Originally posted by Brook Gardner-Durbin:
My argument against that is I feel the player has already made a choice on the bottom card, and I don't want to allow them to change that if they've reconsidered.
Originally posted by Russell Deutsch:
I also feel as though they've made a choice on the top card.
Originally posted by Frank Rodriguez:
HCE doesn't allow you to choose at random, right?
Originally posted by Robert Maes:
I think in this scenario we should apply HCE to the hand and allow the player to scry both the top and bottom card again.
The reason being that we should restore the set of cards in question back to a proper set and resolve the spell correctly.
The possibility to take advantage of feels marginal at best.
Leaving the card on the bottom gives us a forced scenario of “Draw a card. Scry1. Scry1”
Ultimately this feels incorrect and we should be fine with allowing the player to make their decision based on the appropriate resolution of the Serum Visions.
Originally posted by Robert Maes:
Leaving the card on the bottom gives us a forced scenario of “Draw a card. Scry1. Scry1”
Ultimately this feels incorrect and we should be fine with allowing the player to make their decision based on the appropriate resolution of the Serum Visions.
Originally posted by Robert Maes:
Leaving the card on the bottom gives us a forced scenario of “Draw a card. Scry1. Scry1”
Originally posted by Isaac King:
AP should be able to put that card in one of the three places it could have been had Serum Visions been resolved correctly.
Originally posted by Additional Remedy:seems to want us to back up the putting the card on the bottom. I know that this line wasn't meant to apply to this situation since the “affected set” is the hand, not the scry set, but this being here does seem to argue in favor of the “re-scry both of the cards” position.
In cases where the infraction was immediately followed by moving a card from the affected set to a known location, such as by discarding, putting cards on top of the library, or playing a land, a simple backup to the point just after the error may be performed.
Originally posted by Andrew Keeler:
In cases where the infraction was immediately followed by moving a card from the affected set to a known location, such as by discarding, putting cards on top of the library, or playing a land, a simple backup to the point just after the error may be performed.
Edited Jacopo Strati (April 3, 2017 08:48:27 AM)
Originally posted by Isaac King:Originally posted by Robert Maes:
Leaving the card on the bottom gives us a forced scenario of “Draw a card. Scry1. Scry1”
Ultimately this feels incorrect and we should be fine with allowing the player to make their decision based on the appropriate resolution of the Serum Visions.
I think this argument is flawed. The appropriate resolution of Serum Visions isn't going to happen no matter what- Serum Visions doesn't normally allow NAP to choose a card from AP's hand either. An error has already occurred at this point, and nothing we can do will completely erase that error. All we can do now is attempt to mitigate the error as much as possible.
By putting the card on the bottom of his library, AP has, in my opinion, clearly indicated his choice for where he wanted that card to go. I see no reason to allow AP to change that choice after learning what NAP is choosing from his hand. The HCE remedy is perfectly comfortable acting on only the part of a set that contained the error, and I don't see a reason not to do so in this case.
As for whether AP should get the choice of where to put the card chosen by NAP, I think he should in fact get the choice. AP putting the card into his hand is an error, and we can't interpret that error as a choice to put the card on top any more than we can as a choice to put the card on the bottom. AP should be able to put that card in one of the three places it could have been had Serum Visions been resolved correctly.
Replies have been disabled because this topic is closed.