I don't think so. Some of you are stating it would change if he knows what card is next. Why should he ever target himself if he needs to draw exactly this card?

Edited Philip Wieland (April 16, 2015 11:29:58 PM)

To clarify: The situation is that the player has targeted himself with
Thought Scour. This is not up for debate.

If he knew what card was next, then drawing before milling could be an
intentional act with intent to cheat.

I initially agreed with a ruling of GRV, no change to the boardstate (though investigating if he knew the top card for some reason would be advised), but those arguing for DEC have made good points.

However, I'm curious if resolving, for example, a Dark Confidant trigger resolving mostly correctly but forgetting the life loss would also be a case of DEC. It falls into the same set of “had another instruction to do before putting the card in hand, but was told to put the card in hand” as Thought Scour.

Originally posted by Richard Drijvers:

I would be interested in knowing whether or not the topcard(s) were known
to the player, for investigative purposes.

Perhaps that top card was exactly what he needed?

There's a potential for abuse here and giving the option to deviate in the
IPG would give a lot more inconsistency in rulings around the globe.
We're already seeing an inconsistency in this specific case where the
infraction was incorrectly assessed. I fear that would be a lot more common
with more options given in the IPG.

-R.

2015-04-16 14:57 GMT+02:00 walker metyko <

While I'm interested in knowing whether the top cards are known, that doesn't affect the DEC vs GRV discussion. If he knew the top card and was trying to get it without milling, that's probably UC-Cheating and neither DEC or GRV apply.

Originally posted by John Davison:

However, I'm curious if resolving, for example, a Dark Confidant trigger resolving mostly correctly but forgetting the life loss would also be a case of DEC. It falls into the same set of “had another instruction to do before putting the card in hand, but was told to put the card in hand” as Thought Scour.

Dark Confidant states:

Oracle
At the beginning of your upkeep, reveal the top card of your library and put that card into your hand. You lose life equal to its converted mana cost.

The life loss is after the card is put into the hand. At this point, you have failed to resolve an ability completely, and this is a GRV.

Edited Matt Braddock (April 17, 2015 12:40:11 AM)

The player did target himself with the thought scour.

So with something like Repulse, if the card was drawn before the creature was returned, that would *technically* be drawing extra cards? But because it fits well within out of order sequencing so we don't penalize it?

Edited Grant Fowler (April 17, 2015 10:41:52 AM)

Originally posted by Grant Fowler:

So with something like Repulse, if the card was drawn before the creature was returned, that would *technically* be drawing extra cards? But because it fits well within out of order sequencing so we don't penalize it?

I feel comfortable with out of order sequencing here. (I assume that the “mistake” is discoverd immediately.)

The difference is that for the Repulse case the game state we end at is the same as if the actions were made in a tehnically correct order so the conditions for OOOS are met.

Just to play devil's advocate here:

In general when casting Thought Scour a player targets themselves (because they are running cards like Snapcaster Mage or cards with Delve), generally then the player mills the 2 then draws a card without announcing targets (it's sloppy play but it happens).

Now if thats the case and the player draws the card, would it not be possible for them to claim OoOS and just request their opponent to mill 2 (assuming that targets for the spell were never confirmed)?

That sound very shady. I would like to listen to a very good reason for him to target his opponent without having explicitly said it.
At a first glance this seems that he is trying to create a story in order to avoid a penlaty.

Even if there was a good reason for him to mill his opponent (because anyone of them scried, he has already played all of his Snapcasters, he's running for the mill plan for any reason or is doing so becasue he is just inexperienced) i feel like there should be a procedure for those cases. (another example where targets are not always obvious is Jace, the Mind Sculptors +-ability)
What to do/assume if a spell is resolving without being properly announced and a judge is called?

Edited Felix Hasenfratz (April 18, 2015 04:29:11 PM)

So there's an argument I'm going to make here. I'm not sure I agree with it, but I'm going to pose it anyway in hopes of deepening my own understanding. This will all assume that the top card is random and we have ruled out cheating in this scenario.

When a player accidentally reveals a card from the top of their deck (missing Courser for example) we shuffle the card into their deck under the philosophy that what is intended to be on top of their deck is specifically “one random card”. I've had numerous opponents argue that they should have drawn that specific card (usually a land) and want that card to remain on top of their deck. In response to this, I note that what is supposed to be on the top of their deck is a random card. Because this card's identity is known it is no longer a random card. It doesn't matter if this was a good card for them, or a bad card for them because either way it should be a random card for them.

Moving back to the question at hand. The player should mill two random cards then draw one random card. What has happened is the player drew one random card and skipped the milling portion. Technically an identical game state can be reached by milling two random cards. The player ends up with a random card in the hand, and a two random cards in the library. Admittedly the player has resolved his spell incorrectly be performing actions in the wrong sequence but the end result is the same.

There is potential for abuse but that potential abuse all falls into the realm of potential Cheating by reaching a different outcome than if you had performed the sequence in order (you get a specific card instead of a random card from the top of your deck). If the player applies OOOS to draw a random card then mill two random cards, how is his game state different than if he had performed them in order?

I'm with Marc on this. If no cards was known in the library, is this anything other that OoOS? You draw a random card from the top, and mill two random cards.

I would investigate to see if any effects would have let the player know what the top card is (Courser, scy-effects or similar) and if no effects had been used to manipulate the top of the library I would just rule it a OoOS. If the top card was known, further investigation with harder questions would be the course.

That's an interesting point, Marc.
Although I find it fair in that particular situation (no cards known) I think it leads to inconsistent rulings.

If we don't know which is the first card in the library it's OoOS, so there is no infraction.
If we do know which is the first card in the library it is DEC.
The action is exactly the same but because of a slightly different game state that's completely unrelated to the incorrect action, we are getting to two completely differente rulings with two very different outcomes. (Nothing vs GL)

I believe that for OoOS we need to be very technical about what can be considered as “the same result”.
In your situation we end up at a similar result but it is not technically the same.

Edited Maxim Antipov (April 20, 2015 07:05:06 PM)

The top 3 cards of his library were in a random order.

What he should do with Thought Scour:
Draw a random card, put 2 random cards from library to graveyard.

What he did so far with Thought Scour:
Draw a random card, . .

I'm inclined to say that he should just put 2 random cards from library to graveyard. No, this is not 100% backed up by policy on top of my head. But all other solutions are too disruptive to the game.

Edit Add:
Basically, he just did it in the wrong order in the end. But with the same result, without information gained that'd modify any decision.

Edited Philip Böhm (April 20, 2015 07:39:56 PM)

@philippe

He needs to mill first, the draw. I think thats the problem here ;)


Im on marc's side.

i love the way he thinks, not every situation is as catastrophic as it seems ;)