Adam scried a card on top of his libary, after a mulligan, he accidently draws a card, in his first turn, being the first player. Now Nathan get´s to see Adams hand and choose the excess card. Fine fix, the possible advantage is nullified, the best way we can actually fix the Situation, but after this:

“Excess cards are returned to the correct location. If that location is the library, they should be shuffled into the random portion. The player does not repeat the instruction or partial instruction (if any) that caused the infraction.”

It even reads, “correct location”, why don´t they stay in the correct Location but are shuffled away?

Can someone explain the reasons for this?

It feels counterintuitive and inconsistent, shouldn´t fixes try to fix the game and not be pseudo penalties? Why do we negate the scry Adam received for mulliganing?
On the other Hand, if he scried a card to the bottom, he will Keep the Advantage, because we will Keep it there…

Edited Thomas Ludwig (Aug. 22, 2016 10:34:55 AM)

In my oppinion you can not tell the correct location as the information (which card was drawn) was not public. It was only available to Adam. If the Information was public there is an extra paragraph in the IPG that allows you to make the “set” as small as possible.

Originally posted by IPG:

Information about cards previously known by the opponent, such as cards previously revealed
while on the top of the deck or by a previous look at the hand, may be taken into account while
determining the set of cards to which the remedy applies.

I do not agree on your oppinion that this fix is inconsistent. The IPG is very clear on how to handle the fix and what penalty to apply. So I think it is pretty consistens.

But I agree with you that the fix seems really harsh at first glance as the fix is giving Nathan an advantage. But I think that this is ok as it can be easily overseen by your opponent that you drew the card you just scried and it can be a possible advantage for Adam if he scried the top card to the bottom and now knows the top card of his library (with a fetchland in hand for example). But these are just my thoughts on this topic. Maybe we get an Official answer on the Why.

And as I said I too think the Advantage for Nathan is really big, so how do you think this could be fixed better?

Originally posted by Stefan Keil:

But I agree with you that the fix seems really harsh at first glance as the fix is giving Nathan an advantage.

HCE isn't designed to give the opponent an advantage to punish the other player–it's so that (quoting directly from the IPG here)

IPG 2.3 - Hidden Card Error
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.

We perform the fixes prescribed so as to generate a net-zero advantage for either player as closely as possible. Adam has put a card he shouldn't have into his hand, and Nathan has no way to verify which card it was at this point. Neither does the judge called to the table. The best we can do, therefore, is try to offset the potential advantage Adam could have gained from drawing the card.

If this seems too unfair to you, remember that this used to be a Game Loss, which grants Nathan a very significant advantage for something that could be as relatively menial as this–one of the reasons why DEC was changed in the first place to become the Thoughtsieze fix. It's obviously not perfect, but neither are the judges involved in these events, as we don't have the technology or ability to perfectly fix every thing that comes up. It's the best we have right now, and on the whole it's a pretty consistent and fair policy.

I think Thomas is fine with the thoughtseize part of the fix, but would prefer the card go on top of the library since the card on top wasn't “random” it was scryed there. With that being the case we can take the card that shouldn't be in the hand and put it in the “correct location” on top of the library. That's the closest we could get to correct game state. The only reason I can think of for not having this be policy is something that came up in another thread. While it makes sense and is fairly easy to explain to someone, the IPG needs to be as concise as possible so that it can be handed to any judge in any language and it still makes sense. The more corner cases we add, the further we get from that goal.

Thomas, I think you raise a good point.

More difficult:

Adam knows the top three cards of his library, say via Sensei's Divining Top.
Adam commits HCE, drawing an extra card.

How would you fix?

Edited Francesco Scialpi (Aug. 22, 2016 03:58:47 PM)

Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:

Thomas, I think you raise a good point.

More difficult:

Adam knows the top three cards of his library, say via Sensei's Divining Top.
Adam commits HCE, drawing an extra card.

How would you fix?

This is explicitly called out by HCE:

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.

Thanks for the Feedback!

To make things clear. I like the way HCE works in general, that´s not the problem.

Cards are returned to the “correct Location”, unless they should be placed back into the library. Then we got an extra rule, we have to shuffle them into the random part of the library. We maybe could improve this rule.

“Excess cards are returned to the correct location. If that location is the library, they should be shuffled into the random portion…”

This could read "Excess cards are returned to the correct location. If that location is the library and the Card/s was/were formerly unknown to both Players, they should be shuffled into the random portion…“

The wording is only slightly different, the fix should be much better, trying to negate any advantages for either Player. Remember the penalty is a warning, we now simply want to fix the problem.

Small note: Besides Scry and such effects there could also be fate seal effects. Nathan fate seals Adams card on top, Adam afterwards accidently draws a card, for whatever reason. This is a cornercase, but now Nathan´s fate Seal will be fixed away.



Matt, you said ”If this seems too unfair to you, remember that this used to be a Game Loss". We got a new rule. I think we maybe can improve it. I can´t really see what the old rule being harsher has to do with this, the net advantages after a fix should be as close to zero as possible.


For the Sensei´s Divining Top, I guess we got to shuffle back the card into the library, keeping the top two cards that are known exactly where they are.

But in this case it would not be a “HIDDEN” Card Error. If the Information which card was on top of the library was known to all players it was public information. The IPG states clearly:

Originally posted by IPG:

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.

The situation you described in the first post is slightly different. In your example NAP does not know which card is on top of the library (which could only be possible with a gemstone cavern and a spy network). So only one of both players knows the identity of the card. therefore it is a HCE infraction. If, by any chance, NAP began the game with a Gemstone Cavern (with luck counter on it as he did not play first) and did cast a Spy Network in the upkeep of AP then both players had known the identity of the card and therefore it would not be considered a HCE and, in my opinnion, the HCE fix is not applied.

You are right, if both players know the identity of the Card, it´s no HCE, missed on that rechecking my small note. If Nathan does not remember which card he fate sealed though, than we still end up with a HCE. ;)

I would like to hear some more thoughts about the reasoning, why there is an exception in the rule, that does not work out well in all cases, but could easily do so.