Hi all!
So, I have recently encountered some similar scenarios which I would like to shed light on.

Here is the latest.

Albert activates the second ability of his Liliana, the Last Hope. He, one by one, puts three cards into the graveyard. Nicla immediately realizes the error and calls for a judge.

Now, if we work through the IPG, this is a GRV: an information has been leaked (the third card on top) by putting a card in a different set (no LEC), which is public (no HCE).

Let's get to the fix: it's supposed to be either backup or nothing.

The situation looks simple enough to backup: the three cards are put back on top in reverse order (I don't see any need for randomization if the order is known to everyone), then we resolve the ability. And then, both players continue playing with the known extra card on top.

Now, if only that card had fallen down because stuck to the one above, or if Albert had kept in hand the three cards while showing them off, this would have been a plain simple Looking at Extra Cards, fixed by a quick randomization.

I see that the definition of “sets” and some borderlines were needed to make HCE work, but this really is a paradoxical outcame to me: in order to correct a formerly unknown extra card in the graveyard, we are supposed to generate a now known card on top of a player's library (or leave it there). As long as this kind of infraction is immediately caught, it's functionally equivalent to a LEC.

Maybe I'm missing something in the philosphy here? Maybe the leaked information needs to be regarded as an additional penalty to the player who committed the error? However, the backup should restore the game state to its closest-to-true form, while keeping the line of play intact, and I believe this is not the case.

If we agree that this is not how it's supposed to work, in my opinion, this could be solved in two ways:
1) Broaden that “Once those cards have joined another set, the infraction is handled as a Hidden Card Error or Game Rule Violation”, maybe by exclusion of publicly revealed information. I can see this either become too wordy or led to unwanted interpretation of the definition, though.
2) Tweak the backup paragraph in order to allow for a randomization when the information hadn't been formerly legally acquired. We usually don't want to randomize if we put a random card from hand on top to rewind an end of turn or if something had been scryed. But if these don't apply, I can see fit (provided that randomizing needs always to be taken carefully).

Thanks for discussing,
Donato

Edited Donato Del Giudice (Oct. 5, 2016 02:37:13 PM)

There are many GRVs which result in a card being seen which shouldn't be. While it's not explicitly called out, backing this up means returning the library to its previous (random) state. So you basically apply the L@EC fix to that last card

I agree, but not everyone does :)


Il 05/10/2016 21:48, Mark Mc Govern ha scritto:

Thanks, Mark. I agree, but other people do not and see this as a
deviation :)


Il 05/10/2016 21:48, Mark Mc Govern ha scritto:

I would disagree with assumption, that this is GRV. GRV is a “catch-all” infraction, and if cards were put one-by-one, directly from library to graveyard I will rule that one as a L@EC. While through hard-applying IGP it might not be L@EC:

Players are considered to have looked at a card when they have been able to observe the face of a hidden card, or when a card is moved any significant amount from a deck, but before it touches cards in another set. A set is a physically distinct group defined by a game rule or effect. It may correspond to a specific zone, or may only represent a part of a zone.

I would go with the philosophy behind it, that is also mentioned in AIPG:

Looking at Extra Cards covers when you knock over a card, drop a card while shuffling, start to draw a card when you shouldn’t, and milling or dredging too many cards.

Lets go with another example why I think that should be L@EC - if we will apply “touching another set” as definition that its no longer L@EC in any case, then dexterity errors that result in card being drop onto graveyard/exile would be ruled as GRV but they definitely are not those.

So going back to main scenario - its L@EC for me, and we will shuffle back that 3rd card into library.

Edited Bartłomiej Wieszok (Oct. 7, 2016 04:30:17 AM)

This situation can be both viewed as a GRV and L@EC, there is a case for both infractions. Because the player put them one by one i would resort to rule this as a GRV, the player mistakenly put 3 instead of 2 cards in the graveyard.

I believe the same fix apply to both infraction, shuffle the third card in to the library (take in count of previously known cards).

http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/27926/

Both scenarios are basically the same.

Edited Gregory Farias (Oct. 7, 2016 07:09:10 AM)

Keep in mind that L@EC is one of the few infractions that can become something else if players keep taking actions. In a sense, it has an “expiration date”

Example: I knock the top card off my deck onto the floor. If caught right away, it's L@EC. If discovered 2 turns later, it's DDP.
Example: I pick up 2 cards instead of one to draw. If caught right away, it's L@EC, if discovered after I put them in my hand, it's HCE.

This is a pretty similiar situation. A third card has been flipped over and is seen, at this exact moment that's L@EC. Now, if we start to do other stuff, combat, spells, etc, we've moved past the point of L@EC

Thanks everyone for discussing!
I really liked Bryan's explanation of the subject, in fact I noticed, in my OP, “as long as this kind of infraction is immediately caught”.

I would like to suggest to make this clear somewhere (other than the AIPG, or maybe explicitely stating in it), because A LOT of people (L3s included) is baffled by that limitation in the IPG.

See you!
Donato

I wrote an article a while ago about handling multiple infractions. I would describe this as _both_ GRV _and_ LEC. We only penalise the _root cause_ (the GRV), but you need to apply the fix for both (shuffling away the extra seen card).

Could you provide a link to that article? I don't think I've read that one.

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/articles/2015/08/31/handling-multiple-infractions/