Joshua, I think you may have misunderstood the question. There is no “punitive” or “non-punitive” fix here. Fixing with 4 has the exact same result as fixing with 8.

The argument for fixing with 4 is that it is more consistent with the fix for HCE. I however believe that fixing with 8 is better, since it doesn't give the player as much of an opportunity to cheat.

Edited Isaac King (April 20, 2016 08:30:34 PM)

If my first 4 are -great- that's actually when I might be inclined to grab 4 in the second handful. Sure I'll lose my presumably best card in those 4, but if I'm playing combo, for example and have all my combo pieces in the first 4, I'd reliably expect an opponent seeing only 4 cards to pick a now-redundant combo piece, possibly allowing me an extra land or piece of disruption that might have been card 8.

It's unlikely, and risky, but not outside the realm of possibility when we have high-tier players palming entire 7-card hands.

Seeing as people seem to have thoughts on the underlying fix of doing four
I can share my thoughts on why I instinctively answered the way I did:

The thoughtseize fix is, in my impression, liked as it negates advantage.
However, it's obviously less impactful having it applied to a smaller
section of cards.

Now, what made me not think it feasible was the fact that given this
policy, it's always correct to draw cards in smaller subsections. Doing so
will result in a less impactful fix if you get it wrong (accidentally or on
purpose).

My main concern isn't cheats though. It's perception. If I as a player get
a thoughtseize on my 8, it sucks but makes sense. If I then next round have
an opponent who draws in piles of two, the Judge will tell me I get to
thoughtseize 2? Regardless of the logic of it, I'll feel cheated by the fix
and the judge. Like if you have such an intimate understanding of the
policy then you can reduce the damage of the fix.

I generally don't want to create this feeling. Sometimes we have policy
that makes so much sense so that even if the player feels it unjustly it is
usually easy to explain. Here, I feel like I don't have anything very
convincing to say if the player says: why does knowing slight logistical
tricks of the IPG give such a change in how this is handled? Why don't I
get to see all 8?

Seems to me this might be a good place for me to get a satisfying answer to
this hypothetical upset player or for us to reevaluate this policy :)

Cheers!
Den 21 apr 2016 04:57 skrev “Daniel Ruffolo” <

That's a very good point Eskil. I agree completely. When there's actually a reason to use a smaller set of cards, as is the case with HCE, then we should do so. But when there is no difference between the options, we should choose the one that minimises the possibility of abuse and leads to more consistency.

The point here is that it IS more consistent to apply it to the smaller set of cards NOT the entire hand. Keeping it inline with the fix applied to HCE.

Allow me to clarify: my point (if there is one to be had after careful
scrutiny, we'll see ^^) applies to HCE as well. The same kind of feel-bad
can occur with Collected Company, Dig Through Time etc.

So for discussion on what I raise, I don't think it makes sense to
differentiate :)
Den 21 apr 2016 08:15 skrev “Sean Crain” <

Originally posted by Sean Crain:

The point here is that it IS more consistent to apply it to the smaller set of cards NOT the entire hand. Keeping it inline with the fix applied to HCE.

Why is it more consistent then the other?

Doing all the time the hand (8 in this case) then doing one time 3, then 4, then 2, then 5 seems not really consistent to me…

I get that you could say “It's all the time the portion where the error occurs” but how many people see this more consistent then “It's all the time all the cards in where the error occurs” ?

I do like eskil's explanation, and i agree with it.

(also this removes even the slightest possibility to cheat)

MPE does not say to apply the fix to a “set” but rather spells out that it should be applied to the hand. I dont think we should be applying philosophy/definition of as set and working with the smallest possible set to this infraction. Also, applying the fix to the whole hand pre-game is much less disruptive than a mid-game HCE fix so I dont think this is necessary.

In line with the point Nathaniel raised - I'd be applying the MPE fix to the whole hand (per the IPG).

That said I don't see massive opportunity to abuse a 4 card fix. The only example I've seen is when playing a combo deck and the first 4 cards include the combo pieces and you somehow know the next 4 will contain another combo piece in the hopes of gaining an extra land…that feels a bit of a stretch.

In any case its a high risk low reward cheat that relies on taking warnings to gain the advantage of letting your opponent make the sub-optimal choice in the thoughtseize. At this point you're also giving them extra information about what's in your deck, frankly just drawing 8 seems a better way to go if you're going to cheat deliberately.

Now, what made me not think it feasible was the fact that given this policy, it's always correct to draw cards in smaller subsections. Doing so will result in a less impactful fix if you get it wrong (accidentally or on purpose).

Drawing cards in smaller numbers actually enables your opponent (and you) to catch errors more easily so I don't want to discourage that behaviour in any case, it's also the reason some players confirm draws or draw cards to the table first before adding them to the hand.

My main concern isn't cheats though. It's perception. If I as a player get a thoughtseize on my 8, it sucks but makes sense. If I then next round have an opponent who draws in piles of two, the Judge will tell me I get to
thoughtseize 2? Regardless of the logic of it, I'll feel cheated by the fix and the judge. Like if you have such an intimate understanding of the policy then you can reduce the damage of the fix…Why don't I get to see all 8?

Better understanding of the rules and penalties allow players to act in ways that make mistakes less likely and to mitigate the impact of such - this to me seems fair.

The fix isn't meant to give anything to the NAP so the whole ‘I should get to thoughtseize from more cards’ argument holds very little weight for me (I think it actually starts to drift into USC minor). The fix is meant to ensure the AP can't gain advantage from the extra cards drawn - and as we know that extra card is in the smaller set (which the NAP will have had to confirm) we only need to show the NAP this smaller set to avoid advantage.

At the beginning I was in the “use only that set” camp but now I need to take Eskil and the others side, they have valid point. It's not even for possibility to abuse but rather the feeling of “inconsistency” of that set. I think applying fix to whole hand is more consistent (hand is a hand, no matter how many excess cards it contain and how they were drawn).

I took a closer look at both the original post, and the IPG wording.

I now agree that the player has a choice - reveal the 8 cards and let the opponent remove the excess (one card, in this scenario), or take a mulligan. The “smallest set” concept only applies to HCE, and this is MPE.

d:^D

I'll start by echoing that I did the same thing Scott did. I mixed up
infractions and terminology which makes my posts a bit less coherent ^^.

So there's not really a need to discuss what I wrote in regards to MPE.

Regarding my points in relation to HCE I'd like to start by adding that I'm
not sure I'm in a “camp” here :). I am however raising some thoughts I deem
legitimate at this time. If it's legitimate enough to warrant considering
changing the HCE policy I'm not sure. Depends what reasons we have for
having it as it is obviously.

Marc:
I agree with you. There's very little potential for abuse here and
personally I don't generally like driving the “what about cheats” reasoning
too far. It can be worth noting but can then be left.

I'm also all for counting cards out on the table or confirming draws.
However, we already reward this by not treating it as HCE.

To me, there's always been that fine balance between a few different points:
1. Rewarding a better understanding of policy.
2. Not encouraging playing the system rather than the game/excessive rules
lawyering.
3. What is reasonable to expect from players and thus often rewarded
through better understanding of policy.

Maybe this isn't a great representation of what considerations go into
these kind of discussions on the higher levels but I guess my points relate
mostly to 3 and a bit less to 2.

I'm basically wondering whether there is a reward to be had by applying it
to the smaller set instead of it all? I wouldn't feel it unfair to apply it
to the entire set and I can't off the top of my head think of scenarios
where it might get awkward if we remove that clause but I'm very open to
hear thoughts on that matter :).

Cheers
/Eskil

2016-04-21 18:36 GMT+02:00 Scott Marshall <

I think that, in terms of consistency:

HCE covers a variety of errors, and has a smaller intuitive set relatively
frequently. Usually finding a smaller set to apply the penalty/fix to
results in a more intuitive result.

For MPE, the possible errors are few and very similar, and it doesn't
matter in the end whether you apply it to a smaller set or the whole hand,
other than information given to the opponent. Since the main concern is
that drawing an extra card is very bad if gone unnoticed, it's best to keep
the penalty/fix consistent.

In any case, the IPG atm does not support treating MPE like HCE, so for the
moment, this scenario should apply to the whole hand.

2016-04-22 10:55 GMT-04:00 Eskil Myrenberg <

I've an extra question about MPE fix.

Alex took a mulligan and now he has 6 cards in his hand. He decides to keep those cards.
Nadine decides to mulligan again.
Alex says “oh ok, I'll take too another mulligan then!” and he shuffles his hand in his deck. Nadine calls for a judge.

To fix this error we should have Alex to draw 5 cards or 4?

Thanks for your answers and forgive me for “reanimating” this old thread. :)

Jacopo, that's an odd little corner you've backed yourself into… ;)

Originally posted by MTR:

If cards are not removed from the hand this way … that player takes an additional mulligan.

I'd interpret that as a mulligan to 4 - i.e., an additional mulligan, as stated in policy. Alex already committed to a mulligan to 5, we apply the Additional Remedy - it seems harsh, but it's easily supported by policy, and it's a lesson well learned, and Alex isn't likely to repeat that error.

d:^D