As Toby pointed out in his latest blog post, “if it looks like applying the HCE remedy would do ridiculous things to the game, issue a GRV {and leave it as is}…” - or, if it just doesn't seem like it makes sense, it probably isn't the right place for it.

Having the opponent pick 4 to put on the bottom doesn't fix anything - the situation can't be fixed, really - and giving the opponent knowledge of the entire library doesn't seem fair.

In the Q&A of Toby's blog, Dan Collins asks about the seeming severity of the fix, and why you don't get to repeat the instruction that was handled incorrectly; Toby reminded that this used to be a Game Loss, and that it needs to have an appropriate deterrent. Makes sense so far, right?

Well, if a player did this before, it would NOT have been a Game Loss - just a simple GRV, no backup or partial fix is reasonable, so leave things as they are. That should be another clue that the HCE remedy isn't really appropriate here.

d:^D

Scott would your logic also apply to Fertile Thicket? Assuming controller didn't reveal the top card, do we reveal that card and shuffle it into the random portion of the library?

So I cheated a little bit - presented situation occurred at regular REL event - fix that I made (or, in that case not made) was just to do nothing, we can't restore deck. However, I was immediately asked by a friend, what I would rule on competitive having in mind that we have HCE now, and how HCE handles “I shuffled my hand into library” situations. My initial thoughts were that this is a really interesting scenario, followed by, how awkward HCE fix would be there (it's already awkward regarding restoring shuffled hand) but not unimaginable.

Jeff S - assuming that card is still on top? I would just reveal that top card to confirm that it is indeed basic land and let players carry on. As long as that card is on top, it's uniquely identifiable.

I'd like to do that simple fix as well, however “uniquely identifiable
position” is a phrase that formerly let us fix this, but doesn't exist any
more. The IPG only asks if the error involves a card being in a hidden
location, and whether the error can be corrected by publicly available
information. I would not intuitively call the top card of the library
“publicly available information”.

If the error is failing to reveal the card, I would call that publicly correctable, so we are exempt from HCE applying here. Solve it like a GRV instead, which probably means a simple backup. (Edited for self-correction.)

Edited Rebecca Lawrence (Jan. 27, 2016 01:23:50 PM)

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

As Toby pointed out in his latest blog post, “if it looks like applying the HCE remedy would do ridiculous things to the game, issue a GRV {and leave it as is}…” - or, if it just doesn't seem like it makes sense, it probably isn't the right place for it.

Scott, you left out the second half of Toby's sentence: “…and talk about the situation with other judges later.” I hope Toby can stop by to confirm, since I don't want to put words into his mouth, but my interpretation of that bit was as follows: “it's safer to risk that GRV is the wrong infraction than to risk that an incorrect HCE fix will destroy the game state. When in doubt, chose the former.” I didn't read his post as an actual policy statement.

I agree with you that trying to reveal the library is messy. And I also agree with Toby (or at least, the Toby in my head!) that my first time facing this call at a live event, I'd probably call it a GRV to make sure I don't disrupt the tournament. But since we're discussing this call after the fact, like Toby suggested, I feel like just declaring that the HCE fix “doesn't seem like it makes sense” is a bit of a cop-out. The Game Play Error in the original post is pretty clearly one that “cannot be corrected by only publicly available information.” It matches the HCE definition perfectly. For that reason, I'm not seeing any policy that would actually justify the GRV here. Am I missing something?

Thanks!

Eli

If applying the remedy would do nothing to the game state, it seems reasonable to issue the Warning and move on.

Originally posted by Toby Elliott:

If applying the remedy would do nothing to the game state, it seems reasonable to issue the Warning and move on.

Shuffling post-CoCo does something quite significant to the game state here. If a player just put four lands on the bottom, he might not crack the next fetchland he draws. On the other hand, if he just put his last two copies of Rally the Ancestors onto the bottom, he knows he won't draw another and has to play to win without it.

In a similar example, I was very unhappy at the Mirrodin Besieged prerelease when Lead the Stampede put both copies of Grasp of Darkness and my Sylvok Lifestaff on the bottom of my library, since any one of those cards would have won the race versus my opponent's flyers. I would have gained a huge advantage from shuffling there, whether accidental or “accidental,” and in at least that scenario the new HCE fix would have been (retroactively) appropriate.

Edit: also, point of clarification: Are you recommending we issue HCE without applying the fix? Or are you recommending we just issue GRV, which has no fix?

Edited Eli Meyer (Jan. 27, 2016 02:46:53 PM)

In Jeff's scenario, applying the remedy would *not* do *nothing* to the
game state. The card is on the top of the library but it wasn't revealed.
Do we follow the HCE fix and reveal it and then shuffle it in to the
library?

Originally posted by Dan Collins:

In Jeff's scenario, applying the remedy would *not* do *nothing* to the
game state. The card is on the top of the library but it wasn't revealed.
Do we follow the HCE fix and reveal it and then shuffle it in to the
library?

In Jeff's scenario, I think we can fix it using publicly available information. The card's on top, after all.

Oh, the top of your library is publicly available information? So it would
be fine if a spectator were to stop by and look at the top card of your
library in the middle of a game?

I'm not convinced that publicly available are the words that should have
been used here.

The identity of the card on top of your library is not (normally) public; the location of that card is public. The error - not revealing the card that's on top of your library - can be corrected using that public information. Specifically, just reveal that card. We don't want to create incentive for an opponent to “sit on” an error, until the point where the action benefits them more. IPG to the rescue, here: “Be careful not to apply this infraction in situations where a publicly-correctable error subsequently leads to an uncorrectable situation.”

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

Shuffling post-CoCo does something quite significant to the game state here.

Eli, it's true that shuffling after placing cards on the bottom damages the game state - but further shuffling does nothing to the game state. Thus, the HCE remedy doesn't do anything to the game state, in the original scenario, where the cards were already shuffled. Investigate - because, as you pointed out, there's opportunity here for sketchy “mistakes” - but then just issue the GRV (and talk about with other judges, later).

As for that line in Toby's blog post, I'm going to go ahead and put words in his mouth - and Toby can correct me if I'm wrong: I think that “and talk about {it} with other judges later” refers to our love of discussing odd policy scenarios - i.e., an acknowledgment that we'll do that anyway, not meant as an action item.

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

GRV (and talk about with other judges, later).

Thanks very much for the response! This makes a lot more sense to me now, and I definitely agree why the fix is a no-go.

I'm still not sure why we are issuing a GRV, though. Shouldn't we issue an HCE for tracking purposes even if we're not applying the fix? I mean, admittedly the only case this will come up is when a player gets a three-of-a-kind game loss upgrade. But for consistency's sake…?

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

I'm still not sure why we are issuing a GRV, though. Shouldn't we issue an HCE

Scott Marshall, from the IPG
Be careful not to apply this infraction in situations where a publicly-correctable error subsequently leads to an uncorrectable situation.

The infraction doesn't apply, not just the remedy.

d:^D

Just to be clear:

The original scenario - shuffling after putting cards on the bottom - is an HCE infraction, but it can't be corrected with the HCE remedy.

Jeff's addition is not an HCE, due to what I've quoted - so it's a GRV.

d:^D