Hi everyone!
I've a questione about MPE remedy:

A player draws his opening hand in this way : It draws 4 cards, looks at them and put them aside. Then he draws other 4 cards, looks at them and oops! Only then he realizes he took too many cards.

JUDGE!

Can we apply the MPE fix on the second set of 4 cards if both players agree that the two “sets” have been separated the whole time?
Or must the player show all 8 cards instead (wich is what is supported by IPG)?

Thanks for your help!

Personally I see potential for abuse with only applying it to some cards
and very little advantage gained from doing it :).
Den 19 apr 2016 09:52 skrev “Giampaolo Fadda” <

The HCE section of the IPG has some additional information on what we can and can't consider sets:

“Always operate on the smallest set possible to remedy the error. This may mean applying the
remedy to only part of a set defined by an instruction. For example, if a player resolves Collected
Company, picks up three cards with one hand and then four cards with the other, the card
causing the infraction is part of the set of four cards and should be removed from there.”

I don't see any particular reason why we shouldn't apply the same logic to the 4+4 opening hand scenario.

…just popping in to confirm what Eskil and {disagree with what} Mark already said…

d:^D

Edited Scott Marshall (April 21, 2016 05:33:03 PM)

I read both posts several times and still think Mark and Eskil said contradictory things :P

I'm with Federico here, I was still sifting through them to look were I misread :D

Same for me. It seems they are saying opposite things :D
I agree with Mark anyway, even if it's a deviation from the documents.

I posted a strikingly similar question in my tournament report form April 9th (http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/26230/).

I did not deviate from IPG for my MPE and used the full grip of 6 for the opponent to choose from but it REALLY felt like it should only be the set with the extra cards similar to HCE.

Is there a reason sets are not called out for MPE (i.e. it was thought of an discounted)?

I agree with Mark, it's seems to be that the same remedy should be applied in this case, because the remedy originally for HCE was the same and was corrected to be applied in a certain number of cards when this situation occurs.
So applying it here should not generate an abuse from the player who made the mistake, right?

I also disagree with Eskil and agree with Mark :D!

I apologise for my earlier opinion, as it was hastily compiled and
therefore didn't do the obvious thing: read the documents :).
Den 19 apr 2016 17:05 skrev “Scott Marshall” <
forum-26449-6a36@apps.magicjudges.org>:

Sorry, Eskil - I misread your post. I thought you were saying the opposite
… so I'll disagree with you, and agree only with Mark. :/

——————————————————————————–
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view
and respond to this message on the web at
http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/170984/


Disable all notifications for this topic:
http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/26449/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/26449/?onsite=yes

You can change your email notification settings at
http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/

I respectfully disagree with Mark- and apparently everyone else. The reason HCE tells you to operate on the smallest possible set is because it's a way of reducing the disruption to the game. Since the information is hidden, we aren't able to know for sure which card was the illegal one, which is why we apply the Thoughtseize fix. But if there was a clear physical separation between the cards, we are allowed to use that knowledge to help narrow it down. We are making sure that the cards that we are certain are legally there are not the ones that are removed.

However, when the mistake is a MPE, no card-specific decisions have been made, so all the cards are equivalent. There is no one “wrong” card to be removed, there is simply one too many cards in the hand. With that in mind, I see no reason to apply the fix to only a subset of cards, as it doesn't actually reduce the disruption.

As Eskil originally said, there is zero benefit to doing it, and there is a non-zero potential for abuse if you don't do it.

Edited Isaac King (May 7, 2017 11:02:15 PM)

If somebody had counted out their hand in a stack onto the table, where it's obvious to both players that the top card is the most recently drawn card, and they drew 8, you'd apply the fix to the whole hand anyway, so I don't get why 2 stacks of 4 is better than 1 stack of 8. How can you be sure which set of 4 cards was actually the second set drawn even if both players agree? The opening hand is the opening hand no matter how it's drawn IMO, and you'd apply the fix to the opening hand.

Definitely abusable as described.

I'm trying to think what people mean by “abuseable”. The only scenario I can come up with is if a player draws 4, and with the knowledge of those 4 cards decides to deliberately draw 4 more in the hopes that they get the cards they need and also that the opponent doesn't remove the card they need from the second 4. Ie the first 4 has no lands so hopes that the second 4 has lands and that they don't lose the lands as part of the fix. (And that the same is true for a 5 and 3, or 6 and 2 draw).

If it's an accident I don't see the potential for advantage, merely that the opponent only has partial hand knowledge to make their decision on what card to remove.

If it's a deliberate action then it sounds like a high risk low reward cheat.

That being said, I've no real issue with fixing all 8.

Yes, that's along the lines of what I was thinking when I said “abusable”. I'm not claiming that it's going to happen a lot or that it's a particularly good cheat. My point is simply that it is possible to abuse, and since there is zero reason to fix with just 4, you may as well do 8.

Edited Isaac King (April 20, 2016 09:50:27 PM)

Originally posted by Isaac King:

there is zero reason to fix with just 4, you may as well do 8.

This, I think, is the heart of the misunderstanding. We are not looking for justification to avoid being punitive (i.e., a reason to fix with just 4.) We are trying to make sure that the player is not gaining advantage by an error in accordance with the IPG.

We an apply the HCE fix in this situation because the player should not get a better hand than they would receive by drawing 7 cards correctly. We know that the player was allowed to put 4 cards into the opening hand. We also know that player isn't allowed to put an additional 4 into it. So we use the smallest set we know is part of the error: the second of 4 that was trying to enter the hand.