Originally posted by Brandon Scyner:

No, so long as it is revealed afterwards. Though technically it should be kept revealed, it makes searching harder due to not being able to see the card face.

So technically you are supposed to keep the top card revealed, and it's not that hard, you leave it face up while searching the rest of the library but it's not really affecting much at all by not, so seems a little petty to penalise, and it's about to be shuffled away anyway.

I feel the same way about that small time frame between taking a card that just happens to be on the top of the library while searching and the library being shuffled. Technically if you take the top card you should quickly reveal the top card, then shuffle the library. How long must a player reveal the top card? Long enough for the opponent to make a note? Count to 5? A quick flash because the library needs to be shuffled and the round clock is counting ever closer to the end of the round?

Then if there were 2 or more Breeding Pools in the library and they could have ensured there wasn't a “technically an infraction” situation by taking the time to find the other one, it again feels petty to penalise and reveal a random card just because they tried to save time by grabbing the obvious one. If there were only one, we're still in the “technically an infraction” territory, without really being a huge problem - the card that should have been revealed for some small period of time is about to be shuffled away anyway.

Originally posted by Isaac King:

Since the library was already random beforehand, this backup involves: nothing.

By saying we have nothing to backup up you imply that neither players loose or win informations comparing to “the way they should have play”, but it's notre true. The Courser should have reveal 2 cards and not one. In a game 2 or when the opponent don't know the deck, a additional revealed card could be relevant information

Edited Camille POTTIER (April 3, 2019 03:20:22 AM)

Deleted message

Edited Camille POTTIER (April 3, 2019 03:22:51 AM)

Originally posted by Mark Brown:

Originally posted by Brandon Scyner:

No, so long as it is revealed afterwards. Though technically it should be kept revealed, it makes searching harder due to not being able to see the card face.

So technically you are supposed to keep the top card revealed, and it's not that hard, you leave it face up while searching the rest of the library but it's not really affecting much at all by not, so seems a little petty to penalise, and it's about to be shuffled away anyway.

I feel the same way about that small time frame between taking a card that just happens to be on the top of the library while searching and the library being shuffled. Technically if you take the top card you should quickly reveal the top card, then shuffle the library. How long must a player reveal the top card? Long enough for the opponent to make a note? Count to 5? A quick flash because the library needs to be shuffled and the round clock is counting ever closer to the end of the round?

Then if there were 2 or more Breeding Pools in the library and they could have ensured there wasn't a “technically an infraction” situation by taking the time to find the other one, it again feels petty to penalise and reveal a random card just because they tried to save time by grabbing the obvious one. If there were only one, we're still in the “technically an infraction” territory, without really being a huge problem - the card that should have been revealed for some small period of time is about to be shuffled away anyway.

The difference is with the information potential for the opponent.
With the original scenario, basically any card on top that NAP doesn't 100% expect to be in the deck would be valuable information if revealed. (Especially G2/G3 with sideboard cards).
With the second Breeding Pool scenario, knowing for sure there are 2 could give NAP information about how to use Field of Ruin maybe.
With the “technically the card should still be revealed while searching” that's a shortcut that doesn't hide additional information.

The philosophy of OoOS is that they're okay if they don't lead to information gained prematurely. I'd say this should be similar for shortcuts, they're okay if they don't lead to information being unobtained.

Originally posted by Mark Brown:

How long must a player reveal the top card? Long enough for the opponent to make a note? Count to 5? A quick flash because the library needs to be shuffled and the round clock is counting ever closer to the end of the round?

The same length that you need to reveal any card that you're instructed to reveal- long enough for the opponent to see what it is.

Originally posted by Mark Brown:

Then if there were 2 or more Breeding Pools in the library and they could have ensured there wasn't a “technically an infraction” situation by taking the time to find the other one, it again feels petty to penalise

They certainly could have not committed an infraction, but… they didn't. I agree that it feels petty to penalize here, but not simply because they had the ability to not make the error- that's always the case.

Originally posted by Camille POTTIER:

By saying we have nothing to backup up you imply that neither players loose or win informations comparing to “the way they should have play”, but it's notre true. The Courser should have reveal 2 cards and not one. In a game 2 or when the opponent don't know the deck, a additional revealed card could be relevant information

I think you may have misread my post. I'm well aware that there's an issue here, that's what this thread is about. I'm saying that the backup to the point of error involves 0 physical actions. We're simply undoing a shuffle, which since the library was in the same state beforehand as it is now, requires no actions on our part.

This thread has gone in a very strange direction. Before searching the library, AP had correctly revealed the top card of their library. AP did a search which found the Breeding Pool that had previously been on top of their library. AP then shuffled their library, presented, and correctly revealed the top card of their library afterwards.

Where is the error? Are you going to argue that there was an infraction because the player performed the search of their library by taking the top card instead of looking through the entire thing? That is an entirely valid way to search the library. There is no requirement to reveal the top card of the library while shuffling.

Originally posted by Oren Firestein:

Where is the error?

Since Courser of Kruphix' static ability requires the top card of your library to be revealed, it's always in effect (while Courser is on the battlefield); there is a point between selecting the top card as the object of the search, and beginning the shuffle, when the new top card needs to be revealed.

I will add an OPINION here: anyone who thinks that a player, by overlooking that error, deserves an infraction, is someone whose events I'd prefer not to ever play. And, an opponent who insists that it's “criminal” that they didn't get to see the next card, is someone I'd hope to never be paired against. I also know that neither of my hopes will always be met, in reality. c'est la vie…

d:^D

A way to avoid revealing a new top card before shuffling would be for AP to take the deck in their hands, go through it, selecting a different Breeding Pool, then beginning the shuffle. In that case, AP would still give out some information, i.e. the fact that they play another copy of Breeding Pool.

This exact case happened in a MCQ when NAP insisted they wanted to look at the top card before the shuffle. Their request was granted after they appealed. They did not ask for a penalty, luckily, nor did they insist that it was “criminal”.

Edited Samuele Tecchio (April 4, 2019 04:33:38 AM)

I still don't feel comfortable with this ruling that the situation formally falls under GRV scenario.

My opinion is that physical actions don't actually represent what is going in a game of Magic. While AP physically takes the top card of their deck, from the game engine's perspective they actually take a card from an unknown place in their library. That means that the game engine doesn't know that the top deck changed and cannot reveal the top card of the library to everyone.

Originally posted by Arman Gabbasov:

While AP physically takes the top card of their deck, from the game engine's perspective they actually take a card from an unknown place in their library. That means that the game engine doesn't know that the top deck changed and cannot reveal the top card of the library to everyone.

That is simply not correct Arman. The “game engine” knows full well where the card came from, just like it knows where the cards in every other zone are. If you believe that to not be the case, please find a rule that backs you up.

I will support Isaac on that one:

Hidden Card Error
Order cannot be determined from card faces only visible to one player unless the card is in a uniquely identifiable position (such as on top of the library, or as the only card in hand.)

That means that the top card is specifically identifiable by the game, and if not by the game, by us as judges.

Originally posted by Isaac King:

I'm saying that the backup to the point of error involves 0 physical actions. We're simply undoing a shuffle, which since the library was in the same state beforehand as it is now, requires no actions on our part.

I misinterpreted what you said much earlier – I can support that as a solution, assuming the library is shuffled afterwards, making it a GRV. I genuinely think that is the better answer/infraction from a customer service perspective, as HCE is crushing. But yes, my main point of contention for this is because that random card could be a “spicy side board tech” that is extremely important for them to know as a player.

Edit: Grammar and formatting.

Edited Brandon Scyner (April 6, 2019 09:51:06 PM)

Okay, I have done some research (with some help) and here's what I found.

701.15d: Some effects instruct a player to look at one or more cards. Looking at a card follows the same rules as revealing a card, except that the card is shown only to the specified player.
701.18a: To search for a card in a zone, look at all cards in that zone (even if it's a hidden zone) and find a card that matches the given description.
701.15c: If cards in a player's library are shuffled or otherwise reordered, any revealed cards that are reordered stop being revealed and become new objects.

701.18a explains what to do when searching in a library.
701.15c explains how revealed cards work

In this case the cards are not shuffled but their order in the library changes: land that was on top is not in the library anymore. I am not sure this definitively resolves this issue but I would argue that 701.15c lets us ignore Courser of Kruphix's effect until we have finished resolving a fetchland's ability.

Arman, that's an interesting interpretation, and I'd love to agree - but our Rules Manager has confirmed that, in fact, we must reveal the new top card (after searching for and finding the previous top card) before we begin the shuffle.

As I stated before, I really don't think this is the sort of infraction that demands rigid enforcement. I will amend an earlier opinion - there are valid circumstances in which the opponent might benefit from the knowledge gained by revealing that random card. However, as Isaac has noted, we only have to reveal any random card to “fix” the problem, so we can go ahead and to that, and teach the player about an unusual technicality in the rules.

(Note that, if you suspect the player knew the card should be revealed and didn't, we've got a different issue.)

d:^D