Hello there!
So, the FAQ went online last week and the Policy Update is now up, looks like it's time to explore the implications of a misuse of this card in Competitive REL.

Reveal the first card you draw on each of your turns. Whenever you reveal a land card this way, draw a card. Whenever you reveal a nonland card this way, Keranos deals 3 damage to target creature or player.

When I first looked at this ability, I couldn't categorize it immediately. Is it a static ability? Is it a trigger? The answer is kind of both, which makes it tricky to figure out under the IPG system.
Now let's assume that we get the usual scenario in which AP untaps, draws and completely forgets about Keranos. If we go strictly by the book, this is a GRV for AP because he didn't follow the instructions of the static ability and then you start thinking about a possible backup.
However, while missing a static ability is a GRV, missing the triggered ability is a completely different case. What are the opponent's responsibilities in this scenario?
-NAP is required to point out AP to reveal his first draw;
-NAP is NOT required to point out the triggered ability that triggers off the reveal.
It goes without saying that 99% of the time NAP points out the first part, AP will remember the second as well, which makes the second point practically void of its utility.
Now don't get me wrong, it's perfectly fine that we get sometimes a card that doesn't fit 100% on current policy, and I'm not asking for a patch of any sort. What I am asking for is a philosophical reflection:
Since the use of the static ability is undoubtedly linked to the triggered one, should we allow NAP to remain silent on the WHOLE thing, willingly denying his right to see additional information in exchange of not having a bolt on his face (or an additional card for AP), without being accused of Cheating? Who should we favor when something that's practically a non-detrimental trigger is missed, despite it not being 100% technically?

Greetings and thanks for your attention,
Marco Storelli, L1
Trieste, Italy

Edited Marco Storelli (April 29, 2014 06:09:12 PM)

Well, if AP drew the card without revealing, he has indeed commited a GRV, hence NAP is required to call that to attention. What will happen now is that AP gets his Warning for the GRV. Now he might remember his trigger, but that won't change anything, as he has not revealed the card he drew, and we cannot undo this - we do not know which card he drew. Hence, remembering the trigger won't help him much, even if it is in time, because he cannot reveal, and therefor ‘trigger the trigger’ anymore.

Marco,
To your point the failure to reveal the first card drawn is a GRV, which the NAP is required to point out if they notice it. When called over, the Judge can either leave the game state as is, no reveal and hence, no trigger. Or the Judge can back up to the point of error. I would say this involves taking a random card from the hand and putting it back on top of the library (unless the card was known to ALL players). Personally I feel that I would in almost all cases leave the game state as is. Backing up, although fairly simple if caught right away, can open a can of worms with all the scry effects in standard. I can see corner cases of people trying to get a free re-roll of the top card for a different trigger.

GRV for AP, no penalty for NAP.

If people feel that a backup would be better (assuming no other actions) I'd like to hear other philosophies.

Nicholas:

You mentioned that backing up is fairly simple if done right away. Is the potential for advantage with scry effects or “re-rolls” supported by policy when considering whether to back up?

Originally posted by Marco Storelli:

When I first looked at this ability, I couldn't categorize it immediately. Is it a static ability? Is it a trigger? The answer is kind of both, which makes it tricky to figure out under the IPG system.

I'm curious what kind of triggers this card exactly has. The drawing card/dealing damage part sounds like a triggered ability to me, but what about the revealing the first card you draw? Is this considered to be a static ability or simply something you just have to do?

Rules-wise, Keranos has a static ability (the reveal) that is linked to two
different triggered abilities.

The miracle mechanic from Avacyn Restored is another recent example of a
static ability that is linked to a triggered ability.

Originally posted by Nicholas Brown:

If people feel that a backup would be better (assuming no other actions) I'd like to hear other philosophies.

I would ask the head judge permission for a back up in such as case. Not because I feel that it's “better” for the game, but because backing up would not cause too much disruption to the game state since the error was caught right after the card was drawn.
Yes, there is the potential that a card which shouldn't be on top be revealed this way and it could have a different impact on the game, but all that matters is that the error can be fixed without too much disruption to the game being played.

I asked about a similar question in the past and the overall answer was “If you ask a bunch of judges, you'll get a bunch of answers.” Like all backups, this will depend on the backup tolerance of your head judge.

Personally, I'd back it up if all that's happened is the card draw simply because the GRV stems from revealing the card, and revealing something is a better fix than revealing nothing.

As Bearz pointed out we already have something that is similar with Miracle. I don't think we should rule any differently. Think about how we handle miracles. Once its gone to the hand it is too late. Issue a GRV and don't rewind.

Would you rewind if the only card in hand was the one just drawn?

d:^D

Yes, because that is the same fix we would use for miracles.

Originally posted by Evan Cherry:

Nicholas:

You mentioned that backing up is fairly simple if done right away. Is the potential for advantage with scry effects or “re-rolls” supported by policy when considering whether to back up?

Policy does state that we should NOT take the board state into account when determining when to back up and nor should we take into account if one player would receive any advantage over another.

no attempt should be made to determine or correct any advantage gained
in assessing the penalty and associated procedures for fixing the offense

I was thinking about this scenario and it made me think about the tribute thread. While this is different (replacement effect with a choice vs a pure GRV), the general philosophy feels similar. The one thing that wasnt sitting well with me was that if the NAP noticed GRV and didn't say anything because they didn't want their opponent to gain the advantage they would be guilty of cheating and thus the DQ. This feels like a trigger and most players will think it is a trigger and thus refer to the missed trigger policy. if they do we can educate them that they cannot let their opponent forget this ability because its a static ability not a triggered one. If they didn't know the difference they then didn't realize it was illegal, and thus no cheating, but it feels almost like a gotcha trap for NAP.

After the general consensus from the other thread, the preferred fix is to back up if it isn't too disruptive and I would agree that if caught right away it would clarify as not very disruptive. I suppose I am going to change my mind about backing up.

It still feels a little bad for NAP if they realize the missed ability that acts and feels like a trigger but isn't one and thus don't say anything. I suppose this isn't any different form any other changed game rule that benefits one player and not the other one…

If i had to decide, i wouldnt rewind by putting a card back on the top of the library just prior the static ability. Would feel strange to me to try “fixing” the game status, especially since its not just revealing a card but also the option for the player who control is able to gain advantage by getting a card or dealing three damage.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Would you rewind if the only card in hand was the one just drawn?

Very good question… My first thought is that a rewind sounds good since we can ensure the one card in his hand is the one he would have revealed. On the other hand it feels like some sort of “reward” (since he only has one card sopmeone would feel like a rewind is easier compared to if he has a full hand of seven cards), there is still the getting card advantage/deal damage thingie.

I really like that question since i'm asking myself now if its generally appropriate to take the hand size into the consideration of rewinding at REL Competitive/Professional. Is this even supported?

Edited Auzmyn Oberweger (April 30, 2014 01:41:12 AM)

I'm no expert, but I feel like we should be asking ourselves one question: “Is a rewind posiible without major damage to the game?” while considering backup. While we can't take into account the game state, but in this case, we're dealing with taking into account information being known or unknown to all players. It's technically part of the state, but a bit more subtle.
Like mentioned before, we use that already with Miracle. Although it's different in terms of game rules, the concept basically remains the same - we can be sure, that it's the only card a player drew this turn, so we can make a complete fix. In my opinion, full fix is always fairer than no fix, if we're able to do such.
In terms of “reward”: IPG clearly states, that it musn't matter, who may gain advantage from executing procedures.

Originally posted by Adrian Strzała:

In terms of “reward”: IPG clearly states, that it musn't matter, who may gain advantage from executing procedures.

I really tend to forget about this :( Guess i should read once more that very good Article at Judge Blogs