You're not alone Nathen, I was wondering the exact same thing.. RTC indeed..

I do not want to fix. I think the potential for abuse is too high, and since there is the possibility that there is no legal choice I think it's fine to leave things as is.

Without reading: This is a GRV, not a missed trigger, since Alhammaret happens “as,” not “when,” he enters play, so it's not a trigger. GRV and FtMGS get handed out.

No fix is possible. It's way too late to back up, so that's right out. The other option would be a partial fix, but that's not possible here. In cases like True-Name Nemesis not naming a player, if the choice is missed, a legal choice can be made when the error is spotted. But nothing in the IPG would allow us to have Amy's opponent reveal her hand, so there are no legal choices to make.

The players play on, and I remind them to be more careful.

So, the reasoning I think the GRV remedy applies is that the player is being asked to make a choice based on a fixed set of data. It's no different than a Pithing Needle in execution - rather than being told to name any card, they are instead asked to name a card from the limited set “$OpponentHand”.

There is still a static ability on the battlefield which would be affected by that choice, so we ought to be having the player make it now. I don't believe the revealed hand is anything more than a necessary part of making this choice; it is wholly part of the same infraction, so the fix can be applied without deviation.

I'm still curious as to the reasoning when deciding that this does not fit
the default fix :).

Because revealing the hand is part of the ability that needs a choice. See
my post above regarding my understanding of what the crux of this is (which
Nathaniel just showed in his above post I believe).

So is there support to count this ability as fundamentally different than
other choice abilities and if so, how do you reason?

I'm inclined to say the default fix ought to apply and that the way this
particular card works just makes it a lot more awkward than it usually is.
Den 14 jul 2015 15:20 skrev “Nathaniel Lawrence” <

Originally posted by Nathaniel Lawrence:

rather than being told to name any card, they are instead asked to name a card from the limited set “$OpponentHand”.

The problem is that there's a time stamp on that “$OpponentHand” - its “$OpponentHand - when Alhammarret, High Arbiter entered play” and that set is impossible to identify. Naming ‘a Card’ is a selection from a known and fixed set of cards, Alhammarret has a fixed unknown set of cards at this point.

The problem here is that the default fix doesn't detail how to handle associated requirements (the revealing of the hand) and so I think its possible to interpret this in either direction. I personally lean to not giving a potential advantage to the player who controls and missed the ability. I'd accept the game state can't be fixed and is probably less broken as it is and so leave it.

When reading this scenario for the first time my gut feeling was: “Ugh! No partial fix here, and I'm not going to rewind either. Let the gamestate stand as is.”

That impression was supported by a thought that showing Nicole's hand now created a significantly different end result, but after chewing on it a bit, I'm not so sure.

Nicole's hand is as much hidden information now as it was then, so there's no real difference, from Amy's perspective, on how the effect plays out. Nicole may feel slighted by the fact that she drew additional cards that weren't eligible back then, but the fact that the effect didn't resolve correctly is partly her responsibility, and already factored into IPG standard fixes, so that's not a problem.

In the end, I support the decision for the partial fix and revealing Nicole's hand right now. Warnings for GRV/FtMGS and keep playing (more carefully this time).

Originally posted by Nathaniel Lawrence:

So, the reasoning I think the GRV remedy applies is that the player is being asked to make a choice based on a fixed set of data. It's no different than a Pithing Needle in execution - rather than being told to name any card, they are instead asked to name a card from the limited set “$OpponentHand”.

The fixed set of data is not “$OpponentHand”, though - it's “$OpponentHandNonlandRevealedThisWay”. That set can be empty, in which case a choice of nothing is legal.

Originally posted by James Winward-Stuart:

The fixed set of data is not “$OpponentHand”, though - it's “$OpponentHandNonlandRevealedThisWay”. That set can be empty, in which case a choice of nothing is legal.

I'm inclined to agree. I believe that the controller should get the option of immediately making a legal choice for the decision under a partial fix. However, because no cards are revealed, there are no legal choice and nothing is chosen. I don't see the “make a legal choice” from the partial fix being able to include the other conditions such as revealing the card.

If the AP named a land card and then three turns later you come along and point out it doesn't work that way, would you have them get to take another look at an opponent's hand to make a legal choice at that point? I know I wouldn't. If we're allowing them to change their answer to something meaningful, the limiting factor should be what was revealed when the effect (should have) happened. If nothing was revealed at that point, there's nothing to pick. If you have to make a different choice, it needs to be a card that was revealed at that point.

I am also inclined to double GRV because AP controlled an effect and NAP didn't do what they were supposed to when that effect happened.

Marc, you write a compelling argument for why the default fix shouldn't
apply, or rather, why it would do nothing :).
Den 14 jul 2015 23:11 skrev “Marc DeArmond” <

It took me awhile to get to Coleridge's “willing suspension of disbelief” - you paid 5UU for a 5/5 flier? and forgot the really cool effect that makes it cost more than, say, Illusory Angel?

Anyway, “several turns later” is also key for me, in this scenario. Imagine an effect that skips the second (and best) part of Alhammarret:

As ~this~ EtB, all opponents reveal their hand.

I wouldn't back that up “several turns later”; I probably wouldn't back that up past any significant changes to the opponents' hand(s).

One thing I would do, is investigate. There's plenty of opportunity for abuse with this mechanic, for either player.
Next, I'd find out if the contents of the opponent's hand has changed significantly; drawn one or more cards? tutored for something? Those would preclude a rewind. Nothing but maybe cast one spell? That might be eligible for a rewind.

So, if it's noticed fairly quickly, we can rewind, per the guidelines in the IPG. But this example was “several turns later” - no way we're going to back that up.

Before we even consider rewinding, though, we look at that short list of fixes. Hey, there's one that fits - let's have Amy choose one of the cards from the defined set - and no cards were (or will be!) revealed, so there's no legal choice.

GRV for Amy, FtMGS for Nicole (not double GRV, as Nicole didn't perform the action incorrectly, she didn't do it at all). Remedy is “please play more carefully, carry on.”

Thanks! - SM

Thank you for your insights, Scott.

RE suspension of disbelief: I could see this happening in limited, where a 5/5 flier is plenty exciting anyway even if it is a bit overcosted.

RE “several turns later”: I added this in to make it clear that this wasn't a spot where a backup would be possible and that the contents of Nicole's hand had changed significantly.

There was a lot of good discussion on this topic; thank you to everyone who contributed.