The first illegal action taken was a GRV (revealing the top card). Therefore, we apply the following (assuming we are the HJ or can approve rewinds):

Return the swamp to the top of Abel's library.
Shuffle Library (appropriate fix for “looking at extra cards”)
Warning for Abel, nothing for Nancy.
Remind players to communicate, especially before instantly resolving their own triggers.
Say “Enjoy the rest of the day!”

Reading only a few posts on the first page:

GRV - DEC to Abel with downgrade. No FtMGS to Nancy for Abel's missed trigger or for “allowing” him to draw the extra card. Additional remedy: Shuffle the unknown part of Abel's deck, then ask Nancy if she would like to put Abel's trigger on the stack.

I would go with GRVGPE-DEC downgrading to Warning, as both players know the identity of the card (a Swamp). When Abel begun to follow the instruction that leads to put the card into his hand (I take “reveal and put that card into your hand” as one instruction), there were no abilities/effects that allow Abel to do so. So he revealed (L@EC if caught at this moment) and put that card into his hand (by this point, it's already beyond L@EC).

So my rulings would be:

1)GRVGPE-DEC for Abel, downgrading (with permission) to Warning, and putting the Swamp back to the top of library.
2)Ask Nancy if she would like to allow make-ups for Abel's missed trigger (likely not).

Just my two cents. :)

Edits - it should be GPE…

Edited Zhaoben Xu (May 16, 2014 05:32:03 PM)

I think there is a GPE before putting the swamp into Abel's hand, so it's not DEC.

Applying L@EC's remedy to this GRV looks tempting - but it's something the IPG doesn't support. I would not shuffle Nancy's deck and just do the GRV fix, and then let Nancy choose for the trigger.

Well it looks like I was overthinking this. Now I'm interpreting the IPG clause in Looking at Extra Cards “Once a card has been placed into his or her hand or if a player takes a game action after removing the card from the library, the offense is no longer Looking at Extra Cards.” to mean that if you accidentally reveal a card as you're drawing it (maybe two are stuck together) it's a DEC when it touches the hand, but if you deliberately but mistakenly reveal it and place it in your hand as the resolution of something that says “draw a card”, that's GPE-L@EC.

So Warning for GPE-L@EC because that was the infraction at the moment in time before the card hit the hand, shuffle that swamp back into the random portion of the library. Warning to Abel, no FTMGS to Nancy. Since the trigger was mentioned by the players within a turn, ask Nancy if she wants to put it on the stack now.

As Toby pointed out, this cannot be DEC if there was a GPE prior to the process of drawing (Thanks Patrick for clarifying, it makes much more sense to me now ;) ). Said GPE was, theoretically, L@eC, but we cannot issue L@eC because L@eC explicitly states that it cannot apply once the card has been drawn - which it has been.
So now we have what is a GPE, but no other infraction that covers this scenario, so we'd have to issue a GRV. For the fix, I would still apply fixes for all infractions that have occured (DEC, L@eC, MT). You cold also call it rewinding the GRV (with permission of the Headjudge, of course).

That said, this feels really, really awkward and wrong. We have 2(.5) infractions, that, if you look at them seperately, without the context, are all by-the-book examples of their infractions: A flipped the top card of his library - obvious L@eC; A drew a card he was not supposed to draw without confirming with his opponent - obvious DEC; (and A missed his trigger, obvious MT).
But, due to the way the IPG is written, none of those infractions apply when they are combined, so we issue a GRV for the (MT-)L@eC-DEC construct. Which just feels ridiculous to me right now…

From reading the scenario and some respones, I think the missed trigger is irrelevant for our official ruling. They missed a trigger, it's not generally detrimental, it's gone. At the point where we were called we care about it so we know they aren't just doing things for no reason.

As far as the ruling, this is GPE-DEC, with the option to downgrade to a warning because the identity of the card is known. I'd give Abel a warning and tell him to call a judge in the future instead of trying to fix things on his own.

This may go beyond the scope of the question, but I'd try to keep an eye on Abel throughout the rest of the day to see if there are any more unofficial fixes that are attempted. Depends on the vibe I get when talking to the players how much effort I'd put into that.

Just looking at a card before putting it into your hand won't save you from DEC. In this case the top card was revealed (as the first part of resolving Pain Seer's ability) and then added to the hand. Like a lot of people, the miracle mechanic has made me look at my draw for the turn before adding it to my hand, but that doesn't mean if I do that twice in one turn I'm only getting a warning.

My initial thought was a GRV, and I am still on that track. He resolved the trigger at the wrong time.

The section of the IPG seems relevant:

Originally posted by Section 1.3, excerpt:

Separate infractions committed or discovered at the same time are treated as separate penalties, though if the root cause is the same, only the more severe one is applied.

Our player has committed two infractions: GPE: L@EC and GPE: DEC. Since the root cause was the same, we only give GPE: DEC to them, and are able to downgrade the penalty to a warning. We return the card, then shuffle, because we apply both fixes even if we aren't applying both penalties.

Before reading other responses:

This is indeed a tricky one. I would want to first investigate whether Abel had any knowledge of the top card of his deck, possibly from a previous turn's scry. If he did have that knowledge, it's important to check whether this is an honest ‘oops’ or an attempt at not taking high cmc damage. I'm assuming for the rest of this answer that we've determined it was an honest mistake.

Pain Seer triggers during the untap step, and has a non-optional, though not usually detrimental, trigger. Abel forgot this trigger, and took the turn-based action of drawing a card. This in and of itself would just be a GRV with no warning. Had a judge been called at this point, the opponent would have had the choice to place the trigger on the stack or not. The opponent would almost certainly choose not.

However, upon realizing that the trigger was forgotten, instead of calling a judge, Abel immediately resolved this trigger themselves, drawing a card. This is a pretty big problem, and lands us in Drawing Extra Cards land.

At this point, I'm concerned over whether this is Drawing Extra Cards, with a game loss, or whether a previous Game Play Error has previously occurred (namely, the entire resolution of the trigger in the first place, including the reveal of the swamp).

On re-reading the IPG, though, we find

If the identity of the card was known to all players before being placed into the hand, and the card can be returned to the correct zone with minimal disruption, do so and downgrade the penalty to a Warning

. Given that this is either a GRV-warning for resolving the trigger early, or a DEC-warning, returning the swamp to the top of the deck, I think the difference is mostly academic.

I would call it a DEC-warning for tracking purposes. Return the swamp to the top of the deck, and then shuffle the unknown portion of the library (which includes the swamp). Remind Abel that when they realize they have broken a rule, they should call a judge instead of trying to fix it themselves, and impress upon them that this was nearly a Game Loss.


now, after reading all the responses:

Other Judges point out that Nancy immediately called a judge, and so does not earn a FtMTGS. This is true, I just didn't think to add it.

There is quite a bit of debate over whether this is DEC, L@EC, or some other infraction, and what the correct fix is. In particular, the first illegal thing that happened was that Abel revealed an extra card (L@EC). Then Abel drew that card. The IPG states that after the card is drawn, the offense is no longer L@EC. On the other hand, if a GRV precedes drawing extra cards, DEC doesn't happen. It seems like there's a bit of circular logic here! Given that L@EC's exception is the more specific of the two, it makes sense that a L@EC followed by a DEC should apply L@EC's exception, and not DEC's. That said, given the ambiguity, we should take a moment to consider the philosophy.

Looking at Extra Cards accounts for errors in dexterity, where cards are accidentally seen. It also accounts for game rule violations that give a player extra information. Also, while not given as an example, it accounts for situations where a player begins to draw a card illegally, does not do so, but has seen the card. In all 3 situations, the player has extra information, so we need the more specific L@EC to authorize a shuffle as part of a fix, instead of a general-purpose GRV. I'm not entirely sure of the purpose of the exception - if a card is actually put into hand instead of just looked at, then the card was ‘drawn’, and DEC applies.

Drawing Extra Cards accounts for any of the number of ways extra cards could end up in hand. It exists as a separate rule because the potential for abuse is much higher. The exceptions account for situations where there's less of a potential for abuse, as the card has already been seen. The other exception, I believe, accounts for the situation where an error makes a player believe they can draw a card when they cannot, and the opponent would be tempted to silently allow the GRV to catch the player in a more severe DEC.

In this case, while the sequence of actions was too fast for Nancy to interrupt, I feel that there was a specific infraction - L@EC, that preceded and was linked to the next problem - DEC. Had game play been a bit slower, and Nancy had a chance to Maintain Game State, then either the error would have been caught at the reveal and the extra cards never drawn. Or alternatively, Nancy would have failed to maintain game state (unintentionally or intentionally), and the card would have been drawn. I think the same penalty would apply to Abel here - L@EC.

Some judges asked why we would apply the fix for Missed Trigger when this was either L@EC or DEC. Even though we only apply the penalty for the most severe infraction that occurred, GRV-MT still happened, and the opponent should get the choice to force the trigger or not. By the same token, an extra card was looked at, so L@EC still happened, and we should apply the fix for that, so we need to shuffle away the swamp.


So in conclusion - after reading other responses, I've changed my mind. Abel gets a GRV-L@EC with a warning, instead of a GRV-DEC downgraded to a warning. Still no FtMGS for Nancy. Return the Swamp to the library, randomize the unknown portions of the library (including the Swamp), and then offer Nancy the choice of whether the trigger resolves.

Hello, judges! Thanks to everyone who participated in the discussion this week. As is the case with many of our Gold scenarios, this was an extremely nuanced scenario. (In fact, the internal discussion among the Knowledge Pool team has included even more posts than the public discussion!)

In order to determine the most correct infraction, penalty, and fix to apply in this situation, we must logically walk through each game action that went wrong. The first problem we encounter this turn is a Missed Trigger from Pain Seer during Abel's upkeep. However, this is not a generally detrimental trigger. There is no infraction to worry about there. However, this will come up when it comes time to apply fixes.

Next, we have announcement of the Pain Seer trigger that doesn't exist. This was only “Oh!” and pointing to a card, but that would certainly constitute announcing the trigger had it happened before he drew for the turn. Some have made the argument that announcing a trigger that doesn't exist itself constitutes a prior GRV. However, we should treat an improperly announced trigger according to the consequences of resolving that trigger. Simply put, we don't give players the option to “remember” a non-existent trigger in order to avoid a DEC or similar infraction. Whatever infraction results from resolving the trigger is the infraction that should be applied.

Now we get to the resolution of the trigger and the game actions that were taken illegally as a result. The first wrong game is Looking at Extra Cards when he reveals the Swamp for a trigger that doesn't exist.

This is followed by announcing the loss of zero life. Even though no physical action is required to record a loss of zero life, this is a game action. We can easily understand this by examining the situation where a player is legally resolving a Pain Seer trigger and reveals a Pack Rat but fails to lose 2 life. We would treat this as a Game Rules Violation and rewind to exactly the point of losing life in the middle of the resolution of the ability if the error is caught within a reasonable time frame. This error is the key to this scenario because it does two things:

First, it tells us that LEC stops applying. Per IPG 2.2, “if a player takes a game action after removing the card from the library, the offense is no longer Looking at Extra Cards.”

Second, when the player puts the card in his hand, it tells us that this is not Drawing Extra Cards. Per IPG 2.3, an infraction can only be Drawing Extra Cards if “at the moment before he or she began the instruction or action that put a card into his or her hand, no other Game Play Error or Communication Policy Violation had been committed.” So, even though an extra card is put into the player's hand, Drawing Extra Cards does not apply.

In combination, these two elements give us the infraction and the penalty. It's not LEC anymore. It's not DEC. It's definitely a Game Play Error, and so must be a generic Game Rules Violation with a Warning to go with it.

Now we have to fix the situation. The first step is to rewind to the point of the first Game Play Error that occurs as part of this GRV. That GPE is Abel revealing the top card of his library. Fortunately, we know it was a Swamp and no life was lost, so it's a very simple rewind to put the Swamp back on top. Then, because that Game Play Error resulted in an extra card being seen, we apply the LEC fix of shuffling the random portion of the library, even though we are not assigning a Warning for that exact infraction.

Now we have the final step of asking Nancy if she would like Abel to place that trigger on the stack, since a Missed Trigger has also been caught within a turn of when it should have happened. It is somewhat unlikely that Nancy will want the trigger placed on the stack, but we are still required to ask.

Given the highly technical nature of this answer, we would also like to briefly mention that while applying LEC or downgrading DEC are not perfectly correct, very little harm would come of assigning this Warning in a different category or even neglecting to shuffle the library. Gold scenarios are meant to push toward a highly detailed analysis of policy, and the practical differences among these solutions are relatively minor. If such a complex scenario were to arise in a real event, getting the Swamp out of the player's hand, assigning a Warning, and efficiently getting the game moving again are more important than nailing down exactly what the infraction is and why. (Exploring the minutiae of the ruling is great thing to do with other judges during the remainder of the event. Then submit it to us!)

Thanks again to everyone who contributed to this great discussion, and we will be back tomorrow with a new scenario.

Why do we apply the LEC fix to this particular GRV? Is it because there was, for a brief moment, an LEC infraction? Or is it because when we perform a backup “until the game reaches the point immediately prior to the error”, the point in question is that the library was randomised?

I ask because traditionally with GRVs, accidentally drawn cards are returned to the library which is left unshuffled. Usually it's because we have to return a random card and we want to avoid a “free brainstorm and shuffle” effect.

I have to say this was a very interesting scenario - such a simple error by a player yielding such a complex implementation of the rules. Nice job :)

Mark, you ask a very good question.

No, it's not because there was a momentary L@EC that morphed into another GPE. Just imagine the brain strain involved, if we expected judges to evaluate each moment in a series of actions to see if one infraction or another was present!

It's because, as a result of the GRV that was committed, extra cards were seen - so that fix can also be applied.

Note that - as Josh mentioned in his solution - it would even be OK to not shuffle, for pretty much the reasons you alluded to (i.e., it was a GRV, not L@EC, so no shuffle). Our KP recommendation is to shuffle that random portion, in this situation.

And yes, you're right - it's a simple error leading to anything but, once we have to apply policy. It's no accident that we hung a “Gold” label on this difficult scenario!

d:^D

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

This is followed by announcing the loss of zero life. Even though no physical action is required to record a loss of zero life, this is a game action. We can easily understand this by examining the situation where a player is legally resolving a Pain Seer trigger and reveals a Pack Rat but fails to lose 2 life. We would treat this as a Game Rules Violation and rewind to exactly the point of losing life in the middle of the resolution of the ability if the error is caught within a reasonable time frame.

So if the Swamp is revealed and nothing is said before it is put into Abel's hand, does the infraction become DEC since no other game action was taken in between?

Of note, this very scenario nearly happened in our states this past weekend. Fortunately judges were called after the card was revealed but before it was put into anyone's hand.