Hi,
a subject is coming up in Japanese community for discussion.

Player A controls Sylvan Library and his life is below 8.
At his draw step, he drew 2 cards at resolving the triggered ability of <Sylvan Library>, and he shuffled them into his hand completely by mistake.
In old IPG(before ORI), he would be committed GRV and issued a Game Loss by Upgrade.

But new IPG has become operative, DEC isn't to a Game Loss.
Then, this ruling doesn't change? The advantage is only extra draw(it must be random), not specific cards(like failure to reveal at Merchant Scroll), so it might be too heavy to Upgraded GRV.
Can it be treated similarly DEC?

The IPG really doesn't have much to do with this; it's more about how Sylvan Library should be handled. It was not, and is not now, either GRV nor DEC.

If the cards get mixed in with the rest of the hand, then “choose two cards drawn this turn” is an impossible action, and you'll have to pay the 4 life per card.

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

The IPG really doesn't have much to do with this; it's more about how Sylvan Library should be handled. It was not, and is not now, either GRV nor DEC.

If the cards get mixed in with the rest of the hand, then “choose two cards drawn this turn” is an impossible action, and you'll have to pay the 4 life per card.

d:^D

So I'm clear, let's assume the controller of Sylvan Library is at 7. Is this “pay the 4 life per card” in the colloquial sense (the player loses the game), or in the Magic sense (they don't have 4 life for the second card so they can't pay that 4 life)?

If their life is 8 or less (as per the original post), they would lose the game - they can't put the card back. True, they can't pay 4 life if they're at 3, but they also have no choice…

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

If their life is 8 or less (as per the original post), they would lose the game - they can't put the card back. True, they can't pay 4 life if they're at 3, but they also have no choice…

d:^D

Then, do you mean that there's no infraction?
If their life is 7 or less, he pay 8 life, they try to pay 8 life(though CR117.3&118.4 prohibit it), and they lose game by SBA because their life is 0 or less.

A new question is coming up;
If AP controls Platinum Angel, what should we do?
It is still illegal action to pay life with insufficient life, but AP doesn't lose game though AP's life 0 or less.

Originally posted by Keiichi Kawazoe:

A new question is coming up;
If AP controls Platinum Angel, what should we do?
It is still illegal action to pay life with insufficient life, but AP doesn't lose game though AP's life 0 or less.

Has this ever happened at a Competitive REL tournament?

Policy is written to be digestible and memorable to guide us on how to consistently resolve situations that regularly occur at events, so that players aren't concerned that they'll receive a different ruling depending on who shows up at the table (or which red-shirts are at that event). A scenario at Comp REL involving Platinum Angel, Sylvan Library, a player below seven life, and mixing up cards drawn that turn with cards in hand (without cheating involved!) seems so unlikely that I would doubt that it's happened once, much less more than once to the same player to the point that he or she received inconsistent rulings.

If goofy stuff like this happens, make a ruling based on what the philosophy of policy dictates. I'd probably rule that they're at -1 life, with a bunch of cards in hand, and not dead, assuming that they really, truly didn't do this on purpose (which, given the number of variables involved, is a stretch). But I wouldn't blame you or call it a deviation if you ruled otherwise.

Originally posted by John Brian McCarthy:

Policy is written to be digestible and memorable to guide us on how to consistently resolve situations that regularly occur at events, so that players aren't concerned that they'll receive a different ruling depending on who shows up at the table (or which red-shirts are at that event). A scenario at Comp REL involving Platinum Angel, Sylvan Library, a player below seven life, and mixing up cards drawn that turn with cards in hand (without cheating involved!) seems so unlikely that I would doubt that it's happened once, much less more than once to the same player to the point that he or she received inconsistent rulings.

Yes, it is very very rare situation, but still possible thing(I saw a player who controls Sylvan Library cast Angel's Grace(instead of Platinum Angel), and I faced the situation that another player who's life less than 7 drew and mixed by Sylvan Library, both were in Competitive REL).

Policy is a guideline, so I think that an infraction should be committed regardless of game state, only based on what is happened.
In this case, the player obviously took illegal action(as they can't pay the cost –pay life or put back the card–), so an infraction should be committed and recorded whether or not they lose the game by under-0 life, I think.

If this situations contains no infraction, I'd probably rule that their life is 3(to 1) and reveal their hand to opponent, and opponent choose that many cards(1 or 2), then put them to library.　I believe that we should minimize the benefit that caused by error, according the philosophy.

Edited Keiichi Kawazoe (July 30, 2015 02:51:30 AM)

Originally posted by Keiichi Kawazoe:

Scott Marshall
If their life is 8 or less (as per the original post), they would lose the game - they can't put the card back. True, they can't pay 4 life if they're at 3, but they also have no choice…

d:^D

Then, do you mean that there's no infraction?
If their life is 7 or less, he pay 8 life, they try to pay 8 life(though CR117.3&118.4 prohibit it), and they lose game by SBA because their life is 0 or less.

A new question is coming up;
If AP controls Platinum Angel, what should we do?
It is still illegal action to pay life with insufficient life, but AP doesn't lose game though AP's life 0 or less.

In this situation don't we just issue a GRV for paying life you were unable to do and due to the game state being such that we couldn't rewind we leave it as it is, reminding the player to be very careful when they get to this point.

Any update on this topic by BFZ?
Can I say “After I don't pay life, I have excess cards that cannot be accounted for.” even everyone knows why it happens?(And we use DEC remedy.)
Or IPG 2.3 still just does not cover this situation? (And we should not expand the remedy to similar=different infraction.)

No functional changes re: Sylvan Library, as a result of the changes for Drawing Extra Cards.

First, Library tells them to draw those cards, so DEC doesn't apply there; next, they have to put back cards or pay life, and the fact those cards were “drawn this turn” must be verifiable - so if a careless player doesn't keep them separate, they're paying life, same as before.

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

No functional changes re: Sylvan Library, as a result of the changes for Drawing Extra Cards.

First, Library tells them to draw those cards, so DEC doesn't apply there; next, they have to put back cards or pay life, and the fact those cards were “drawn this turn” must be verifiable - so if a careless player doesn't keep them separate, they're paying life, same as before.

d:^D

Thanks,
and I have a small question.

Though CR117 prohibits paying life to minus, can we force that player to pay illegal cost?

Originally posted by Keiichi Kawazoe:

Though CR117 prohibits paying life to minus, can we force that player to pay illegal cost?

please, read the entire thread again.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

and the fact those cards were “drawn this turn” must be verifiable

The new IPG has this to say:

IPG 2.3 Gameplay Error - Drawing Extra Cards
Fails to verify specific characteristics of a card with his or her opponent as required by a spell or ability before putting it into his or her hand

Is “drawn this turn” a “specific characteristic” of a card that needs to be verified?

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

Is “drawn this turn” a “specific characteristic” of a card that needs to be verified?

Nope. At least, not in that context.

Edited Scott Marshall (Oct. 7, 2015 06:12:47 PM)

All in all,

How judges (and the player) can treat the situation if the player has 3 life and mix the drawn cards up?
At the time he mixed his cards up, he has not made any infraction.

There could be 4 ways to continue:

a) The player puts two cards on virtually his choice.
b) The player puts two cards on the opponent's choice (with revealing the entire hand: like DEC).
c) The player puts two cards at random.
d) The player pays 8 life and lose the game.

and e) There're no way out. The player must concede the game.

Scott says (e) I think, but I can't find your argument.
The player has nothing legal to do, so that's not a Slow Play nor Stalling.
Why must the player concede?
Or, why doesn't the opponent have to concede though both player has no way to continue playing?

I believe Sylvan Library should be errata-ed to use “lose” instead of “pay”…