A player commits a Game Rule Violation by resolving Scry 2 when no Scry should have taken place, putting one card at the top and one card at the bottom.

I choose to rewind.
Should the two cards be placed on top of the library (if so, in what order?) or should they be shuffled in the library?

Follow-up question:
If you answer “shuffled in” to the first question, then what if the two cards were already known to the player (due to another Scry or Ponder, perhaps?) If you now rule that the cards are put back on top, then who decides the order?

Edited Petr Hudeček (May 13, 2015 08:24:49 PM)

> A player commits a Game Rule Violation by resolving Scry 2 when no Scry should
> have taken place, putting one card at the top and one card at the bottom.
>
>
> I choose to rewind.
> Should the two cards be placed on top of the library (if so, in what
> order?) or should they be shuffled in the library?
>

Sounds like a textbook case of Looking at Extra Cards to me. Retrieve the card
from the bottom, and shuffle it, together with the card from the top, into the
unkown portion of the library, leaving anything on the bottom that was legally
scried there before. Or just shuffle the entire library if there is no known
portion.

(Or more elaborately: both L@EC (looking at the cards) and GRV (putting the card
on the bottom). Apply the more severe penalty (which is a Warning, pick the
infraction that you like better), and apply the remedies for both (shuffling for
L@EC; rewind or not for the GRV is irrelevant due to the shuffle).)

>
> Follow-up question:If you answer “shuffled in” to the first question, then
> what if the two cards were already known to the player (due to another Scry or
> Ponder, perhaps?) If you know rule that the cards are put back on top, then
> who decides the order?
>
Same infractions, L@EC and GRV. L@EC remedy is not applicable, as the cards are
in the known part of the library. If I rewind, I don't know if the card should
be on top or second from the top, so I think I would have to let the player
choose the order again. Which would give the player a chance to change his
decision from when he put those cards on top earlier, but then, letting him move
one card to the bottom would also be allowing him a chance to change that
decision.

I am not entirely certain that “rewind to a game state of one player's choice”
is really supported by the IPG, but on the other hand it would be, in a way,
“rewinding to the game state where two cards are on top of a library in the
order of a player's choice”, which is exactly the game state we had before the
erronous scry.

All in all I like the rewind better than leaving the card on the bottom.

I would put both cards in top of library.
If at least one card is known to all players (f.e. Courser of cruphix), I would put them in that order, otherwise in random order.

Originally posted by IPG:

Once a card has been placed into his or her hand or if a player takes a game action after removing the card from the library, the offense is no longer Looking at Extra Cards.

It may be Looking at Extra Cards, but if so, I don't think it's really a textbook case.

Originally posted by Kai Sternitzke:

I would put both cards in top of library.
If at least one card is known to all players (f.e. Courser of cruphix), I would put them in that order, otherwise in random order.

So I now know my next draw and I can adjust my actions properly to that information.

It's no longer L@EC but we still apply proper fix. Just shuffle all should-be-unknown cards into library keeping known cards at their proper places (ie: 2 at the bottom from previous scry/anticipate and/or top one if there is a curser of kruphix in play)

As Petr noted, a game action has been taken (completing the Scry that shouldn't have happened); the IPG sure seems to suggest that L@EC no longer applies. That phrase was added to help draw a line between Looking At and Drawing, when it comes to Extra Cards - but I'm fine with applying it here, and calling this a GRV.

Remember, however, that the L@EC remedy may be applied to GRVs that resulted in extra cards being seen.

Your investigation in this situation needs to convince you that it was an honest mistake, that the player wasn't aiming for a free shuffle - esp. if he had any knowledge of those cards, and the L@EC remedy. Once you're satisfied that you're addressing an honest mistake, it seems to me the best remedy is to shuffle those two cards into the random portion of the library.

d:^D

Originally posted by Petr Hudeček:

Should the two cards be placed on top of the library

I see this line of thought come up when discussing backups, and I think it stems from an honest desire to get the game “back to where it was.” While understandable, I believe for the myriad of reasons that Riki discusses in his backups article that we won't be able to get the game going back to where it was GOING with this approach.

Why? Even if we put 2 cards back randomly, knowing the 2 cards gives a 50/50 chance, and that's something we could reasonably expect a player to bank on. It's likely IMO to affect their lines of play.

Look at it this way: Prior to the Scry 2, the player had a random (unless other positions were known) couple of top cards. A shuffle (including Bartłomiej's recommendation to investigate known card locations) gets us back to this game state.

Edited Evan Cherry (May 14, 2015 04:20:00 AM)

Originally posted by Petr Hudeček:

Follow-up question:
If you answer “shuffled in” to the first question, then what if the two cards were already known to the player (due to another Scry or Ponder, perhaps?) If you now rule that the cards are put back on top, then who decides the order?

For this part of the question I found the IPG stating: “Care must be taken before shuffling to make sure that there are no “legally known” cards in the library.” The 2 cards looked at with the scry are now illegally known cards rather than legally known. I would say that from there a shuffle would include the two cards looked at. Thoughts?