OK, I'll admit it. I'm rather confused by this sentence in the new IPG's DEC section:

“If the cards were drawn as part of the legal resolution of an illegally played instruction, due to a Communication Policy Violation, or were as the result of resolving objects on the stack or multiple-instruction effects in an incorrect order, a backup may be considered and no further action is taken.”

I'm going to try to restate this sentence, and hopefully a Person In Charge can tell me if my understanding is correct.

If the extra cards that were drawn resulted from any of the following, consider a backup as the only Additional Remedy:

• Correctly resolving an illegally-played spell or ability (similar to our previous “GRV before the DEC” rule)
  A Communication Policy Violation
  Resolving objects on the stack in the wrong order
  Following instructions on a single spell or ability in the wrong order
  

Is this right?

Thanks.

J-Mo

Yes, that is correct. Nicely restated, J-Mo!

d:^D

Quick question: If a player drew a cards off a Howling Mine no longer on the battlefield, will this be counted as cards drawn as a result of correctly resolving an illegally-played instruction?

I'm trying to figure out what “play” covers here so I could have a better word choice for IPG translation.

Thanks!

Zhaoben

Edited Zhaoben Xu (July 16, 2015 03:13:12 AM)

Still unclear to me, please let me ask a question:

AP resolves Manamorphose, and draws before declaring the mana he gets (as opposed to declaring mana and then drawing).
NAP complains his opponent has had the opportunity of choosing mana after having seen the drawn card.

How do you backup?

Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:

How do you backup?

From MIPG 1.4, third paragraph:

To perform a backup, each individual action since the point of error is reversed, starting with the most recent ones and working backwards. Every action must be reversed; no parts of the sequence should be omitted or reordered. If the identity of a card involved in reversing an action is unknown to one of the players (usually because it was drawn), a random card is chosen from the possible candidates. Shuffles are reversed by a single shuffle of the random portion of the library after the rest of the backup is complete. A card that became legally known after the error was comitted is not considered random.

…so per the MIPG, we'd select a random card and put it back on to the top of the player's library. No shuffle, as we're not reversing a shuffle. However, the MIPG tells us that a backup “may be considered and no further action is taken”, which indicates this is optional. And MIPG 1.4, fourth paragraph tells us why…

Backups involving random/unknown elements should be approached with extreme caution, especially if they cause or threaten to cause a situation in which a player will end up with different cards than they would once they have correctly drawn those cards. For example, returning cards to the library when a player has the ability to shuffle their library is not something that should be done except in extreme situations.

…which puts perspective on this. There is no opportunity to shuffle between the two instructions, so a backup really isn't that terrible here. While there is “information gained” because of performing the instructions in the wrong order (a situation that merits closer examination to ensure it really is an “oops”), more than that would result in having the player draw a different card than they would otherwise legally have.

So a backup seems reasonable for this situation. I'm not certain that applying the third paragraph (e.g., opponent selects card and shuffles into library) is appropriate in this situation.

But that's my two cents as I still process the policy changes.

In the Manamorphose example, it seems to me we have three choices:

1) backup, by putting a random card on top. This doesn't accomplish anything - the player has gained information, and draws again the random card immediately thereafter.
2) backup, by choosing a random card and shuffling - or, if players agree which the drawn card is, shuffle that card. This is a deviation - oh, we don't like deviations, we don't do that.
3) don't backup. It happened, player got a Warning. Just shrug and deal with it (maybe deal with a disappointed opponent too).

Is 3) the best option we have?

Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:

In the Manamorphose example, it seems to me we have three choices:

1) backup, by putting a random card on top. This doesn't accomplish anything - the player has gained information, and draws again the random card immediately thereafter.
2) backup, by choosing a random card and shuffling - or, if players agree which the drawn card is, shuffle that card. This is a deviation - oh, we don't like deviations, we don't do that.
3) don't backup. It happened, player got a Warning. Just shrug and deal with it (maybe deal with a disappointed opponent too).

Is 3) the best option we have?

The way I read the third paragraph is much like with Missed Triggers: If neither the first nor second paragraph apply, then you apply the third paragraph.

The first paragraph clearly doesn't apply. The second paragraph may apply, and I articulated why I believe a backup is reasonable given MIPG 1.4's wording. But, if you don't apply the second paragraph, then the third paragraph would apply. Hence the “otherwise”.

The additionally remedy section works like a decision tree, and depending on whether you answer “yes” for the first and second paragraphs, you either will or won't apply the third paragraph.

One other question to consider is the “substantially worse” aspect of not backing up here. That does raise a strong argument that a backup shouldn't apply here.

Is the statement “a backup may be considered and no further action is taken” meant to imply that the now “normal” fix (revealing the hand and opponent takes cards equal to the excess to be shuffled into the random portion of the library) should not be applied in those situations?

For example, a player casts Brainstorm for U with Thalia, Guardian of Thraben in play, draws three cards, then the error is caught - either backup or do nothing, just as before this change, but still give a Warning for DEC now whereas it would've been a Warning for a GRV before?

EDIT: For clarity

Edited Jacob Milicic (July 16, 2015 04:07:05 PM)

From my reading–the fix for your manamorphose is the same as it was before. Consider backing up, don't, then carry on. The only difference is the warning we put down is Drawing Extra Cards rather than Game Rule Violation.

Putting it a different way–we're putting Drawing Extra Cards down as the violation on the slip whenever extra cards end up in the hand during the game. This makes it much easier to track than lumping it into GRV.

Edited Chase Culpon (July 16, 2015 05:05:05 PM)

Originally posted by Chase Culpon:

From my reading–the fix for your manamorphose is the same as it was before. Consider backing up, don't, then carry on. The only difference is the warning we put down is Drawing Extra Cards rather than Game Rule Violation.

Putting it a different way–we're putting Drawing Extra Cards down as the violation on the slip whenever extra cards end up in the hand during the game. This makes it much easier to track than lumping it into GRV.

I don't believe this is correct. The change is a significant one as under the previous rules drawing a card for manamorphose before adding mana to the mana pool was DEC with a penalty of a Game Loss. It has now changed to be a Warning. Note that it was not previously a GRV because the very first thing which went wrong was the card being drawn–there was no prior point at which the opponent could have intervened to prevent the draw.

Originally posted by Jeff Morrow:

If the extra cards that were drawn resulted from any of the following, consider a backup as the only Additional Remedy:

Correctly resolving an illegally-played spell or ability (similar to our previous “GRV before the DEC” rule)
A Communication Policy Violation
Resolving objects on the stack in the wrong order
Following instructions on a single spell or ability in the wrong order

I don't fully understand this sentence.

Is this sentence means, “they are still DEC but you can simply backup as remedy”?
Especially, as Jeff said, the first one was GRV in old policy. Is this still GRV?
Second one obviously should be CPV, not DEC, right?
The third one was DEC, and it is still DEC?

Originally posted by Jeff Morrow:

If the extra cards that were drawn resulted from any of the following, consider a backup as the only Additional Remedy:

Correctly resolving an illegally-played spell or ability (similar to our previous “GRV before the DEC” rule)
A Communication Policy Violation
Resolving objects on the stack in the wrong order
Following instructions on a single spell or ability in the wrong order

Is this sentence means, “they are still DEC but you can simply backup as remedy”?

Pretty much yes.

This is second of three groups of remedies for DEC. Here I think we're trying to avoid being punitive about extra card draws that happen when a player is very close to correct which is why the only remedy is a backup.

You'll note that the ‘GRV immediately before’ language of the prior IPG doesn't exist now, so for example casting a Serum Visions for G used to be a GRV which you'd backup, beyond calling this a DEC now nothing's really changed here.

Saying 'Jace's Ingenuity, draw 4' which your opponent agreed with used to be listed as a way to avoid a DEC penalty (would always be a CPV but I love the clarification). You'd end up backing this one up too, so again nothing is too different apart from it being a DEC not a CPV.

Uncle Scott makes and interesting point about GPE ordering here and I wonder if the DEC over CPV falls under the same logic of ‘top down’ through the IPG

Edited Marc Shotter (July 17, 2015 07:52:36 AM)