Originally posted by Darren Horve:

Francisco J. Riveiro
Where???

Judge42 App - which is what I use.

“A player draws the wrong number of cards during pregame procedures, or does not skip their draw step while playing first. This infraction is only issued before that player takes a visible legal action during the damge; if discovered after that point, the infraction is Drawing Extra Cards”

HOWEVER - I just downloaded MTG Judge Core App and it does state what you are quoting.

Hmmm… why two different definitions.

Well - off to the internets to get the actual verbage!

UPDATE: Downloaded the IPG PDF from WotC site. ID@SG has the Judge 42 definition.

It's always important to make sure that you're working from the most recent set of documents. It helps to keep up with the updates, which usually get posted on Toby's blog and come out with just about every new set release. You can also remember judgecast.com/docs as an easy URL to the most up-to-date set of links on wizards.com. The most recent IPG is from July 18th, 2014, and the definition of ID@SoG does not use the verbage you quoted:

IPG July 18 2014 Section 2.4
A player makes an error while drawing his or her opening hand, or the starting player does not skip the first draw step. If this error is discovered after the player committing it has taken another action in the game, the infraction is Drawing Extra Cards.

Hope that helps, otherwise I'm tagging out until tomorrow.

Darren, Judge42 App uses the IPG from July 19, 2013, and maybe you got an old link on the WotC side as well.

You can get the latest IPG version from http://wpn.wizards.com/en/resources/rules-documents (uploaded 07/14/14 and effective Juli 18, 2014)

Edit: Dan was faster then me :-)

Edited Auzmyn Oberweger (Aug. 29, 2014 12:53:17 AM)

On 28/08/2014 17:49, Dan Collins wrote:
>
> /Darren Horve/
>
> /Francisco J. Riveiro/
> Where???
>
>
> Judge42 App - which is what I use.
>
> “A player draws the wrong number of cards during pregame
> procedures, or does not skip their draw step while playing first.
> This infraction is only issued before that player takes a visible
> legal action during the damge; if discovered after that point, the
> infraction is Drawing Extra Cards”
>
> HOWEVER - I just downloaded MTG Judge Core App and it does state
> what you are quoting.
>
> Hmmm… why two different definitions.
>
> Well - off to the internets to get the actual verbage!
>
> UPDATE: Downloaded the IPG PDF from WotC site. ID@SG has the Judge
> 42 definition.
>
>
> It's always important to make sure that you're working from the most
> recent set of documents. It helps to keep up with the updates, which
> usually get posted on Toby's blog and come out with just about every
> new set release. You can also remember judgecast.com/docs as an easy
> URL to the most up-to-date set of links on wizards.com
> <http://wizards.com>. The most recent IPG is from July 18th, 2014, and
> the definition of ID@SoG does not use the verbage you quoted:
>
> /IPG July 18 2014 Section 2.4/
> A player makes an error while drawing his or her opening hand, or
> the starting player does not skip the first draw step. If this
> error is discovered after the player committing it has taken
> another action in the game, the infraction is Drawing Extra Cards.
>
>
> Hope that helps, otherwise I'm tagging out until tomorrow.
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or
> view and respond to this message on the web at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/77947/
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/12166/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/12166/?onsite=yes
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/
That section does seem relevant although it refers to drawing his
opening hand. You could argue placing them face down is Not drawing them
which I believe it is not. However drawing the wrong order of the cards
could be constituted as an error if we are going to be literal in its
meaning. I am sure we will hear from Higher Level Judges on Friday who
will define the definition. Someone already said this happened at a GP
and Improper drawing was applied. Regardless of the outcome I think
these posts are extremely useful as regardless of our personal opinions
it allows us to be more consistant in our rulings regardless of
location. I believe this is very important as it means players are
treated equally wherever they play.

Graham

Judge42 App uses the IPG from July 19, 2013

I'll just use this opportunity to plug an app I've been using, that I absolutely love: MTG Guide. I got mine from the App Store (for iOS devices); I believe there's versions for other platforms, too. I know it's not free, but it's very reasonable, and the updates are offered very quickly … sometimes before I even knew the update was released!

And now back to our regularly scheduled KP discussion…

d:^D

Dagnabbit….

Yep. Looks like mine WAS an older version. Well played gentlemen, well played.

I agree with the Warning for ID@SoG, shuffle randomly one of the six drawn cards into the player's library (along with that “first” facedown card), and have the player continue taking mulligans. It certainly feels bad to issue this penalty, especially if it's a format without fetch lands, so usually after the first draw step it wouldn't make a difference anyway. But that's not something we should take in account; an error was made while drawing the opening hand, and we have to act according to the IPG.

Originally posted by Tobias Rolle:

I agree with the Warning for ID@SoG, shuffle randomly one of the six drawn cards into the player's library (along with that “first” facedown card), and have the player continue taking mulligans. It certainly feels bad to issue this penalty, especially if it's a format without fetch lands, so usually after the first draw step it wouldn't make a difference anyway. But that's not something we should take in account; an error was made while drawing the opening hand, and we have to act according to the IPG.

Tobias,

Why would you take one card from the six cards that have been looked at and the still face down card #1? Why not just put all seven face down and take two at random?

Why would we not just put the unknown card on top and call it a day? (for the fix, still issue the penalty)

I think this would be an acceptable deviation.

EDIT: Assuming we are HJ or to be discussed with HJ…

Edited Darren Horve (Aug. 29, 2014 04:40:08 AM)

Darren,

If it were Regular that would be OK (“deviate like hell…”). But this was Competitive, where we should absolutely try to avoid any deviations and stay as consistent as possible. The proper remedy for IDaSoG has been already present - perform “a forced mulligan” to 5 cards (because the error occured when mulliganing to 6 cards).

For me it is a GPE - id@sotg - warning

For fixing i would discuss 2 options with HJ/j
1) let the first card faced down take a2nd out oft the 6 she saw
2) put all 7 cards together pick 2@random and shuffel them back in the lib

The player has drawn cards 2-7 of his library. Since card #1 is not in his hand, I would assume it is still in his library.

He drew 6 cards, just not the correct ones. That was my thought process.

Since the game hasn't yet started, there is no knowledge of the positions of any cards in the deck, so drawing cards 2-7 is (probabalistically) the same as drawing cards 1-6, assuming the deck is sufficiently random (and since KP assumes no cheating, we can assume this). In this case, I'd shuffle the remaining card back into the deck, re-randomize the deck, and treat the 6 cards drawn as the opening hand. Since the identity of the card was unknown to both players, no penalties apply to either player.

EDIT: After reading the previous 2 pages and the discussion for ID@SoG, I disagree with applying ID@SoG here. If we say that the 7th card is counted as “drawn”, it feels like we are blurring the lines between LEC and DEC: If we assume that a card placed on the table, face-down, with the identity of the card unknown to both players (the game identity; the physical identity is known to both players), is “drawing a card”, how can we say the same situation, except the identity of the card is known to 1 player, to be “looking at a card”? Thus I don't think we can call this situation “drawing a card”, and hence there is no “D” to apply ID@SoG to here.

Edited Lyle Waldman (Aug. 29, 2014 07:08:51 AM)

Before reading other responses:

Only 6 cards touched the hand and were seen. The 7th is still face down. The 7th card is not actually drawn yet. There's no infraction - caution Anita to be more careful, place the remaining card on top of the deck, and continue the mulligan process.

I can't find it at this time, but I believe an earlier version of the IPG actually explicitly called out this scenario as an exception.

After reading other responses:

This one definitely does have some disagreement. One point of contention is whether card #1 has been drawn or not. Given that card #1 has not been seen, and never held together with other cards in the hand, I'd say card #1 never entered Anita's hand. Thus, it was not drawn.

Is this ID@SoG? possibly. It's an error that occurred while drawing at the start of the game. In either case, it's a very minor error (picking random cards 2-7 instead of random cards 1-6), with very little potential for abuse.

If you do choose to apply ID@SoG and issue a warning, I believe the additional remedy is not applicable. Though, on re-reading the IPG, that might be a deviation. It seems a bit odd to “remove the excess cards plus one” from hand, when the excess cards are zero. It seems a bit more reasonable in other situations the IPG gives as examples, such as taking a mulligan when not entitled to do so.

In the end, Judges are there to create a fair, consistent, and welcoming play environment. The MTR and IPG guide us in ensuring fairness and consistency. I think the common-sense approach to this situation - that there's no potential for abuse, and no problem so far - is the best one.

EDIT:

digging a bit deeper, the Feb 7 version of the IPG (before the inclusion of mulligan problems) uses the wording

If the player has drawn too many cards, the judge will remove one more than the number of excess cards from the hand at random

i.e., it explicitly only matters when excess cards have actually been drawn. It would be worth clarifying whether the new wording intends to apply the additional remedy even when the number of excess cards is 0, or if the change just happens to allow that ambiguity.

I'm sure I read about a very similar type of situation in a rules document somewhere (counting out the initial hand, realizing it is too big, and calling a judge before actually putting them in hand), but I can't find it….

Edited Talin Salway (Aug. 29, 2014 09:07:47 AM)

I think there is a tiny potential for abuse, I'd want to quickly glance
through the deck to confirm the cards are not marked. Once I've take 30
seconds doing that: ID@SoG, warning, no fix.


On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Talin Salway <
forum-12166-caad@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

> Before reading other responses:
>
> Only 6 cards touched the hand and were seen. The 7th is still face down.
> The 7th card is not actually drawn yet. There's no infraction - caution
> Anita to be more careful, place the remaining card on top of the deck, and
> continue the mulligan process.
>
> I can't find it at this time, but I believe an earlier version of the IPG
> actually explicitly called out this scenario as an exception.
>
> After reading other responses:
>
> This one definitely does have some disagreement. One point of contention
> is whether card #1 has been drawn or not. Given that card #1 has not been
> seen, and never held together with other cards in the hand, I'd say card #1
> never entered Anita's hand. Thus, it was not drawn.
>
> Is this ID@SoG? possibly. It's an error that occurred while drawing at
> the start of the game. In either case, it's a very minor error (picking
> random cards 2-7 instead of random cards 1-6), with very little potential
> for abuse.
>
> If you do choose to apply ID@SoG and issue a warning, I believe the
> additional remedy is not applicable. Though, on re-reading the IPG, that
> might be a deviation. It seems a bit odd to “remove the excess cards plus
> one” from hand, when the excess cards are zero. It seems a bit more
> reasonable in other situations the IPG gives as examples, such as taking a
> mulligan when not entitled to do so.
>
> In the end, Judges are there to create a fair, consistent, and welcoming
> play environment. The MTR and IPG guide us in ensuring fairness and
> consistency. I think the common-sense approach to this situation - that
> there's no potential for abuse, and no problem so far - is the best one.
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view
> and respond to this message on the web at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/78010/
>
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/12166/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/12166/?onsite=yes
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/
>
>


–
Gareth Pye
Level 2 Judge, Melbourne, Australia
Australian MTG Forum: mtgau.com
gareth@cerberos.id.au - www.rockpaperdynamite.wordpress.com
“Dear God, I would like to file a bug report”

Upon reading CR 402.1 regarding the Hand:

“402.1. The hand is where a player holds cards that have been drawn. Cards can be put into a player’s hand by other effects as well. At the beginning of the game, each player draws a number of cards equal to that player's starting hand size, normally seven.”

Cards have been drawn when the player holds them. The card on the table is in fact in the library, and not in the player's hand, despite being dealt out with the intention to be placed in the hand.

As such, I would like to remedy my fix. The number of excess cards drawn is zero, so we remove one at random from the hand, and place it on top of the library along with the unseen card on the table.

EDIT: The only thing I could find that would refute the claim of a card being drawn when it's placed in the hand is “401.5 If a spell or ability causes a card to be drawn while another spell is being cast, the drawn card is kept face down until that spell becomes cast.” Since no spell or ability is being resolved, it's safe to say the card must be in the hand.

Edited Justin Murphy (Aug. 29, 2014 09:43:57 AM)