Hi dudes, dudettes and everyone in between! Welcome to the Knowledge Pool that will see you right into the holidays!
In this week's scenario, we are jumping into the world of Legacy. Here is the blog post.

And here is the scenario:

You are the only judge at a Competitive Legacy event. Anton and Nicolas are in the middle of a tense game and spells are flying all over the place. At the end of Nicolas’s turn, Anton plays a Brainstorm. Nicolas says fine. Anton then draws three cards and, without returning any cards to the top of the library, he untaps and draws for his turn. Nicolas stops him after the card is already drawn and calls you over. You determine this was an honest mistake.

What is your ruling?

Edited John Eriksson (Dec. 18, 2015 04:57:15 AM)

It seems that since Anton has only just drawn his first card for the turn we can have him place his card for the turn back on top of his library, then rewind to the point of his mistake and have him correctly resolve brainstorm by placing two cards from his hand on top of the library. This is still a games rules violation, but if it seems honest then it's only a warning.

Anton has not correctly resolved the Brainstorm. There isn't a DEC here as the draw was completely legal and things have only gone wrong after this.

This is therefore a GRV and will result in a warning for Anton, however because this was caught after the untap Nicolas also gets a warning for FtMGS as he has allowed the game to progress following the error (this might depend on how quickly the untap/draw was done by Anton).

As for the remedy we have Anton return two cards from his hand to the top of his library now as this is a default fix for a GRV:

Originally posted by IPG:

If a player forgot to draw cards, discard cards, or return cards from their hand to another zone, that player does so.

As we've applied a default fix, no backup is required, remind the players to play more carefully and let play continue.

Gpe-grv warning to Anton. Ftmgs warning to Nicolas. Fix have Anton put 1 card from hand to top of Library as Anton has aleady drawn one of the 2 cards that brainstorm would have put on top of deck.

Since all of the draws were legal, no DEC, and no “thoughtseize” fix here.

GRV warning to Anton for not completing his Brainstorm, and have him return two cards now. If Anton acted quickly in there I would probably not give Nicholas any FTMGS.

I think there are multiple possibilities here.

Brainstorm says: “Draw 3 cards, then put back 2 cards from your hand on top of your library in any order.”

So we have got a problem of the player having more information than they should, correct? I could see an avocation for GPE - Looking at Extra Cards. In it's definition it says: A player looks at a card they were not entitled to see. Although I think a GPE-GRV would also be arguable, and agree with the above given reasons.

We can't just have the player put back the extra card they drew because its information they should not have. If brainstorm had been resolved properly, the player would only have seen a card that he already had knowledge about - i.e. one of the cards from his hand he had put back. If we do a rewind, the player still has more information than he should, he will know (prior to draw for turn) what the top card, second to top , and third to top cards of his library are.

IPG uses the example for GPE-LEC: A player activates a Sensei’s Divining Top that is no longer on the battlefield, and sees 3 cards before the, mistake is noticed. While not EXACTLY the same scenario - it still has the same feeling where philosophy is concerned.

I would back up by having the player put back the card he “legally drew” then have the player shuffle his library and finish resolving brainstorm as he should have originally. I doubt Nicholas would have had time to stop Anton so likely would not give him an FTMGS, but before making that decision I would of course question both players to verify that information.

Also I would like to add another item to the mix regarding if this is DEC or not. 2.3. If a prior Game Rule Violation or Communication Policy Violation directly led to drawing the extra cards, it is treated as Drawing Extra Cards.

Since this person incorrectly resolved Brainstorm and then took their next turn action (draw) they now have 2 more cards in hand than they should. In this case, would it actually be DEC? Because as we've advocated, there was a previous GRV. Just a thought.

Edited Jessica Livingston (Dec. 19, 2015 01:37:26 PM)

Before reading other answers:

As part of resolving Brainstorm, Anton was supposed to place two cards from hand on top of his deck, but he did not do this, instead rushing through to his draw phase. The first thing that went wrong is Anton resolving Brainstorm incorrectly, and the first point in the game we know it's gone wrong is when Anton starts to untap. Anton has committed a Game Play Error - Game Rule Violation, and will receive a warning.

Nicolas is also responsible for maintaining the game state. However, from the description, it sounds like Anton just rushed through before Nicolas could respond. After investigating thing, Nicolas has probably committed no infraction.

For a fix, it seems one of the prescribed partial fixes for GRV applies - have Anton immediately move two cards of his choice from his hand to the top of his library.

Remind the players to play carefully, apply any time extension as necessary, and continue play.



After reading other responses:

There's a surprising amount of variety in this week's responses! Not the usual boring everyone-giving-the-exact-same-answer.


Justin Wells: while that will generally fix the situation, why would we back up instead of applying the default fix?

Originally posted by IPG:

If a player forgot to draw cards, discard cards, or return cards from their hand to another zone, that player does so.

Also, backing up through a draw and some deck manipulation is pretty worrisome, especially in legacy, where there's likely to be a shuffle effect available (though it might not necessarily be available).



Robert Langmaid: That sounds like a tempting and elegant partial fix, however, I don't think you've quite fixed the situation - Anton will have an extra card in hand if you only return 1 card to top of deck.



Jessica Livingston: Looking at Extra cards can only apply to cards that haven't been drawn -

Originally posted by IPG:

Players are considered to have looked at a card when they have been able to observe the face of a hidden card, or when a card is moved any significant amount from a deck, but before it touches the other cards in their hand

Additionally, when backing up, we can't put back the card Anton “legally drew”, because we can't know which card it is. Once the card hits the hand, no matter how much we trust Anton's honesty (and memory), we have to assume it could have been any of the cards in hand (with only a very few exceptional circumstances). If and when we back up -

Originally posted by IPG:

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

. That is, if we fix this with a backup, we'll put a random card from hand on top of deck, not shuffle, re-tap the appropriate permanents, and then we'll be in a state where Anton can finish resolving brainstorm correctly. (where he'll place back 2 cards, untap, draw one of them, and continue on)

For the reasons you've stated, this situation doesn't appear to be DEC.

Edited Talin Salway (Dec. 19, 2015 03:40:41 AM)

Talin Salway: how would they have an extra card by putting only one back. The drew 3 for the brainstorm and we're suppose to put 2 back. Then they drew 1 of those 2 for their turn. Thus if we put one back it is the same as if they resolved correctly then drew for their turn.

Originally posted by Robert Langmaid:

Talin Salway: how would they have an extra card by putting only one back. The drew 3 for the brainstorm and we're suppose to put 2 back. Then they drew 1 of those 2 for their turn. Thus if we put one back it is the same as if they resolved correctly then drew for their turn.

Start with 4 cards plus Brainstorm:

Correct:
Draw 3 - Now have 7 cards (4 + 3)
Put 2 back = 5 cards
Draw a card = 6 cards

Current:
Draw 3 = have 7 cards
Draw a card = have 8 cards

That's 2 extra.

They didn't draw one of the two cards they should've put back - they drew the card underneath them.

Ah I see where my mistake was judge was called after the card for turn was drawn. I miss read it that the judge was called as the card for turn was being drawn.

I think this is just GRV. As much as this looks very much like DEC, it doesn't actually fit any of the rules for DEC in IPG. I think we can rewind through this, so I would:

1) Return a card at random from Anton's hand to the top of his deck (his draw for turn).

2) Tap Anton's permanents (the ones he had tapped during Nicolas' end step).

3) Ask Anton to put 2 cards from his hand on top of his library.

It is now Nicolas' end step, Nicolas has priority on an empty stack.

Due to the nature of the information of the returned card (step 1) being relevant to the Brainstorm resolution (step 3) I may consider deviating slightly by shuffling the deck after returning the card to reduce the information that Anton shouldn't have. I'd be interested in hearing if others would consider doing this as well.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

I think this is just GRV.

I'm curious why you wouldn't apply the GRV default fix and are working through a backup?

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

I think this is just GRV. As much as this looks very much like DEC, it doesn't actually fit any of the rules for DEC in IPG. I think we can rewind through this, so I would:

1) Return a card at random from Anton's hand to the top of his deck (his draw for turn).

2) Tap Anton's permanents (the ones he had tapped during Nicolas' end step).

3) Ask Anton to put 2 cards from his hand on top of his library.

1) is the fix we do at Regular for DEC, but as we've established, this isn't DEC. There isn't any sort of big backup we can really do here, because too much information was gained and too many decisions could have been made. Luckily, we have a partial fix for this specific flavor of GRV:

If a player forgot to draw cards, discard cards, or return cards from their hand to another zone, that player does so.

We still issue the Warning to Anton, but from the way the scenario describes the pacing it sounds like Anton drew his cards and went to start his turn quickly enough for Nicholas to have had a chance to say something. Assuming that, we issue no penalty to Nicholas. (If we determine via investigation that Nicholas really did have a chance to say something, we issue him a FTMGS and a Warning. That doesn't include any pause Anton might've taken directly after drawing the cards given the player has to decide what cards to put back from the Brainstorm.) Ask Anton to return two cards from his hand to the top of his library. Remind Anton to be more careful, and ask if there's anything else that you can do for them (and if necessary issue an appropriate time extension). Hum a holiday tune to yourself as you walk away.

I would give a GRV to Anton for resolving his spell incorrectly. It doesn't sound based on the description like there was enough time for Nicolas to stop Anton and call attention to the mistake before he untapped and drew, so FtMGS is unlikely but possible depending on exactly what happened.

There's a partial fix that if a player forgot to return cards from their hand to another zone, they do so now, and the IPG says to perform the partial fix unless a simple backup is possible. I don't think having Anton return a random card to the top of his library, retap his permanents, then put two cards of his choice on top of his library counts as a simple backup. Here I'm going to just tell Anton to return two cards to his library now, and to be more careful in the future. It always feels bad when a player gets a strategic advantage from their own mistake, but I think that's the only fix supported by policy. Hopefully the warning and the possibility of an upgrade is enough to keep him from doing it again.

Originally posted by Marc Shotter:

Lyle Waldman
I think this is just GRV.

I'm curious why you wouldn't apply the GRV default fix and are working through a backup?

Because I think the backup is simple enough (IPG allows for a “simple backup” as an option for any GRV, even one for which there is a prescribed alternate fix) and causes significantly less damage to the game state than the partial fix prescribed by IPG. A point in which there is obviously disagreement in this thread, but that's my opinion.

Edited Lyle Waldman (Dec. 21, 2015 09:42:08 PM)