AP: "cast manamorphose“
NAP: ”ok"

AP draws a card before declaring the colors of added mana.

What do you do?

Seems like it should fall under IPG 2.3, right?

Originally posted by Anthony Morlock:

Seems like it should fall under IPG 2.3, right?

We definitely don't want to rule this as an HCE.

The original infraction I see is that, AP improperly resolved manamorphose. After questioning AP as to why he drew first instead of declaring his mana, I would rule this a GRV/warning. If possible perform a simple backup to have AP properly resolve morphose.

Originally posted by Mark Vasquez:

If possible perform a simple backup to have AP properly resolve morphose.

I believe the backup would be to put a random card from AP's hand on top of their library, have them name the colours, then draw that card they just put back. Seems like quite the silly fix to me ;) The end result is exactly the same as not performing a backup: AP chose colours after knowing which card they would draw. Which doesn't mean I disagree with your reasoning, and I even believe this to be the correct Infraction, Penalty and Fix, it's just silly.

Which doesn't mean I disagree with your reasoning, and I even believe this to be the correct Infraction, Penalty and Fix, it's just silly.

Originally posted by Dustin De Leeuw:

Oh I definitely agree the fix is silly and slightly redundant.

The original infraction certainly is a Game Rule Violation, but in the end almost every single GPE could be ruled as a GRV. But sometimes they fit better another infraction, and this is when we apply them instead of a GRV.

Going by HCE's definition, how does this not belong ?
-It can't be corrected only through publicly available information.
-A card moved from one hidden set to another and is only know of one player.
-It is not a dexterity error.


Furthermore, HCE's philosophy seems to apply :

Though the game state cannot be reversed to the ‘correct’ state, this error can be mitigated by giving the opponent sufficient knowledge and ability to offset the error so that it is less likely to generate advantage.

Originally posted by Àre Maturana:

Furthermore, HCE's philosophy seems to apply :
Though the game state cannot be reversed to the ‘correct’ state, this error can be mitigated by giving the opponent sufficient knowledge and ability to offset the error so that it is less likely to generate advantage.

This is where I disagree: revealing the hand doesn't mitigate any advantage gained. Even if we were to apply HCE here, we would reveal the hand to the opponent, they choose a card to set aside, AP chooses colours, then the removed card is added to the hand again. Please note that the HCE fix here doesn't shuffle away any cards into the library. All the HCE fix does here is “punish” the player by revealing their hand, without solving any problem (like the information prematurely gained by drawing before choosing colours). This is a clear sign that HCE is not the correct fix, and hence very likely not the correct infraction.

Originally posted by Dustin De Leeuw:

This is where I disagree: revealing the hand doesn't mitigate any advantage gained. Even if we were to apply HCE here, we would reveal the hand to the opponent, they choose a card to set aside, AP chooses colours, then the removed card is added to the hand again. Please note that the HCE fix here doesn't shuffle away any cards into the library. All the HCE fix does here is “punish” the player by revealing their hand, without solving any problem (like the information prematurely gained by drawing before choosing colours). This is a clear sign that HCE is not the correct fix, and hence very likely not the correct infraction.

Respectfully, disagree.
The exposed fix applies when:

"if the error put cards into a set prematurely and other operations involving cards in the set should have been performed first, the player reveals the set of cards that contains the excess and his or her opponent chooses a number of previously-unknown cards. Put those cards aside until the point at which they should have been legally added, then return them to the set."

Since the emphasized portion isn't true, I wouldn't apply that fix.

I'm posting this for Scott as he is travelling back home from GP Sydney.

Justin is correct, GPE-GRV for failing to name a colour and get the player to say what colour or colours were produced.

But the first time the opponent has a chance to realize there's a mistake,
is when the player draws the card
Almost every HCE infraction is the consequence of incorrectly resolving a
spell of ability. But isn't “first chance to realize something went wrong”
one of the main ways of differentiating the infraction from a common GRV?

HCE definition is “A player commits an error in the game that cannot be corrected by only publicly available information and does so without his or her opponent’s permission.”

The error is not specifying to their opponent what colour mana they are adding. The error can easily be corrected by announcing the colour of mana.

A couple thoughts of mine:
1) naming colors of mana isn't an operation involving cards in the hand. That line in HCE doesn't apply here.

2) the “card draw is first time an opponent could notice something wrong” is a useful heuristic in a lot of situations, but I suspect it's not ‘O’fficial because of situations like this where the player is entitled to the draw, they just err by performing it before some other game action. The draw prevents this from being OoOS, but HCE, as a spiritual descendant of Drawing Extra Cards, is more concerned with errors that would affect the contents of the hand. That's why resolving a discard: draw effect as a looting effect is HCE while this is a GRV. There's no risk here of damaging the contents of the hand (or any other hidden zone).

Originally posted by Mark Brown:

The error is not specifying to their opponent what colour mana they are adding. The error can easily be corrected by announcing the colour of mana.

Would the player add the same mana whether he draws a card first or second ? If the answer is no, have we really corrected the error ?

If you consider the error to be “drawing a card before adding the mana” instead of just “not adding the mana”, I see grounds to say it isn't corrected by only publicly available information.


I'm confused here because it really was a clear cut HCE in my mind. I'm ready to admit that I'm wrong, I just want to be sure I understand the correct philosophy.
Note that in the scenario if this was a HCE, the fix would be ‘thoughtseize’ a card and shuffle it into APs library, thus the error would be offset - I'm not saying the end justify the means, my first post clearly establishes that I believe it fits HCE definition.

Originally posted by Àre Maturana:

Originally posted by Mark Brown:

The error is not specifying to their opponent what colour mana they are adding. The error can easily be corrected by announcing the colour of mana.

Would the player add the same mana whether he draws a card first or second ? If the answer is no, have we really corrected the error ?

If you consider the error to be “drawing a card before adding the mana” instead of just “not adding the mana”, I see grounds to say it isn't corrected by only publicly available information.


I'm confused here because it really was a clear cut HCE in my mind. I'm ready to admit that I'm wrong, I just want to be sure I understand the correct philosophy.
Note that in the scenario if this was a HCE, the fix would be ‘thoughtseize’ a card and shuffle it into APs library, thus the error would be offset - I'm not saying the end justify the means, my first post clearly establishes that I believe it fits HCE definition.

The thoughtseize fix still results in a situation where the player knows what cards will be in their hand before naming a color (the card shuffled in may or may not be the one drawn, the card drawn may or may not have been of particular relevance to the game state) just one card less than before. I would say the one card less hurts enough to probably offset the advantage of having the right mana to cast whatever is left, but doesn't fix this problem itself.

Originally posted by Anniek Van der Peijl:

The thoughtseize fix still results in a situation where the player knows what cards will be in their hand before naming a color (the card shuffled in may or may not be the one drawn, the card drawn may or may not have been of particular relevance to the game state) just one card less than before.

What would be wrong with that? I'm not sure I can see your point here.

Suppose we start with three cards in hand, and manamorphose on the stack. Player should choose colors based on three cards in hand + unknown card to be drawn.

After infraction:
a) we apply thoughtseize fix. Player has three cards in their hand (having lost the best one), manamorphose on the stack.
Now, player must choose colors based on three cards in hand + unknown card to be drawn. No advantage whatsoever.

b) we apply GRV fix i.e. random card on top.
Now, player must choose colors based on three cards in hand + *known* card to be drawn. Hmmmmm.