Why doesn't NAP have a right to know how many cards AP kept from
Brainstorm? AP has chosen to play a card the requires the tracking of cards
drawn causing the leak of that minor piece of data while gaining the
ability to draw many extra cards. Sounds fair and reasonable.

If AP doesn't want to leak that information he could just not BS before the
SL trigger.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Toby Hazes
Otherwise, miracle opens up a whole can of worms. If we allow judges to verify the legality of Sylvan Library triggers, then how about a miracle card that was just drawn but put into the hand while a judge was watching?

I don't understand the comparison being made here. The point I'm trying to get at is that without judge intervention in the Brainstorm + Library case, NAP has information he shouldn't, i.e. the number of cards AP kept from his Brainstorm. In the case you're trying to create here, what is the analogous “broken gamestate” (for lack of a better technical term)?

Adam calls over a judge to oversee his Brainstorm while he has a Sylvan Library. The first card he draws off his Brainstorm is a Terminus. It has already touched the rest of his hand, but he still wants to miracle it. After all, the sole reason the judge is there is to confirm it's the card he just drew.

Edited Toby Hazes (April 13, 2014 06:56:35 PM)

@Gareth: Because in all other situations, NAP does not have the right to this information. It's only in this specific case that we (as judges) are “legislating”, so to speak, that AP has to give NAP this information (as in the rules do not say that AP has to give NAP this information, but we as judges and arbiters of the MTR/IPG are saying that he does; in an ideal world and according to CR as best as I know, NAP would just trust AP not to cheat and just put back the right cards, but the world is not ideal). Hence this is an exception to the general case which gives NAP advantageous information he would not otherwise have. Speaking as a Legacy player who occasionally plays decks with both Sylvan and Brainstorm in them, I'm not comfortable with this.

The argument “well, you're doing something overpowered so you deserve to have some sort of drawback” holds no weight with me either. You seem to be making that argument, although I could be misreading your post.

@Toby: And what is the problem with this? I still fail to see what the issue is. Could you explain a bit more thoroughly please? I don't quite understand, but here is my answer to what I thik you might be saying:

The rule on Miracle is “if it's the first card you've drawn this turn, reveal it as you draw it, and you may cast it for its Miracle cost” (paraphrased). If AP draws an additional card after he draws his Miracle, then he misses his window to reveal. If he reveals it immediately, then he doesn't miss his window to use the Miracle.

Or are you possibly suggesting that you think this situation is analogous enough to revealing Miracles that you think a ruling that a person who can call a judge to watch him Brainstorm + Sylvan means he can call a judge to watch him draw every card for the whole game in case he Miracles, which would cost judge resources at an event? The difference between that argument and the Brainstorm + Sylvan case is that there is no information that NAP is not entitled to that NAP is gaining due to this line, at least none that I can think of. I can't think of a negative impact on AP for not having a table judge watch him draw cards, while the negative impact on AP in the Brainstorm + Sylvan case is patently obvious (to me at least).

Apologies for the multiple double-negatives in the above paragraph.

The way I approached it with this player is to explain that the rules of the game do not entitle him to be protected from revealing strategic information. Lots of game actions reveal strategic information. Revealing for miracle, hesitating after drawing for the turn, passing the turn with cards in hand and lots of open mana, things like that.

He is never *required* to give up any strategic information. He can hide his Brainstorm choices just as he would if he cast it at any other time. He just gets the *option* of getting Epic Card Advantage for the low, low price of revealing a minor bit of strategic information.

I think Scott gave a great answer at the beginning of this thread from the tournament logistics side of things.

Similarly, the theory of the Magic rules tells us that the players in a game of Magic should be able to verify the legality of each other's plays without the need for an external arbiter. This is part of why “failure to find” exists as a rule, for example. (Say “failure to find” didn't exist. I cast Kodama's Reach but only find one basic land. Should my opponent be allowed to riffle through my library to ensure I don't have any basics yet? No, that would be silly; and so we have “failure to find” enshrined in the rules.)

I think Toby's comparison to miracles is also apt – the presence of a judge doesn't absolve me from my responsibility of revealing a miracle when it's the first card I draw this turn, even if the judge can guarantee that Terminus was definitely the card I drew. In the same way, a judge sitting next to me won't stop me from getting a Game Loss if I accidentally draw too many cards off of my Divination. The game is meant to be played without the influence of judges. Treating one match differently because they happen to have a judge sitting there would be a disservice to all the other matches without judges.

Tournament logistics and rules theory are in harmony here: it's the Sylvan Library player's responsibility to keep the cards he's drawn this turn separate if he wants to reap the benefits of the Library's effect.

If my arguments about logistics and rules theory don't convince you, I think Ernst's response, which he conveniently posted as I was writing this, might help convince you that “leaking” information here is an OK thing. (And, no, it's not about the power level of the cards involved, I think that's just everyone trying to lighten the mood…)

I think one thing that might be missing here also is that failing to keep
separate the cards drawn from Brainstorm does not somehow prevent the AP
from benefiting from Sylvan Library. The AP still has the option to
resolve Sylvan Library's trigger and simply not choose any of the
Brainstorm cards. If he wants the OPTION of choosing from the Brainstorm
cards, then he must keep them separate to distinguish them. I'm not sure
why enabling this purely optional benefit (both optional in it's
situational use and optional in the sense that he chose to put both cards
in his deck and play them at the same time) should take up Judge
resources. We require players to keep some method for tracking
Planeswalker loyalty counters, creature tokens, and other things that are
equally optional, rather than forcing a Judge to stand by and keep track of
those things. The analogy is hardly perfect, I realize, but I think the
onus is clearly on the AP to make some sacrifices if he wants more options.

I have two connected points, the first is that everyone is talking like this is a simple, Draw 3 put two back, draw 3 choose 2 to put back, but in this situation unless the 3rd card drawn from Sylvan is amazing and changes the players game plan aren't they more likely to put the same two cards back? When a judge is going to be called is when the player plans to Brainstorm, crack a fetch and then Sylvan.

Which leads into point two: my personal experience of watching games keeping track of a players hand while being a judge is hard. Unless it's the start of the round you'll have players coming up asking “where do I hand in results slips?”, “Hi, judge in my last game my opponent did XYZ, is that legal?”, “I just won a draft where do I get prizes” the list goes on add on to that you can't help but look when you hear someone shout “JUDGE!!!”, glancing at the tables either side to make sure they're doing everything right as well. If the player needs me to verify what he is doing is legal I'll be asking him to do it in a way I can check at a glance which cards were drawn from Brainstorm.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

as in the rules do not say that AP has to give NAP this information, but we as judges and arbiters of the MTR/IPG are saying that he does

I can sympathize with this and I would like prefer such an explicit rule to be added to the CR to better reflect the intended functionality*, something like “cards touching the rest of the hand do not count as drawn anymore” which can cover both Miracle and Sylvan Library

(*I still believe that having to give your opponent information about what you put back with Brainstorm in this case is intended functionality and not unfair disadvantage.)

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

@Toby: And what is the problem with this? I still fail to see what the issue is. Could you explain a bit more thoroughly please? I don't quite understand, but here is my answer to what I thik you might be saying:

The rule on Miracle is “if it's the first card you've drawn this turn, reveal it as you draw it, and you may cast it for its Miracle cost” (paraphrased). If AP draws an additional card after he draws his Miracle, then he misses his window to reveal. If he reveals it immediately, then he doesn't miss his window to use the Miracle.

No there are no extra cards drawn yet, just the first one. We don't allow miracle to trigger anymore once the card touched the rest of the hand because the opponent can't verify the legality of that. Just like in the Brainstorm + Sylvan example. But if we allow judges to verify the legality of the latter, why not of the former?
But actually I realized I can give a simpler example, I don't need miracle for that, just Sylvan Library itself.

Normally if you put all 3 cards with the rest of your hand with Sylvan Library, you're forced to pay the 8 life. But what if the same judge is still watching? Why should he be allowed to verify the legality of Brainstorm cards in the hand but not Sylvan Library cards? But if he is allowed both, we treat the same situation differently depending on whether a judge was watching or not. Which is what I mean with can of worms.

Edited Toby Hazes (April 14, 2014 08:09:51 AM)

Lyle, if you were to ask me to watch you while you fiddle with your Brainy Library (heh), I would simply say “hey, keep those separate if you want the option to put them back for Library, later.” My presence would not be to track which cards you did or didn't draw that turn; my presence would be to ensure that you (and your opponent) are complying with rules.

Slightly tongue-in-cheek, but it illustrates my point: the responsibility to prove that your choices / actions are legal remains yours, and can't be abdicated because of the presence of a judge.

d:^D

@Gareth: Why does this matter? One word: Fetchlands.

@Toby: I feel as though the situation you're trying to draw is a strawman. Allow me to explain why:

Firstly, we are agreed that under “normal” circumstances, judges shouldn't be responsible for tracking the contents of a player's hand. In my opinion, the only case in which a judge should be called for such a task is precisely this one concerning Sylvan Library and Brainstorm, and in no other case, simply because of Sylvan Library's wording.

Now, assuming a Miracle was drawn as the first card off the Brainstorm in the case that a Brainstorm was cast while Sylvan Library was in play and a judge was called to survey the player's hand, if the player accidentally draws the card without keeping it separate, I don't see why the judge couldn't be used as a verifier of the identity of the card. In all other cases, a judge would not be responsible for tracking the contents of a players hand, so all other cases are, in my opinion, strawman arguments. The reason being that, as I previously stated, there is no leak of information here that would not be leaked otherwise. If a Miracle would normally be drawn, there is zero gametime (i.e. there isn't even an opportunity to add things to the stack) between when the card is drawn and when it must be revealed, so I do not consider that case analogous.

A further argument as to why your argument is a strawman is that you assume that a player has a different mode of conduct when a judge is watching and when a judge is not. If a player is playing a deck with Miracles, they are likely accustomed to the “check the card before adding it to your hand” procedure, and assuming that the player would simply not do that just because a judge was watching simply does not make sense to me. I just don't think that's a thing that happens, and is hence not worth discussing.

@Uncle Scott: I hope not to have you respond to my judge call in such a situation then =P But seriously, though, most players expect judges to answer a judge call of this nature, and most judges expect to have to do this, at least in my experience. In my experience in the Legacy community, people are accustomed to calling judges for this situation (not this *sort of* situation, only this exact situation; as I said, this is an outlier case with no other analogous cases), and might be confused when a judge doesn't answer their call.

If there's one thing I'm learning from the Regeneration thread running parallel to this, it's that players in different regions have very different expectations. In my area, no one would even think of allowing someone to regenerate after combat damage. It's sloppy, technically incorrect, and should be punished in competitive play. What I'm learning is, though my region may be far more uptight than most, and here that's the accepted norm, that does not make it correct. As the thread wraps up, I'll definitely be spreading what I've learned amongst my local judges to help bring us all in line with global norms.

tl;dr: Lyle, if legacy players in your region are accustomed to using judges to monitor the validity of their plays, it may be time to break them of that habit.

Sylvan Library is a single card. There are many single cards (and even
entire decks) that do things which require careful bookkeeping in order for
all players to track game state and to know that actions are legal. Keep
in mind that, without careful and very clear bookkeeping, even a judge
cannot always verify the legality of a play!

Note that the IPG is very clear: “An error that an opponent can’t verify
the legality of should have its penalty upgraded.” This does not say
anything about whether a judge can verify legality; it's about whether the
opponent can. This allows judges to remain impartial and to avoid becoming
a factor in the legality of an action. It's entirely up to the player to
adhere to the rules and to be clear about the fact that they are doing so.

Sure, your opponent doesn't *usually* know how many cards you kept from
your Brainstorm, but, in this case, you have more to track and more rules
to follow. It's not a question of how Brainstorm *usually* resolves. It's
a question of how Brainstorm resolves *right now* and whether you care
about the interaction with Sylvan Library.

If you don't want your opponent to know how many you kept, then resolve
Brainstorm normally; just don't expect to be able to put any of those cards
back when you resolve your Sylvan Library effect. If you want to get the
bonus Sylvan Library interaction, then you have some extra work to do.

–David Hibbs, L3
Houston, TX

Wow, I had no idea this question would provoke such a discussion :-). Although it's interesting and educational as always.

As for Paul's comment about the power level and making light of the situation: no, the power level makes no difference for the discussion, and yes, I am making light of the situation a little bit with that. But if the power level of these cards were low, then this would be a theoretical question and I would probably not have asked it here. The reason I asked is that I will most likely at some point judge a tournament with this player playing these two cards and asking me to monitor. And I want to be ready for that. And I'll probably follow Scott's lead then, his argument seems the most straightforward, fair and logical to me.

For those who advocate a judge watching for legality sake, if the player is putting a “wrong card” back when do you step in?

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Now, assuming a Miracle was drawn as the first card off the Brainstorm in the case that a Brainstorm was cast while Sylvan Library was in play and a judge was called to survey the player's hand, if the player accidentally draws the card without keeping it separate, I don't see why the judge couldn't be used as a verifier of the identity of the card.

I feel David Hibbs gives the most elegant answer: because the rules state that “An error that an opponent can’t verify the legality of should have its penalty upgraded.”
The only way the opponent can verify the legality of a Brainstorm/Sylvan Library play (or that miracled card) is by keeping the cards separate.
Therefore, a judge overseeing such legality instead is conflicting with the rules.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

The reason being that, as I previously stated, there is no leak of information here that would not be leaked otherwise.

But as I previously stated, I see no unintended leak of information here. I see it akin to revealing to Domri Rade, and your judge request as akin to asking the judge to verify the legality of the Domri Rade creatures he puts into his hand so he doesn't have to reveal them to his opponent.