Hey!

This happened to me as a GPT due to an interaction of Vendilion Clique.
I remember that I was not sure and called to the Head Judge for a better judgement, because I was about to give the player a GPE-DEC and the proper GL.
Nevertheless, both players agreed that the identity of all cards in the hand of the player that commited the infraction was known by both players, and then the Head Judge decided to downgrade to a W.
He told me that backing up was not disruptive for the game at all, and I agree to that.
So, I'll be comfortable with downgrading in the scenario you provided.

Hope my opinion helps you out!
All the best!

I know I'm bumping a somewhat old thread here but do people's opinion of the situation change if Player A now has 2 cards in hand after the mistaken draw (Magma Spray + mystery)? This is a very similar uniquely unidentifiable situation but it's one where I don't see any reason at all to give a game loss.

Aharon, if you follow the link to the Annotated IPG, you'll see a clear explanation of “uniquely identifiable”, and that the exception would not apply in this case - nor in your example.

As currently written, the IPG defines this as Drawing Extra Cards, and the downgrade does not apply (i.e., the identity of the card was not known to all players before being put in hand. This is a Game Loss.

d:^D

So how would your answers change with the new Khans updates?

Beginning Saturday, if “a card was placed into an empty hand” (as part of DEC), we can now downgrade to Warning, and return that card (or even cards, if all were “drawn” at once) to their correct location.

d:^D

P.S. - yes, the “As currently written” in my previous post was there because I knew about the coming change … and I couldn't tell you yet! :p

The Khans update doesn't change this. That update specifically added a clause for when " was placed into an empty hand" which is not the case here.

@Scott: I see what you did there ;)

@Alex: I see, I thought that might be the case :)