Hey all! Welcome back to the Knowledge Pool! This week's scenario is Silver, so we would like to ask L2+ judges to wait until Saturday to post their ideas and answers.

The blog post for this scenario is here.

You’re the Head and only judge of a limited Magic Origins GPT. Arnold is playing against Naomi. Arnold controls Shadows of the Past and a Thopter token. At the end of Arnold’s turn, Naomi targets Thopter with Fiery Impulse. After the spell resolves, Arnold points to his Shadows of the Past, saying “trigger”, puts the card into his hand while resolving the Scry – and then says ”oh, no, I wasn’t supposed to … Judge! I just drew THIS” and shows you a Languish.

What do you do?

I believe this fits the new gpe-dec. Issue Arnold a warning and let Naomi choose a card from his hand to shuffle back into Arnold's Library.

Edited Robert Langmaid (July 17, 2015 09:08:45 AM)

Based on the recently updated IPG, Arnold will receive a GPE-DEC, Warning. It seems Arnold does not have an empty hand, so the fix will involve him revealing his hand to Naomi and letter her select one card to be shuffled into Arnold's deck, including the recently drawn Languish. I would then remind both players to play more carefully and give an appropriate time extension before returning to the floor.

Arnold has committed GPE-DEC and will receive a warning.

To remedy Arnold reveals his hand and Naomi selects a card which will be shuffled into the random portion of Arnold's library - making sure any previously scryed or otherwise known cards are not disrupted.

Before Reading

This pretty clearly looks to me like a Game Play Error - Drawing Extra Cards. The card, which was supposed to be scried, was placed into Arnold's hand instead. Because of the update to the IPG this week, the penalty is now only a warning instead of a game loss.

While Arnold did call a judge on himself immediately, DEC violations are something that I think need to be tracked as it could be part of a larger issue. Calling a judge immediately makes it highly likely this was just a mistake, but we still need to have a record that it happened so we issue Arnold a warning.

As for Naomi, a Game Play Error - Failure to Maintain Game State is appropriate. The error was caught immediately, but not by Naomi. She should also get a warning. I could see an argument for giving her no penalty as things happened quickly. However, FtMGS is never upgraded past a warning, so this is really only for tracking.

On to how to fix the situation. Arnold claims the extra card was Languish. But once the card touched the rest of his hand, there is no way for us to conclusively verify the claim. So, the new fix should be applied. Arnold will reveal his hand to Naomi, Naomi selects a card, and that card is shuffled back into Arnold's library. Before shuffling, I would determine if the position of any cards in Arnold's library were legally known. Those should be set aside and not shuffled with the rest of the deck then placed back into the proper position after randomizing the library.

Arnold did improperly resolve his scry, however, I don't think he should be allowed to now scry one again. He has already seen one card from the top of his library that he was entitled to see. If he is allowed to scry now, he would see a second card. This seems far too easy to abuse. With the new resolution for drawing extra cards, this would allow a player to get a look at another card in his or her library by taking a warning and a random card being shuffled away. When you are in danger of losing the match and need to find the one answer in your deck, trading a non-answer and a warning for another look seems like a good proposition.

I could see the random card being placed on top of the library instead of shuffling it away and allowing Arnold to properly resolve the scry on that card. However, the IPG states:

Only the Head Judge is authorized to issue penalties that deviate from these guidelines. The Head Judge may not deviate from this guide’s procedures except in significant and exceptional circumstances or a situation that has no applicable philosophy for guidance. Significant and exceptional circumstances are rare—a table collapses, a booster contains cards from a different set, etc. The Rules Enforcement Level, round of the tournament, age or experience level of the player, desire to educate the player, and certification level of the judge are NOT exceptional circumstances. If another judge feels deviation is appropriate, he or she must consult with the Head Judge

The circumstances here are certainly not significant and exceptional, so no deviation from the procedure is allowed.

Ruling: Arnold gets GPE-DEC with a warning and Naomi gets GPE-FtMGS and a warning. Arnold reveals his hand to Naomi who selects a random card that is shuffled into Arnold's library while preserving the position of cards Arnold legally knew in his library.

After Reading

No change.

EDIT: Naomi should receive no penalty.

Edited Dustin Wilke (July 17, 2015 12:13:15 PM)

This seems like a clear cut case of Game Play Error - Drawing Extra Cards and, under the new changes to the IPG, for that AP should receive a warning. Because there was no change for NAP to catch their opponent before AP called for a judge, I would advise against giving NAP Failure to Maintain Game state.

For the fix: The identity of the card was not known to all players before it was drawn, so we can't just simply put it back on top of the deck and it wasn't a result of a Communication Policy Violation, so there's no back up here. This only leaves us with the following fix. Have AP reveal their hand to NAP. NAP chooses a card. Ask AP if they know the position of any of the cards in their library. Put the card of top of their deck and randomize any unknown portions of the deck. Place the known cards back in their correct position. Have the players continue playing.

So in short, AP Warning for GPE - DEC, reveal their hand, card of NAP's choice into the unknown portion of the deck, shuffle that part of the deck, then continue playing.

After Reading:
@ Stephen, why are we shuffling in two cards into the deck? The amount of cards drawn in excess is one?
@ Dustin, I'm not sure I understand your reasoning for giving NAP FtMGS here.

Originally posted by Elliot Garner:

@ Dustin, I'm not sure I understand your reasoning for giving NAP FtMGS here.

I can certainly see, and think it's completely defensible, to not issue Naomi a FtMGS. My thinking is that issuing the penalty will not harm Naomi later in the tournament as multiple FtMGS will never be upgraded from a warning to a game loss. I'd rather have a formal record of the issue, especially since it should not cause issues for Naomi later in the tournament.

As I said though, I think not issuing Naomi a penalty is also fine. Possibly even the correct solution to the scenario.

Originally posted by Dustin Wilke:

My thinking is that issuing the penalty will not harm Naomi later in the tournament…

I really don't like this as a reason for giving her Naomi a warning.

The game hasn't progressed and Arnold called the warning pretty much immediately - she really didn't have an opportunity to call a judge here and the only part of the game state that failed to be maintained is the reason we're at the table.

Edited Marc Shotter (July 17, 2015 11:52:47 AM)

Originally posted by Marc Shotter:

Dustin Wilke
My thinking is that issuing the penalty will not harm Naomi later in the tournament…

I really don't like this as a reason for giving her Naomi a warning.

The game hasn't progressed and Arnold called the warning pretty much immediately - she really didn't have an opportunity to call a judge here and the only part of the game state that failed to be maintained is the reason we're at the table.

The more I think about it, you're probably right. We'll see for sure when the answer is posted. But I'd honestly be surprised if Naomi gets a warning. Updated my original post.

This seems like it would definitely fit under the new IPG's warning for DEC. The remedy is for Naomi to look at Arnold's hand and choose a card to be shuffled back into the library. No warnings for Naomi.

While I agree that it is a GPE-DEC and results in a warning, if there were no other cards in Arnold's hand the Languish is uniquely identifiable and the situation can be repaired. Arnold would still get a warning, but we would back up the draw and resolve the scry correctly. Of course, if he did have any other cards in hand it is no longer uniquely identifiable and Naomi gets a free Perish the Thought.

Originally posted by Rich Marin:

Arnold would still get a warning, but we would back up the draw and resolve the scry correctly.

This line is slightly off topic but why would you finish resolving the scry?

The scry was appropriate - just because he drew instead of scrying wouldn't mean he does not get to scry. That would be punitive in a way not supported by the IPG.

What actions are you taking as a back up?

Ah - I see your point. A backup could be potentially too disruptive here and there was no CPV or out of order resolution that took place that would allow for a backup. Backing up would involve taking a random card from Arnold's hand (assuming Languish isn't uniquely identifiable) and putting it on top of his library. Allowing him to scry here would potentially leave him with the Languish and give him the opportunity to scry away a card that was previously present in his hand.

Rereading the text of the updated IPG, no other option is available to us here. I'd revise my answer - the new fix of a card being chosen by Naomi and being shuffled into Arnold's library is the only option available to us.