Originally posted by Riki Hayashi:

A player has made an error and presumably one of them has called you over to fix the error.

This is a very good point. If you're called over by the player, clearly they have called you over because it was an error. If they shortcut it, they're not going to ask you. This is the case with cracking fetches and not looking, or not looking at opponents hand during a gitaxian probe - the players are shortcutting and know it.

Also, someone earlier mentioned (I can't find it now) about opponents knowing about the scry and their opponent not doing it. I'm pretty sure this clearly falls under USC - Cheating, they are allowing their opponent to improperly resolve a spell or ability which is not a missed trigger.

So, going the same direction - if I know my opponent already has gotten 2 GRVs (maybe because he got one during our match and the judge asked, like he should), and I play Path to Exile on one of his creatures, and he fails to look at his library before shuffling for Path….I can go all jackass on him and get him the Game Loss, because he failed to follow the direction of a card (he clearly chose to search, since he shuffled, but he did not search!), because he already knew he would not find anything/would not want to find anything?
Really?

EDIT: Concerning Nick's statement - would ‘knowing the top card’ be a requirement for you to allow the shortcut (since it sounds like that)? I'm guessing no, but just making sure.
a) Would the answer ‘It doesn’t matter so I didn't do it' be acceptable?
b) Would ‘It doesn’t matter so I chose to leave it on top' cut it?
By what you said, I'd need to rule a) as not acceptable, but b) as acceptable, which sounds reaaaaally inconsistent, since they both describe the same thing happening, just using different words - not looking at the card and leaving it on top and not doing scry 1 is the same thing, after all.

Edited Philip Ockelmann (Oct. 10, 2013 05:49:52 PM)

Originally posted by Toby Elliott:

It's also worth noting that scry is not a new mechanic. It's been printed twice in the past and has run just fine under the current rule set on those occasions.

I think the reason Scry is problematic here while it wasn't before is the different way it's applied this time. In Fifth Dawn and M11 it was usually scry 2 or more, on cards like Serum Visions and Foresee making it a major part of the card's effect, thus player were less inclined to forget them. Future Sight made the scry part essential to the spell's effect, like Judge Unworthy, making it even less likely the scry is forgotten.

BUt Theros uses a lot of Scry 1. On a card like Vanquish the Foul, the scry is just a small rider, just like the “lose 1 life” on cards in New Phyrexia and this is easier to forget when you focus on the main effect on the spell. The less weight the scry has on the overall card value, the more likely it is forgotten. It happens more often with Portent of Betrayal than Spark Jolt. In the case of the former, sometimes in the natural flow of the game we are 100% focused on the big effect, thus forgetting the small rider.

So even though it's the same mechanic, it's applied in a different way here and thus creates problems earlier iterations didn't have.

Edited Toby Hazes (Oct. 11, 2013 05:21:21 AM)

One thing I'm wondering about in this case would be Reaper of the Wilds, 100 Saproling Token, and someone casting Wrath of God. If the opponent wanted, would you make the player Scry 1 100 times, or would you let him shortcut the Scry 1's once he decided to leave a card on top?

It's not the exact same thing as the original scenario, but it seems close enough to me.

Originally posted by Sebastian Braune:

One thing I'm wondering about in this case would be Reaper of the Wilds, 100 Saproling Token, and someone casting Wrath of God. If the opponent wanted, would you make the player Scry 1 100 times, or would you let him shortcut the Scry 1's once he decided to leave a card on top?

It's not the exact same thing as the original scenario, but it seems close enough to me.

Shortcutting is fine, assuming both players are happy with the shortcut. In fact, this is a key component of the Melira Pod deck in Modern (Viscera Seer to sacrifice Kitchen Finks or Murderous Redcap while Melira, Sylvok Outcast is in play)

Originally posted by Philip Körte:

…he failed to follow the direction of a card (he clearly chose to search, since he shuffled, but he did not search!), because he already knew he would not find anything/would not want to find anything?

No, because he showed knowledge of the search part of the effect because he knew to shuffle.

Which brings me to a comparison being made here that's not quite accurate. This is not really comparable to cracking a fetchland, not searching, and shuffling. By shuffling, you are recognizing the search part of the effect, and have thus not missed it. This is an issue of recognizing a game effect and applying it, not actually executing the mechanics of such an effect (which is secondary, and is often shortcutted in times in which it doesn't matter).

Toby Hazes
I think the reason Scry is problematic here while it wasn't before is the different way it's applied this time. In Fifth Dawn and M11 it was usually scry 2 or more, on cards like Serum Visions and Foresee making it a major part of the card's effect, thus player were less inclined to forget them. Future Sight made the scry part essential to the spell's effect, like Judge Unworthy, making it even less likely the scry is forgotten.

On a card like Vanquish the Foul however, the scry is just a small rider, just like the “lose 1 life” on cards in New Phyrexia and this is easier to forget when you focus on the main effect on the spell. The less weight the scry has on the overall card value, the more likely it is forgotten. It happens more often with Portent of Betrayal than Spark Jolt. In the case of the former, it allows our thought process to be 100% focused on the big effect, thus forgetting the small rider.

So even though it's the same mechanic, it's applied in a different way here and thus creates problems earlier iterations didn't have.

This. A million times this. Thank you very much. I definitely feel like the design philosophy in Theros of “add Scry 1 to big splashy effects” is a main cause of this problem.

Edited Lyle Waldman (Oct. 10, 2013 10:13:27 PM)

lyle, searching your library does not automatically make you shuffle it,
and shuffling your library does not imply that you searched it.

Originally posted by Toby Elliott:

Callum Milne
My options according to policy are … or assume the player was playing suboptimally and instruct them to continue playing.

This is an option in policy?

If no infraction has occurred, then yes; it's the only option. And if the player tells me they didn't want to or don't care about the scry and so left their library alone, where's the infraction?

Originally posted by Toby Elliott:

People are trying to rationalize a lot here. Replace “Scry 1” with “Draw a card” and ask yourself if your answer changes. If so, why?

Because there is no possible way for drawing cards to result in an unchanged game state, but it's very possible for scrying to do so. If there was a legal way for the game state to remain unchanged, the answer would not change.

Case in point: A player who controls Obstinate Familiar casts a cantrip spell, doesn't draw a card for it, and their opponent calls a judge. If the player tells me they didn't want to draw or didn't care about the card draw, I'm going to rule that no infraction has occurred–the player chose to use the Familiar's replacement effect, resulting in an unchanged game state.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

No, because he showed knowledge of the search part of the effect because he knew to shuffle.

Which brings me to a comparison being made here that's not quite accurate. This is not really comparable to cracking a fetchland, not searching, and shuffling. By shuffling, you are recognizing the search part of the effect, and have thus not missed it. This is an issue of recognizing a game effect and applying it, not actually executing the mechanics of such an effect (which is secondary, and is often shortcutted in times in which it doesn't matter).

So, by performing one part of the instruction of an effect/a card (shuffling the library), I have acknowledged, but chosen not to use, the part I failed to do (search the library)?
How is this any different from performing part of the instruction of e.g. Portent of Betrayal (taking control of the creature), but not choosing not to, hence failing to scry 1?
Because I am supposed to Scry 1 AFTER I take control of the creature, as opposed to searching BEFORE shuffling?
Would it then be no infraction if Portent of Betrayal would read ‘Scry 1. Take control of target creature….’ as opposed to ‘take control of target creature… . Scry 1’.

I think the nuts and bolts of this discussion comes down to the simple fact that Scry doesn't have any detrimental effects to the controller of the ability, and if they miss it, it feels very unnatural to issue a penalty to that player for doing something (or forgetting to do something) that can only benefit them. I've been following this thread and been trying to think of any detrimental effect of scrying. After 20 years there might be a card where knowing the top cards in your deck might be detrimental, but I couldn't think of one. I've thought of 2 ‘simple’ ways of offering a solution to this uncomfortable situation.

A - change the ruling of scry to read: “You MAY look at the the top x cards of your library….” by adding the may it can now be treated like a missed trigger. If the AP doesn't scry then they simply chose not to. I know it seems odd to go back and change the rules for an effect thats been around for several years, but we just did it with indestructible, legends and handling missed triggers. I think it would be a quick easy fix that would not have any visual impact on the game and the majority of players wouldn't even know anything changed.

B - We could change the IPG to have an exception to automatically downgrade any missed scry effects, and to continue without allowing a backup. I don't like this option because it falls outside convention. The IPG, while well thought out and work very well, is slightly confusing already. Adding exceptons to the IPG will only make rulings more inconsistent from one judge to the next.

Anyway those are my 2 cents. I've really appreciated the discussion so far, but I feel like we're getting to the point of needing a L4+ to set president on this one.

Originally posted by Philip Körte:

Lyle Waldman
No, because he showed knowledge of the search part of the effect because he knew to shuffle.

Which brings me to a comparison being made here that's not quite accurate. This is not really comparable to cracking a fetchland, not searching, and shuffling. By shuffling, you are recognizing the search part of the effect, and have thus not missed it. This is an issue of recognizing a game effect and applying it, not actually executing the mechanics of such an effect (which is secondary, and is often shortcutted in times in which it doesn't matter).

So, by performing one part of the instruction of an effect/a card (shuffling the library), I have acknowledged, but chosen not to use, the part I failed to do (search the library)?
How is this any different from performing part of the instruction of e.g. Portent of Betrayal (taking control of the creature), but not choosing not to, hence failing to scry 1?
Because I am supposed to Scry 1 AFTER I take control of the creature, as opposed to searching BEFORE shuffling?
Would it then be no infraction if Portent of Betrayal would read ‘Scry 1. Take control of target creature….’ as opposed to ‘take control of target creature… . Scry 1’.

The difference is that by picking up your deck, intentionally not looking at it, and then intentionally shuffling, there's much less of a grey area there than simply not doing nothing about your Scry. Is the action of doing nothing for your Scry an indication that you've forgotten to do it, or an indication that you don't want to do it? The entire point of this discussion is that that delineation is unclear. However, the action of picking up your deck, intentionally not looking, and shuffling intentionally is very clear: “I do not want to search”.

As Toby pointed out, Scry has been around for a long time and the rules on it aren't going to change. All we need, I think, is a simpler tournament shortcut (because we can never have too many of those). Something along the lines of:

“If a player resolves a spell, ability or effect that instructs him/her to search for a specific type of object in a hidden zone, to rearrange objects in a hidden zone, or to look at objects in a hidden zone, and the player does not visibly take those actions before the spell, ability or effect is fully resolved, it is assumed the player resolved those actions without making a choice of object or chose to leave the objects in their existing order.”

I'm not holding my breath on an IPG change, because again, the rules have been around for a while and players use these unofficial shortcuts regularly without issues.

Edited Aaron Huntsman (Oct. 11, 2013 12:40:32 PM)

I agree with the point of view that Scry is problematic here because of how it's applied. It's easy to forget that Voyage's End isn't just Unsummon. I've even seen people forget to scry upon attacking with Prognostic Sphinx. On the other hand, it's tough to forget the scry on Read the Bones, since it's such a big part of the card.

I don't see the need for a penalty for forgetting to scry–just assume the player didn't change the location of the card(s), which is a perfectly legal outcome of scrying.

If something is easy to forget, doesn't that make the penalty more important not less?

Kevin

Originally posted by Kevin Binswanger:

If something is easy to forget, doesn't that make the penalty more important not less?

Kevin

I would say yes in many cases, but not in this one where forgetting to scry is both detrimental and leads to a valid game state.

(I can think of some corner cases, though, such as if you control Flamespeaker Adept and your opponent has GW open, so they could potentially have Selesnya Charm.)