In the IPG update for July 19th, section 2.3 (DEC) was updated with the following

“If the player received confirmation from his or her opponent before drawing the card (including confirming
the number of cards when greater than one), the infraction is not Drawing Extra Card.”

Could I get an example situation, and also what the penalty would be?

Thanks!

One that comes to mind is, say, if a Solemn Simulacrum dies, but there's a Rest in Peace on the battlefield. When it dies, Alfred asks Nancy “Solemn dies, draw?” And Nancy nods, Alfred draws and then realizes the RiP would have stopped it, but since Nancy confirmed that he was going to draw a card, its no longer a DEC infraction?

Sent from my iPhone

I am curious about the philosophy behind this change. Why is this particular situation specifically not DEC, instead of a downgrade of DEC to Warning similar to when the card is uniquely identifiable and easily returnable? I mean, I recognize that the practical answer is “because the IPG says so”, but I noticed that Toby doesn't say much about the decision to consider it a separate infraction in his blog post, so I'm just curious why this avenue was chosen.

Edited Darcy Alemany (July 12, 2013 01:58:29 AM)

While I can't speak for Toby, it's likely that the intent is to avoid tracking these non-DEC infractions as DEC downgrades in the penalty database.

The philosophy for the penalty for Drawing Extra Cards stems from its potential to be overlooked by the opponent. The update fixes the scenario where the opponent does not overlook the draw, and actually “confirms” it. Take it, for instance, that a player resolves Brainstorm and asks “Draw 4?” The opponent says “Yes.” Since the opponent didn't overlook the draw, the philosophy for the penalty is no longer fitting. In addition, an opponent shouldn't be able to allow their opponents to draw cards they should not have drawn in order to have them receive a higher penalty. As such, the penalty is lower.

Now, as for the question of “what is the penalty?” There are two ways to approach this question. First, Cheating should be kept in mind when it comes to a player receiving cards they should not have. Perhaps the player who resolved Brainstorm was trying to sneak a draw through his opponent. On the other hand, the opponent may have been trying to get his opponent penalties by intentionally letting him break the rules. Whatever the case, an investigation is likely in order.

But let's assume that we determine that the error was honest and both players actually thought that drawing 4 cards instead of 3 was correct. At the moment, I am not sure of what the correct penalty will be. I am posting my above thoughts such that you, another judge, or an O source can give us the correct information. Toby's post didn't seem to name what it actually is (it seems to imply a GRV), but hopefully someone can inform us.

Edited Peter Richmond (July 12, 2013 02:01:21 AM)

Man, Toby is so clutch.

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2013/07/11/m14-policy-changes-for-players-and-judges/

Wow. That Object in the Wrong Zone text is a huge improvement. I am a big fan of this revision.

Originally posted by Darcy Alemany:

I am curious about the philosophy behind this change. Why is this particular situation specifically not DEC, instead of a downgrade of DEC to Warning similar to when the card is uniquely identifiable and easily returnable? I mean, I recognize that the practical answer is “because the IPG says so”, but I noticed that Toby doesn't say much about the decision to consider it a separate infraction in his blog post, so I'm just curious why this avenue was chosen.

If we made it a downgrade, we'd have to add a whole bunch of (duplicate) Remedy text to DEC.

1) Sorry, without reading 23 pages of text to find a single sentence, can someone clue me in to exactly what the new classification is?

2) I presume we still do something like “If the card is not uniquely identifiable, take a random card and shuffle it into the player's deck”?

So an example situation was conceived thanks to a Portland-Area get-together:

Armin draws his card for his turn. Before leaving the Draw step, Nancy Casts Vendillion Clique. The Vendilion Clique resolves, and Nancy targets Armin with the trigger. The trigger resolves, and Armin reveals his hand. Nancy chooses a card, and Armin puts it on the bottom of his library, then draws for the Clique trigger. Armin then says “Draw for turn?”, to which Nancy says “Go Ahead”.

Is this a spot-on example, and if so, what would the remedy be?

Edited Jeff S Higgins (July 12, 2013 12:12:24 PM)

Originally posted by Peter Richmond:

The philosophy for the penalty for Drawing Extra Cards stems from its potential to be overlooked by the opponent. The update fixes the scenario where the opponent does not overlook the draw, and actually “confirms” it. Take it, for instance, that a player resolves Brainstorm and asks “Draw 4?” The opponent says “Yes.” Since the opponent didn't overlook the draw, the philosophy for the penalty is no longer fitting. In addition, an opponent shouldn't be able to allow their opponents to draw cards they should not have drawn in order to have them receive a higher penalty. As such, the penalty is lower.

Hmmm, not sure if that would cover this situation in all cases. Most of the time when I've seen somebody casting Brainstorm (or similar effects) they just ask “resolves?”, “ok?”, “draw?” or something among those lines, not explicitly asking about the numbers of cards to be drawn.
Does the change of policy mean that if the opponent explicitly agrees to the cards being drawn ALONG with the number of cards is not DEC but if no number is specified then we are talking about DEC infraction? because I still can see potential for being overlook by the opponent in those cases.

Edited Carlos Navarrete Granado (July 12, 2013 03:58:07 PM)

Originally posted by Jeffrey Higgins:

what would the remedy be?

If the player agrees, it's just a GRV. So we will probably rewind the draw in the usual way if they catch it right away. (Random card back on top. No shuffle.)

Carlos Navarrete Granado
the opponent explicitly agrees to the cards being drawn ALONG with the number of cards is not DEC

This seems logical. There is no reason to think Brainstorm draws you 4, but there is plenty of chance to get a Sphinx's Revelation count wrong with Thalia in play. (Of course, this was a GRV before if you confirmed X with your opponent before drawing the cards due to incorrect costs paid, but this change in policy removes any ambiguity about it.) A better example might be -3 on Garruk and saying “Draw 5?” implicitly because of your Wurm token, forgetting that Illness in the Ranks is in play.

What's the distinction on the “object in the wrong zone” GRV fix?

Originally posted by Carlos Navarrete Granado:

not explicitly asking about the numbers of cards to be drawn

We expect this to be a very unusual circumstance; we just want it to be clear that, if this mistake is a cooperative effort, it is not DEC.

Lyle Waldman
without reading 23 pages of text to find a single sentence

Readings are good for you, m'kay? (heh)
Here's a quick change log; using this as a guide, you can also compare the new version to the previous, for exact changes.

• 2.3, GPE-DEC; added an important new sentence to the first paragraph.
  
• 2.4, GPE-ID@SoG; 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence - clarifies that this still applies if the opponent(s) have taken game actions, but the player calling the judge has not yet done so.
  
• 2.5, GPE-GRV; the bullet points under Additional Remedy have been condensed, and the last point got some clarification, as Toby mentioned.
  

Note that all of that is contained in Appendix C - Toby always adds a change summary there.

Those aren't specific answers to your questions, Lyle, but I'll confess that I'm not sure what your first question is asking about. The 2nd question? That remedy has not changed.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Those aren't specific answers to your questions, Lyle, but I'll confess that I'm not sure what your first question is asking about. The 2nd question? That remedy has not changed.

I think he is asking about what infraction category (if any) would this case fall into (drawing an extra card after having the opponent acknowledge to that draw).
2nd question is regard to the fix you would apply in this case, but as follow up question, if the offense is not categorized as DEC, then why should you apply the fix for DEC? or is the fix for GRV the one being applied?