I'm not sure which is the worse situation here, but the philosophy of the IPG is that the partial fix is preferred. There's also the case that the backup is made much easier by N having only one card in hand. If N had more cards, the backup would likely be more disruptive. Also, if N had a way to shuffle his library, that would also be a factor. So to fix this problem most consistently, I would say the partial fix is better.

GRV to N, FtMGS to A.

Originally posted by Huw Morris:

A partial fix of getting N to discard his remaining card is possible, and supported under the IPG. However, it doesn't fix the game state 100%, so let's look at what a backup achieves.

I'd note that Partial Fixes don't always repair a mistake 100%. They intend to create a more appropriate game state. Additionally, I'm not entirely sure the choice is between a partial fix and a backup. The IPG states to perform a partial fix when appropriate and “Otherwise, a backup may be considered or the game state may be left as is.”

Edited Marc DeArmond (March 13, 2015 01:26:02 AM)

I think we need to decide whether a the partial fix for discarding is ‘appropriate’ her. In my opinion it is not because what happened is not only that he forgot to discard a card, but that he forgot to discard a card and played it. I don't believe that we should simplify that much here to fit it with a partial fix.

Originally posted by Marc DeArmond:

I'd note that Partial Fixes always repair a mistake 100%.

I'm interested in this, since it isn't spelled out in the IPG and wonder how official/canon it is. My inclination is to have Nathan discard the remaining card in hand, but this doesn't 100% repair the mistake so if that's how partial fixes should be determined then it isn't sufficient.

If we don't do a partial fix, I think my backup decision is based on whether Nathan has any opportunity to shuffle/manipulate the library. During a backup I think you'd go as far as after the first card is drawn from the ascendancy trigger, then Nathan would discard that card (as opposed to putting both drawn cards back on top of the library, since the error happened when that first draw wasn't discarded). This leaves a game state where the top card of Nathan's library is known to both players, and Nathan has the option to draw and discard that card or leave it there. This is not a great game state, but I think it's better than Nathan getting an extra land and card draw, assuming he can't scry or shuffle away that card. Backing up and other remedies for GPEs often involve information remaining known to players (such as L@EC) since that's just sometimes unavoidable, so I don't think it's a problem here.

If Nathan can manipulate his library and we can't apply the partial fix, then I'm just leaving the game state as is. No matter what, GRV for Nathan and FtMGS for Alice.

I think Marc meant “isn't”.

From the IPG, we have

If the infraction falls into one of the following categories, perform the fix specified:
…
• If a player forgot to draw cards, discard cards, or return cards from their hand to another zone, that player
does so.
…
Otherwise, a backup may be considered or the game state may be left as is.

Clearly, Nathan did forget to discard cards. We are therefore specifically instructed to perform this fix. A backup may only be considered if none of these fixes apply, so we may not back up.

Nathan discards his remaining card now. GRV to him, FtMGS to Alice, play on.

Oops.

I'd note that Partial Fixes don't always repair a mistake 100%.

I'm super suspicious of this.

I know it's knowledge pool. I know “no cheating” rules.

But he has one card in hand. Add the land he played, that's two cards in his hand - both are from ascendancy. He chose to loot with 0 cards in his hand? I'm really, really suspicious, especially with the gain involved.

Looting with zero is often correct due to delve. Not as much now maybe that Treasure Cruise and Dig Through Time are banned, but flashback is still a thing…

First off I would not rule this GPE-DEC as ascendancy tells the player to draw a card. This leaves us with a pretty clear cut GPE-GRV for Nathan and GPE-FTMGS for Alice. With the land Nathan played for his turn and the card in his hand supposed to be discarded if ascendancy was resolved correctly I think the issue stemming from this is the proper fix which I can think of a few.

1. rewind to when the ascendancy triggers finished resolving and have Nathan discard the 2 cards
2. rewind to both ascendancy triggers on the stack and put the 2 cards on top of the library in a random order
3. do the above but shuffle the 2 cards into the library instead
4. apply partial fix of player forgetting to discard a card, do so now

I do not think we can use the first fix of having Nathan discard two cards as that would require 2 cards to be in Nathan's hand, a game state which never would have been legal in the first place.

Rewinding to both ascendancy triggers on the stack and placing both cards on top of the library in a random order would give Nathan information on the top 2 cards of his library which he can then choose to not use ascendancy's loot trigger gaining information on his next two draws.

Shuffle the library so Nathan does not know what two cards are on top of his library is an intriguing fix to me and aside from Nathan already choosing the legal action of using the ascendancy triggers I don't see a problem with this.

Apply the partial fix of having the player discard a card now, This fix seems the most logical and least disruptive. Nathan forgot to discard a card so have him do so now and continue. The issue is that Nathan gets the land he played which otherwise he would not gain but it is also on Alice to be aware of the game state and make sure it is legal.

The fix I would probably choose is the partial of having Nathan discard a card and continue playing. While rewinding and shuffling the cards into Nathan's library and putting the triggers on the stack is a tantalizing idea, doing so gives Nathan the advantage of looking at 2 different cards possibly providing him with a card he may need for example. While it is unfortunate that Nathan gets a free land from this, as I mentioned above it is also on Alice to keep track of the board state and make sure Nathan is making legal actions. For me, I would say the partial fix is the least disruptive to this board state and go with that.

Edited Mitchell Wetherson (March 13, 2015 01:46:57 AM)

Originally posted by Olivier Jansen:

But he has one card in hand. Add the land he played, that's two cards in his hand - both are from ascendancy. He chose to loot with 0 cards in his hand? I'm really, really suspicious, especially with the gain involved.

In a deck with numerous draw spells, cantrips, ascendancy, and stacked triggers, it becomes very easy to get things like this wrong. I've also loot-discarded to fuel any number of other things that may be in my deck.

Additionally, Modern also seems to be the most common “my friend handed me this deck right before the tournament” format, and errors like this are far more common.

Originally posted by Marc DeArmond:

I'd note that Partial Fixes don't always repair a mistake 100%.

In that case go with the partial fix :-) Have Nathan discard the remaining card in hand and move on with the game.

I agree with David.Let's take a closer look at that IPG:

A player illegally puts one or more cards into his or her hand and, at the moment BEFORE he or she began the instruction or action that put a card into his or her hand, no other Game Rule Violation or Communication Policy Violation had been committed…

The way I see it, there has been no error BEFORE he drew the second card.We don't care that he's entitled to that second card due to the second trigger and we also don't care that by drawing that extra card he inadvertedly commited GRV. Trigger says draw one and he drew two => GPE - DEC with a GL. I'll be curious what the official answer will be.

— Original Message —

From: “David Incorvati” <forum-16820-73b9@apps.magicjudges.org>
Sent: March 12, 2015 2:14 PM
To: fejer.istvan@outlook.com
Subject: Re: Usain Ascendency - GOLD (Knowledge Pool Scenarios)

Nathan said “Bolt you twice” and put two Lightning Bolts on the table. He then says “Ascendancy”, draws

At this point, everything is fine. Maybe it's not the most precise sequencing or communication, but it's fine.

two cards

There's your problem. Nathan has drawn an extra card. There was no previous violation, Nathan's hand was not empty before he drew the extra card, no other downgrade provisions are met. He has also committed a GRV or two for not discarding at all to the triggers, but we only issue the harsher penalty. Issue a game loss for GPE-DEC.

——————————————————————————–
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/108245/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/16820/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/16820/?onsite=yes

You can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/

Originally posted by István Zoltán Fejér:

The way I see it, there has been no error BEFORE he drew the second card.

Could you or David clarify why you think that failing to discard a card isn't an error committed before the second draw? Discarding's part of the resolution of the trigger and by drawing the second card he's failed to resolve it correctly. That's how I'm interpreting it I guess :S

Looking at the scenario. I ask myself, what is the first physical action that occurred that made this illegal. The first illegal physical action was drawing a card. So I'm thinking DEC. Now DEC has some clauses that signal “not a DEC”

“A player illegally puts one or more cards into his or her hand and, at the moment before he or she began the
instruction or action that put a card into his or her hand, no other Game Rule Violation or Communication Policy
Violation had been committed, and the error was not the result of resolving objects on the stack in an incorrect
order.”

Immediately prior to the second draw, was there a GRV or CPV? I see how many can view he forgot to discard, but forgetting isn't a physical action. He was compliant with the rules of the game after the first draw, and be broke the rules by drawing the second. This exception does not apply here.

There is another clause about it not being a GRV due to resolving objects on the stack in an improper order. This isn't the case here either. This exception does not apply here.

So DEC, Game loss.