Yes, I'm trying to bring some discussion back to Judge Apps, but also this is coming off the back of an actual ruling that happened at a recent event and there's some interesting discussion happening and not (yet) a clear answer.

Ashaya casts Preordain. Nissa says “sure”, and Ashaya picks up the top 3 cards of their library. Nissa doesn't say anything, failing to notice the incorrect number of cards have been picked up. Ashaya thinks, then puts a card onto their hand (which is currently sat on the table, face-down), one card face-up into exile and another card on the bottom of their Library. Nissa, now confused, says “what? That's not what Preordain does” and Ashaya realises their mistake, calling for a judge.

How do you fix this situation? There is some discussion around the idea that the set of 3 cards doesn't exist anymore, so we have no remedy to apply (because the root of the issue is a HCE, and HCE says not to fix it if the set doesn't exist).

There's also discussion around the fact that picking up 3 cards was the HCE, and then putting one of those cards into the wrong zone (exile - which isn't how you resolve a Scry action) was a subsequent GRV, but the partial fix for this situation says to put the card back in the correct zone which is the top or bottom of the library. Which doesn't really feel like it fixes the situation, it just slightly changes a wrong situation. We can't backup here because there's a partial fix, and a simple backup can't involve random elements so we can't go down that route to reconstruct the set of 3 either.

Thoughts? “Do nothing” feels bad here, as Ashaya has been given a pretty substantial information and card selection advantage. We don't make rulings based on this, but I am wondering if there's another perspective not yet considered.

I missed this discussion forum.

Originally posted by Winter:

Nissa says “sure”, and Ashaya picks up the top 3 cards of their library.

I would argue that the “sure” is not “sure, pick three cards”, but rather: “sure, resolve the Preordain”.
Therefore I would skip the:

Originally posted by IPG2.3:

It is not a Hidden Card Error if the opponent acknowledges the action…

Originally posted by Winter:

the set of 3 cards doesn't exist anymore

I agree, but when the HCE explains:

Originally posted by IPG2.3:

This infraction only applies when a card whose identity is known to only one player is in a hidden set of cards both before and after the error.

I don't understand that the beginning and the ending set are the same. If that was the case, then the additional remedy of:

Originally posted by IPG2.3:

In cases where the infraction was immediately followed by moving a card from the affected set to a known location, such as by discarding, putting cards on top of the library, or playing a land, a simple backup to the point just after the error may be performed.

Would make no sense, as “moving a card from the affected set to a known location” would have destroyed the set, and no HCE would have applied.


So if we allow the definition of
Beginning set: Top 3 cards.
End set: The face-down card in the table, the bottom card and the one in exile.

This end set might be questionable, but I would argue that if someone resolved a Expressive Iteration looking at 4 cards, and chose one to hand, one to exile and two to the bottom, we would re-construct the set as those 4 cards are

Originally posted by IPG1.5:

… a physically distinct group of cards defined by a game rule or effect

I think given this situation, I would rule HCE, simple backup to reconstruct the 3-Scry set, let the opponent choose the extra card, and probably shuffle the library.

Originally posted by IPG2.3:

If that location is the library, they should be shuffled into the random portion unless the owner previously knew the identity of the card/cards illegally moved

Edited Joaquin Azcarate (Dec. 17, 2023 12:56:40 PM)

I may have miscommunicated the card placed face down on the table was placed onto their hand, i.e. touching their hand. It's in their hand now, and we've moved beyond being able to reconstruct the set with non-random elements (eliminating the possibility of a simple backup). If Nissa had called us when Ashaya picked up 3, we could absolutely fix this super easily as HCE. But the HCE happened, and then another thing happened which involved putting a card into the hand (correctly).

I feel that classifying this error as HCE hampers our ability to actually correct the game state. No, there was no point before AP picked up three cards that NAP could have known anything was wrong, but with the exile of the card and clear revelation that AP thought they were resolving a different spell, I feel that the broader powers to rewind under GRV are more appropriate to invoke here.

Now our options are to back up, putting a random card from the hand with the bottomed and exiled card back on top of the library, or to leave the game as is. The card hanging out in exile bothers me, especially since if we don't do anything the question now remains with can the player cast that card? I think we need to avoid that.

So, as much as I hate the answer, my gut says to do the backup since the player will be able to access all three cards anyway when Preordain is resolved properly. Alternately, we can just ‘force’ the exiled card onto the bottom of the library and leave the hand card alone, but that's a step too far out of policy and player agency for my tastes.

I feel like the core about this is the discussion pointed out here

Originally posted by Winter:

There is some discussion around the idea that the set of 3 cards doesn't exist anymore, so we have no remedy to apply (because the root of the issue is a HCE, and HCE says not to fix it if the set doesn't exist).

Namely does the line from the IPG reference the set which is immediately created or any set which contains the problem caused by the HCE? If its the prior then yes it seems like policy is saying we cannot apply a fix, but if the later is the case then is it not then possible that Ashaya's hand is a set containing the problem, and so a fix should be applied to that, namely that we would reveal the hand return a card from that to the library along with the card from exile, shuffle and then properly resolve preordain?

I feel that this form of fix also seems to be somewhat inline with the HCE philosophy namely the idea that

Originally posted by IPG2.3:

Though the game state cannot be reversed to the ‘correct’ state, this error can be mitigated by
giving the opponent sufficient knowledge and ability to offset the error so that it is less likely to
generate advantage.

So applying the fix to Ashaya's hand is allowing for sufficient knowledge and ability being given to the opponent to offset the error.

However I do see some potential discussion about the timeframes involved and if Nissa wasnt paying attention to point out the error in the game state in a timely fashion, considering how both players are always responsible for maintaining the game state.