Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

At the moment before Nathan began the instruction that put the extra card into his hand, he believed he had finished resolving his Ascendancy trigger. This is clear because he began to resolve the second trigger without discarding the card. However, he resolved the trigger incorrectly, which is a GPE - GRV.

Emphasis mine

The problem is that you couldn't confirm or apply that infraction until he drew the card, therefore the “at the moment before” there was no infraction. We only know he believed he'd finished resolving the ascendancy because he drew.

Mani Cavalieri
Because it could have been OOOS, I'm not sure that the first time that the opponent sees something wrong is when the second card is drawn - because that could simply have been OOOS and not a GPE. I think the first time Alice could know that something is wrong is when Nathan doesn't discard (i.e. when he plays a land).

This is an interesting challenge to the GPE-DEC as I think you're right there is no decision being made so had the player drawn and discarded two OoOS would apply, but I think we lose the defense of OoOS because not all of the actions are legal when we get to the end of the sequence (he still had two cards in hand).

Where in the IPG does it state that the penalty is DEC, if the first time a player has a chance to respond is the point at which the extra card was drawn? I cannot find that anywhere.

I guess this whole scenario boils down to this: what was N's first mistake? Was it drawing for the second trigger, or failing to discard from the first trigger?

I must admit, I am now inching towards the DEC, on the basis that the first time we saw N visibly do something wrong was drawing that second card. I'm not at all sure about it though, as has been demonstrated by the roughly even split in discussing this scenario.

Originally posted by Huw Morris:

Where in the IPG does it state that the penalty is DEC, if the first time a player has a chance to respond is the point at which the extra card was drawn? I cannot find that anywhere.

It's from the Annotated IPG.

I feel compelled to point out that the Annotated IPG is a great learning tool, and does a fantastic job at explaining the IPG … but it's not an Official document. In the last 2-3 weeks, I've seen a number of posts, in various threads, quoting it as though it were the final word. Be careful with that - learn from it, yes, and thank the people behind it - but remember that ‘O’fficial policy is contained in documents issued by Wizards of the Coast.

d:^D

Originally posted by Mani Cavalieri:

Adam Zakreski
OOOS does not apply since he gains information that affects the discard decision.

At that point, he has 2 cards in hand, and must discard 2 cards. What decision does he have to make?

While it does result in the same end state, draw, discard, draw, discard is not the same as draw, draw, discard, discard. In the latter case, when he does the first discard he has 2 cards to choose from hence giving him more information than if he had resolved it correctly. In this situation it makes no difference, but there are plenty of situations that would make a difference (e.g. Library of Leng, Legacy graveyard order, having another card in hand, etc…). The rules don't allow us to make different rulings based on the board state or format being played.

Edited Adam Zakreski (March 16, 2015 10:39:04 AM)

With the above note, I have a couple of questions for people interested in giving a DEC:

Do you feel the sequence of events would have been legal under OoOS if the N had drawn two cards (at the same time) and then discarded the two cards?

Does that effect your answer on what the “illegal play” was?

Originally posted by Marc DeArmond:

Do you feel the sequence of events would have been legal under OoOS if the N had drawn two cards (at the same time) and then discarded the two cards?

No - mostly because there are plenty of cards in all formats that may or may not care about what was the first card discarded, as Adam has highlighted. From Graveyard order to Emrakul triggers to that Cranial Archive in Khans of Tarkir Limited. The fact that these cards exist means that Draw 2 & Discard 2 is different enough from Draw 1 and Discard 1 twice.

That being said, I wouldn't rule DEC if they drew and discarded two as one action. It would be more like they resolved two triggers without giving their opponent a chance to respond.

Originally posted by Huw Morris:

Where in the IPG does it state that the penalty is DEC, if the first time a player has a chance to respond is the point at which the extra card was drawn? I cannot find that anywhere.

It's not explicit on the ‘player has a chance to notice’ part. The way DEC is worded refers to the moment before the card is drawn - in that moment no error can have occurred because the only reason we know the player made the error was the draw.

The OoOS makes this more complex, had the player resolved the bolts correctly we could give a GRV because their failure to discard happened before the bolt resolution which is when we'd spot it and before the draw, but the way it happened was this:

Bolt x2
Draw
….
Draw

During the … no error has happened yet, you can't give them a GRV here because they haven't actually committed a error yet and that lasts all the way up until they draw (at the moment before no error has yet happened). Its at the point they draw that we know they must have missed the discard and because that action was a draw it becomes DEC.

The rules feel bad when it comes down to “what players think they do and if it is visible on the board”.

The situation looks like “draw 2 cards for the first trigger do not discard, forget second trigger,..” and that means we got a GPE-DEC.


On the other hand though…

“A Player casts Brainstorm and forgets to put 2 cards back on top of his libary”. This is close to “exactly” the same problem we got here. A player should have moved 1+ cards from the hand to another zone and forgot to do so. This is an example for a GPE-GRV in the IPG.

Now, if the brainstorm is cast during the upkeep and after drawing 3 cards the player looks at his hand a moment and then proceeds with his turn and draws for the turn, we will rule that he drew 4 cards with the brainstorm and hand him a GL? If that is not the case and it stays a GRV, then we got a GPE-GRV here as well.

This is either the player forgot discard a card and resolved the second trigger when they second. Or the player resolved the second trigger before discarding. One of these can be observed within the game, the other is an assumption that the player did something.

As we rule on what we can tell happened and shouldn't be making assumptions about what a player does we arrive at DEC to me.

Hello,

Am I missing something or…

Nathan has drawn 2 cards with failing to discard twice, meaning he has 2 extra cards. The end result is 1 land played and 1 card in hand. Aren't those cards easily identifiable and subject to a possible downgrade?

I agree that all those discussions hold some value, but I am not sure if I miss something there since this is not the core issue for me here

Edited Théo CHENG (March 16, 2015 12:36:52 PM)

Originally posted by Adam Zakreski:

In this situation it makes no difference, but there are plenty of situations that would make a difference (e.g. Library of Leng, Legacy graveyard order, having another card in hand, etc…). The rules don't allow us to make different rulings based on the board state or format being played.

I disagree.

We can't give people GRVs for not maintaining a fixed order of their graveyard in standard. Therefore, I don't see a reason why we should consider the order in which Nathan discards his entire hand to matter in this ruling.

I also don't see how we can separate the board state from the ruling here. If Nathan is attempting to resolve two loots with an empty hand, then he has no decision points (again, because graveyard order doesn't matter) - thus it's impossible for him to gain any information here.

The reason why we are worried about information leaks here is because OOOS shouldn't make it possible for a player to gain an advantage. Nathan cannot gain an advantage here.

Edited Mani Cavalieri (March 16, 2015 12:46:59 PM)

Originally posted by Théo CHENG:

Nathan has drawn 2 cards with failing to discard twice, meaning he has 2 extra cards. The end result is 1 land played and 1 card in hand. Aren't those cards easily identifiable and subject to a possible downgrade?

For the DEC downgrade they don't have to be identifiable, but both cards would have to be known to both players before they were put into the hand (or put into an empty hand), which was not the case here

Originally posted by Markus Dietrich:

Théo CHENG
Nathan has drawn 2 cards with failing to discard twice, meaning he has 2 extra cards. The end result is 1 land played and 1 card in hand. Aren't those cards easily identifiable and subject to a possible downgrade?

For the DEC downgrade they don't have to be identifiable, but both cards would have to be known to both players before they were put into the hand (or put into an empty hand), which was not the case here

2.3. GRV-DEC
If the identity of the card was known to all players before being placed into the hand, and the card can be returned to the correct zone with minimal disruption, do so and downgrade the penalty to a Warning.
Emphasis mine

To me that means the card as a whole. Not what the card is, i.e. the back not the front. His hand was empty before drawing the two cards and both can be put into the graveyard, the land and the card already in hand. To me that classifies it as being applicable for a penalty downgrade.

Edited Jonathan Burgess (March 16, 2015 01:17:39 PM)

Originally posted by Jonathan Burgess:

To me that means the card as a whole. Not what the card is, i.e. the back not the front. His hand was empty before drawing the two cards and both can be put into the graveyard, the land and the card already in hand. To me that classifies it as being applicable for a penalty downgrade.

How do you identify which was the legally drawn first and which was the illegally drawn second? Once they both hit the hand you are no longer able to identify which is which.