The most recent knowledge pool scenario was about hce. Most specifically, the remedy for moving a card prematurely into a hidden zone.

AP attacks with 2 smugglers copters in a pptq, says “draw two discard two” and draws 2 cards. NAP “JUDGE!”

The ruling was hce and the remedy was to have NAP choose a card from AP's hand that could not be discarded as part of the first of the two copter triggers. (It was set aside for the next copter trigger)

My questions:
-Will NAP have the opportunity to cast spells/activate abilities in between these two triggers in light of her new perfect information? Assuming she might not have wanted to before.
-Can AP decide that he doesn't want to draw/discard on the resolution of the second trigger, even though he had originally committed the infraction by drawing 2? And if so, does the set aside card go to top of library?

Didn't know if there was anyone out there that thought that since there is a card publicly known and set aside for the next trigger, if the players shouldn't have so much freedom untill the next trigger resolves (with a looting result).

Personally, I would let them interact between triggers like normal at least until the IPG has another paragraph to better clarify this.

For me, I'd allow NAP to act in between the triggers if she so chooses. If she does, then I'll let AP respond if he desires. If she doesn't, continue on resolving the draw/discard and draw/discard.

In a way, I'm treating it like a shortcut. With a caveat - in theory a player is allowed to interrupt their own shortcut. However AP has knows what the next card is going to be (for loot number 2) so if NAP doesn't act, I don't think I'll allow AP to act in between the triggers.

Of course, as I write this and reread the situation, I can think of a number of ways this goes terribly wrong if NAP does respond to the first trigger, and then AP responds, knowing what his next card is (instant speed draw; mystical tutor, self mill, the Clash ability on Llorwyn cards etc etc). I think that if AP wants to act in between the triggers (because NAP did something), and it involved the library, I'd want to be able to understand if he's ‘gaming’ things (using his knowledge) or not. Perhaps I might want to shuffle his library - but we're not supposed to do that with this sort of HCE error. So I suspect I may have wandered far into the realm of corner case and deviations.

Ultimately, I'm not sure. I fear I may be heading towards deviations. And I don't like that…

If I were NAP, I'd ask before selecting the card to set aside. Setting aside a counter spell and killing the attacking copters is a pretty big play that is facilitated not only by having the perfect information offered by this remedy, but the ability to strategically take your opponent off of a specific card.
On the other side, AP can just crack a fetch land to get a different card. I assume that if AP shuffled in between triggers, then the set aside card shuffled in too.

These HCE remedies frequently have players feeling a bit robbed. I haven't had to deal with this premature card hce before, but I can imagine it will be a topic of some heated discussion when NAP throat punches her opponent through the use of this specific remedy. I just want to be able to say that I can clearly explain why this is the fairest way to deal with the error.

There's no reason for AP to shuffle his library. He already draw both cards without discarding any card, as he should have if he resolved the Copters triggers correctly.
So, NAP sets aside one and AP then proceeds to discard the first one. The OP is asking if NAP can take a game action in between AP discarding that first card, and the moment when we put back the previously set aside card in AP's hand so he can discard the second card.
AP has no knowledge of the cards in the top of his library, nor will he draw an extra card after all this is resolved (at least, not by any effect related to this situation).

Yes - but the question now is: if you allow NAP to take a game action in between the two triggers, does AP also then get to act? And if the action AP takes involves the library (where we currently have a card set aside for the second trigger) how do we handle it?

Hm. Interesting. I see now why our opinions differ
In my opinion, the card we set aside is not put back in the library. Its just, well, set aside, but still in the hand. AP has no access to this card because he drew it prematurely, but we know it was supposed to end up in his hand. It doesnt goes back to the library, and he doesnt get a chance to change it by shuffling.
If we let NAP take an action, AP can also take an action, but he doesnt get to use the card we set aside

I don't see anything in the IPG that indicates the card is set back into the library. It is simply set aside (in the super duper removed from game zone) until it can be added back to the set. I don't see how shuffle effects would matter here.

It's important to remember that AP made a HCE here. They may have a horrible result, but the previous alternative would have been a game loss under DEC. I can't see any justification to not allow both players to act here between the triggers. Removing a counterspell and killing off a copter just seems like a good play. It's not much different than using Cabal Therapy to destroy someone's hand after they draw an extra card for the turn.

AP drew an extra card. Why are we making this more complicated just because they'll eventually draw another card?

I respectfully disagree with Knowledge pools conclusion here–I think the next paragraph down in the IPG is more applicable in this case than the one they cite: "If the set contains more cards than it is supposed to contain, the player reveals the set of cards that contains the excess and his or her opponent chooses a number of previously-unknown cards sufficient to reduce the set to the correct cards. The cards chosen are treated as excess cards "

Let me know if I'm wrong taking this interpretation here–I feel like the first paragraph is intended when a single instruction is done incorrectly–say if an instruction says ‘discard a card, draw a card’ and a player drew first. In that case setting aside the ‘drawn’ card and forcing AP to discard out of the remaining set makes perfect sense.

I don't see why we're stretching to fix a player short-cutting two independent triggers incorrectly. If there wasn't a second smuggler's copter trigger on the stack, we'd never leave that card on top of the library. What drives us to even take that into account in this case?

If you shuffle the card away, there's no question of where we're at in the game (after the first trigger has resolved once AP discard), and it's very simple–AP and NAP will receive priority as normal. This solves all the issues with the other fixes Mark mentioned above.

As the KP lead and one of the people that helped put this scenario and its solution together, I can assure you that it was vetted appropriately.

The quoted IPG language applies here, there is nothing to indicate that it doesn't.

If NAP wants to interact in the interim, they can. If AP wants to, they can as well. The result of the infraction is that both players know what the card that is going to be drawn off of the second trigger is going to be, and NAP is getting to remove that card from possible interactions before that trigger resolves.

Yes, this is messy, but it's what policy instructs us to do. If you have ideas as to how this can be handled better, I'm certain they will be considered if they are well thought out. Perhaps there needs to be a line in this section which specifies how we handle players receiving priority in the middle of the fix, as well as possible library manipulation.

Originally posted by Joe Klopchic:

As the KP lead and one of the people that helped put this scenario and its solution together, I can assure you that it was vetted appropriately.

The quoted IPG language applies here, there is nothing to indicate that it doesn't.

If NAP wants to interact in the interim, they can. If AP wants to, they can as well. The result of the infraction is that both players know what the card that is going to be drawn off of the second trigger is going to be, and NAP is getting to remove that card from possible interactions before that trigger resolves.

Yes, this is messy, but it's what policy instructs us to do. If you have ideas as to how this can be handled better, I'm certain they will be considered if they are well thought out. Perhaps there needs to be a line in this section which specifies how we handle players receiving priority in the middle of the fix, as well as possible library manipulation.

Cool & thanks–I'll act accordingly. If you're asking for policy tweaks, the simple fix in my mind is to add a singular somewhere in that additional remedy paragraph (If the error ‘in AN effect’ put cards into a set prematurely) or clarify that this fix isn't applicable when applying ‘across’ priority passes, or when involving multiple effects as you mentioned. This drove some discussion on the NE slack. Message if anyone wants my thought-process here; it's much easier & more appropriate to communicate this sort of thing in conversation than rambling more on a forum post.

Edited Chase Culpon (Jan. 20, 2017 02:23:38 PM)