So I believe this is HCE. AP was supposed to resolve each trigger separately, but went to try and do both at once without NAP's permission. The fix I think makes the most sense is to apply the thoughtseize fix, shuffling two cards into the library, then putting the triggers back onto the stack and resolve them one at a time. Issue a warning to AP for HCE. No Warning for FtMGS for NAP since they did not get a chance to stop AP and called a judge immediately.

I would say so as well, since A drew two cards when she was only allowed to draw one I think it's the classic HCE and should be fixed like that as well, also no warning for NAP as N didn't have the time to react in any way.

So basically what Ryan says :D

Originally posted by Yanneck Tscheu:

I would say so as well, since A drew two cards when she was only allowed to draw one I think it's the classic HCE and should be fixed like that as well, also no warning for NAP as N didn't have the time to react in any way.

If AP drew one more, why do you shuffle two cards?

I agree with Francesco – this is an HCE during the first trigger. The penalty is a warning. My understanding of the additional remedy is to reveal Allison's hand to Newton, and ask him to chose a card for her to shuffle back into her deck (assuming no cards in the library are known), then continue to resolve the Daring Saboteur trigger by discarding a card. After the deck is shuffled, Allison can then resolve the second trigger. HCE for Allison, and no infraction for Newton.

Are we positive its an HCE? There is a really good thread about a question like this.

https://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/44985/

announces “Draw two. Discard two.”, picks up two cards from her library and, before NAP can stop her, adds them to her hand.

I'm interpreting this as being that the two cards have joined the rest of Allison's hand, so it should be HCE because there are too many cards in hand before the first discard action is taken.

<IPG 2.3> 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 their 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.

Edited Francesco Scialpi (June 15, 2019 07:08:37 PM)

Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:

<IPG 2.3> 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 their 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.

No one caught this suggestion, so I am going to post a complete answer myself.

The error committed by Allison is drawing before discarding. This error can be “corrected” as follows.
Allison reveals her hand. Newton chooses the extra “drawn” card, that is put aside. Then we resume play.
Allison discards, then “draws” the card that was put aside, then discards.

Allison has a slight advantage, since before choosing what to discard for the first ability, she has seen an extra card.
Nonetheless, the exposed remedy is much less disruptive than Turbo-seize.

Originally posted by Joe Klopchic:

Have Allison reveal her hand and Newton choose a card. That card is set aside until the second draw should occur,

While this procedure does follow the IPG, it seems odd to do this, as it has literally no effect—any card Newton chooses can still be discarded to the second discard effect.

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

While this procedure does follow the IPG, it seems odd to do this, as it has literally no effect—any card Newton chooses can still be discarded to the second discard effect.

It still tells Newton the contents of Allison's hand and let's him decide which card can't be discarded for the first loot, though Allison can still discard the second to worst and then the set aside card later.
I do not think that this infraction is special enough to warrant a deviation.

Hi everyone!

I've a question about the fix you chose to apply: why isn't ok to use the "super thoughtseize" one?
In this scenario there are two abilities that are about to resolve, not only one.
I see a formal difference between a single effect instructing to draw-discard a card twice and to different instances of the same effect.
In the first case I'd be totally ok to apply the proposed fix because no-one can interact with AP while their effect is resolving: they are going to draw the second card for sure.
But in this scenario, NAP could stifle the second trigger, or do anything in response.
There are several ways in which AP won't be able to draw the second card, as much as several ways NAP can interact with that draw.
That's why I believe this scenario falls into the "super thoughtseize“ fix instead.
AP had to ”draw 1, discard 1“ but they ”draw 2" instead.

What is wrong with my reasoning?
Thanks in advance.

This is the same ruling we give if Rummaging Goblin is activated and the player draws a card before discarding. Even though there is a priority pass between the missed discard and the error, it is still a pending action.