Oh I surely agree.

I was just saying that I felt that the applicable penalty from GRV augmented, to DEC to HCE each time felt a bit severe but I blame more the poor choice of ability wording than the policy that I feel is satisfying for most cases.

Edited Théo CHENG (Jan. 28, 2016 04:39:31 PM)

Are we really going to start issuing infractions for failing to reveal to Keranos? Yes, it was -technically- a GRV in the past, and now an HCE, but really?

Originally posted by Nathaniel Bass:

Are we really going to start issuing infractions for failing to reveal to Keranos? Yes, it was -technically- a GRV in the past, and now an HCE, but really?

“start”? When were we ever *not* issuing infractions (Edit: penalties) for that?

The Keranos reveal isn't a trigger, it can't be missed. It was absolutely a GRV since the card was first printed, and now it's absolutely HCE.

Edited Dan Collins (Jan. 28, 2016 09:21:29 PM)

Originally posted by Jose Miguel Sanchez Navarro:

I think the card that covers Francesco's situation would be Coiling Oracle

Indeed, Coiling Oracle ETB ability is exactly the same as Nissa, Sage Animist first ability - so, offending player loses a card.

Ok…
Matter reshaper/Keranos HCE, W, show the hand and removes the excess, 0 cards.
Nissa/Coiling Oracle HCE, W, show the hand and removes the excess, 1 cards.

Originally posted by Dan Collins:

“start”? When were we ever *not* issuing infractions (Edit: penalties) for that?

The Keranos reveal isn't a trigger, it can't be missed. It was absolutely a GRV since the card was first printed, and now it's absolutely HCE.

I'm aware that revealing the card is not a trigger, and not doing so was technically a GRV. Issuing a GRV in that case only served to add insult to injury. Missing the trigger was punishment enough. The card is poorly designed, considering the entire thing behaves functionally like a triggered ability even if it's not really. Combine that with the fact that there (previously) wasn't even a remedy we could apply to the situation, and we are at a point where I'm not going to go around punishing people for missing it. Furthermore, calling attention to it basically amounts to reminding the player about their trigger. I can imagine some opponents would not be happy with this. Calling it out and punishing the player for missing it does more harm than good, and is a service to no one.

Now that we actually have a potential remedy to apply (reveal hand to opponent), we have to start treating this more like an infraction and less like a missed trigger? Do we ignore it when it happens unless one player or the other actually calls attention to it themselves?

Originally posted by Nathaniel Bass:

Missing the trigger was punishment enough

This is not how we decide whether to penalise a player. If the player breaks a rule, the IPG tells us what the appropriate punishment is.

Originally posted by Nathaniel Bass:

The card is poorly designed.

Whether or not this is true is irrelevant to whether or not an infraction has occurred.

Originally posted by Nathaniel Bass:

I'm not going to go around punishing people for missing it

If it's a GRV, and you're a Judge, you're obliged to. It's one of the things that we all agreed to when we signed up for this gig.

Originally posted by Nathaniel Bass:

calling attention to it basically amounts to reminding the player about their trigger. I can imagine some opponents would not be happy with this

True, but it's still not actually a Trigger. Being “like” a trigger doesn't get a pass. If explained and handled correctly then most opponents will accept it. If they're unhappy then it's with the cards and the rules. It's on us to apply those rules properly, not to apply them when they don't upset people.

Originally posted by Nathaniel Bass:

I'm aware that revealing the card is not a trigger, and not doing so was technically a GRV. Issuing a GRV in that case only served to add insult to injury. Missing the trigger was punishment enough. The card is poorly designed, considering the entire thing behaves functionally like a triggered ability even if it's not really. Combine that with the fact that there (previously) wasn't even a remedy we could apply to the situation, and we are at a point where I'm not going to go around punishing people for missing it. Furthermore, calling attention to it basically amounts to reminding the player about their trigger. I can imagine some opponents would not be happy with this. Calling it out and punishing the player for missing it does more harm than good, and is a service to no one.

I can't see your point.
If a player attacks with a lifelink creature, and forgets to write gained life points, yes we intervene, and yes, player gets a GRV.
Are there any relevant differences with Keranos? The fact that Keranos “seems a trigger” is not relevant.

I was going to respond to Nathaniel's concerns, but I'd just be repeating what Mark McGovern already said.

Nathaniel, your philosophy is solid - for “kitchen table Magic”, maybe even OK for Regular REL. I applaud your goal of helping the players have fun - but for Competitive REL, forgetting to reveal a card is worth tracking via the GRV.

I do agree that Keranos' unusual templating is the source of our concerns, and makes it a true corner case all by itself. And, truly, this sort of variance is a large part of what keeps this game so interesting, year after year!

d:^D

Originally posted by Nathaniel Bass:

Missing the trigger was punishment enough.

It sounds like you consider penalties to be punishment, but I don't think that's true. The two primary goals of a
penalty is to educate the player on what they did wrong and to note the mistake (in case it's intentional). In other
words, the penalties don't punish, they teach. So by issuing the penalties as listed in the IPG we're teaching our
players the standards they'll be responsible for at all competitive events. Furthermore, being too lenient with
penalties can set the player up for a much worse experience down the line. If they make the same mistake
elsewhere and someone does hold them to the IPG standards, that player is gonna have a bad time.

Edited Adam Eidelsafy (Jan. 29, 2016 03:28:17 PM)

Originally posted by Adam Eidelsafy:

The two primary goals of a
penalty is to educate the player on what they did wrong and to note the mistake (in case it's intentional).

The two primary goals of a penalty are to educate the player, note the mistake, and restore the game state. Three. The three primary goals of a penalty are to educate the player, note the mistake, restore the game state, and remove the possibility for cheaters to gain advantage. Amongst the primary purposes of penalties are…

I'll come in again.

How does this situation differ from not revealing from Dark Confidant (which Toby says we should take a card and leave him -1 in his article http://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2016/01/25/the-hidden-corners-of-hce/)

You're not going to like this answer, but it just does. If you draw without
revealing for Dark Confidant's trigger, then you have failed to lose life
equal to that card's CMC. That's not quite the same as failing to verify
the legality of an effect like Fertile Thicket's, but it's similar - not
only should the opponent have knowledge of that card, but you've also
failed to legally do something else - for Fertile Thicket, you failed to
prove that you made a legal choice, so a card has to go - for Dark
Confidant, you failed to prove that you lost the legal amount of life, so a
card has to go. The fix is designed to negate any advantage you gained from
the error.

By failing to reveal for Matter Reshaper, you've lost the chance to put
that card into play, but gained no advantage other than the identity of the
card being unknown to your opponent.

By failing to reveal for Keranos, you've lost the chance to trigger those
abilities, but gained no advantage other than the identity of the card
being unknown to your opponent.

By failing to reveal for Dark Confidant, you've saved yourself a few points
of damage. Removing a card from hand “corrects” the error.

Originally posted by Dan Collins:

for Fertile Thicket, you failed to
prove that you made a legal choice, so a card has to go

Just for clarity:
- Fertile Thicket, you put the card *in your hand* w/o revealing, you lose a card
- Fertile Thicket, you put the card *on top* w/o revealing, you just reveal now

Oh yeah, I was trying to use standard-legal cards and screwed up, good
catch.