Originally posted by Charlotte Sable:

I would be more wary of the strategic concerns if we were considering a full rewind here

Actually this makes a lot of sense. :D
Thanks Charlotte!

Edited Jacopo Strati (June 6, 2017 04:56:28 AM)

Originally posted by Jonas Drieghe:

So you would still apply the Simple Backup even though the IPG only explicitly mentions it for another partial fix and not for this one?

By my reading of the scenario presented, the error is discovered during the process of shuffling the deck. You can't do anything in the middle of an action, so you need to go back to before that action to apply the fix and then the action can be repeated. (This doesn't seem to be anywhere in the IPG anymore, but I'm sure it used to be there, I'm sure.) So I would fix here by putting the Approach into the library and then shuffling the library that now contains Approach.

Originally posted by Jacopo Strati:

Originally posted by Charlotte Sable:

I would be more wary of the strategic concerns if we were considering a full rewind here

Actually this makes a lot of sense. :D

Not sure I agree here.

It's not like a bunch of extra information was gained that was previously unknown to the player. Even though it might not seem fair to the opponent to rewind the fetch, we shouldn't take “fairness” into account when performing a backup. We should care about getting the game into the state it should have been: i.e. with AotSS 7th from the top of the library before the fetch was cracked.

While it is true we sort of “remind” the player that the card is in their library, they most likely knew in advance it would have been there.

I'm obviously just nitpicking, but that's what this scenario is to me. I consider both fixes valid and defensible in light of the current policy, so it's probably a matter of preference. I might be missing something though.

Edited Jonas Drieghe (June 6, 2017 05:00:42 AM)

Originally posted by Charlotte Sable:

By my reading of the scenario presented, the error is discovered during the process of shuffling the deck.

she shuffles her deck and only at that moment she realizes the error she made
Yeah, ambiguity is guiding this discussion it seems. I guess it could be interpreted as the deck already being shuffled as well.

Yes, she notices the error after she has finished to shuffle her deck, not while she's doing it.
Sorry for creating ambiguity. :(

Edited Jacopo Strati (June 6, 2017 05:12:06 AM)

Originally posted by Jacopo Strati:

Yes, she notices the error after she has finished to shuffle her deck, not while she's doing it.
Sorry for creating ambiguity. :(

In that case our options are the partial fix: Put Approach of the Second Sun into the library 7th from the top, or if that's too disruptive we can do a full rewind or leave the game state as it is.

I would leave the game state as it is since rewinding through the Evolving Wilds shuffle or just putting Approach into the deck 7th from the top both seem disruptive and like worse outcomes overall.

Originally posted by Charlotte Sable:

In that case our options are the partial fix: Put Approach of the Second Sun into the library 7th from the top, or if that's too disruptive we can do a full rewind or leave the game state as it is.

I would leave the game state as it is since rewinding through the Evolving Wilds shuffle or just putting Approach into the deck 7th from the top both seem disruptive and like worse outcomes overall.

I could live with that solution, but would personally opt for the full rewind since I don't really consider it too disruptive to dismiss.

Sidenote: I could only imagine the outrage of the opponent if there is a Scribe of the Mindful on the board in this situation.

Originally posted by Jonas Drieghe:

Sidenote: I could only imagine the outrage of the opponent if there is a Scribe of the Mindful on the board in this situation.

Well, true, but then the opponent should have been extra vigilant that Approach was resolved properly, right?

Is the disruption of backing up the Evolving Wilds search+shuffle minimal enough that a rewind to “Resolve Approach properly, Approach is 7th card in the library, Evolving Wilds is on the battlefield” is an acceptable fix here? I'm not entirely sure what metrics we should consider for how disruptive something might be.

Originally posted by Andrew Villarrubia:

Well, true, but then the opponent should have been extra vigilant that Approach was resolved properly, right?

Oh, absolutely. I was just musing in that sidenote.

Originally posted by Andrew Villarrubia:

Is the disruption of backing up the Evolving Wilds search+shuffle minimal enough that a rewind to “Resolve Approach properly, Approach is 7th card in the library, Evolving Wilds is on the battlefield” is an acceptable fix here?

I believe it is an acceptable fix but opinions may vary of course.

Originally posted by Andrew Villarrubia:

I'm not entirely sure what metrics we should consider for how disruptive something might be.

This article is probably as close to hard metrics as you will get: https://blogs.magicjudges.org/articles/2013/08/20/backups-embracing-the-rewind/
Not sure if there is a more recent version of a similar article about this.

Originally posted by Charlotte Sable:

Put Approach of the Second Sun into the library 7th from the top

Isn't any chance that, applying this fix, we consider as the “right zone” for AotSS to be put in the “randomized part of the deck” and not its original position (seventh card from the top)?
In other words: randomizing the sorcery in the library can be considered to be “putting the object in the right zone”?
I believe that, since we shouldn't take the game state into account, the answer is “no”, but it's better to ask for a confirmation. :)

Edited Jacopo Strati (June 6, 2017 07:36:40 AM)

There are very few cards (and almost all of them were printed in the last couple of years) that care about position in the library other than “top” or “bottom”. As such policy does not really cover WHERE in the correct zone we should put the card during a partial fix, only that we put it into that zone.

Expanding on what Charlotte said, we do in fact have 3 options:

1) Full rewind. Put the basic back in the library, the Evolving Wilds back on the battlefield (or in hand if it was played and then cracked on the same turn), put Approach in the library in the correct spot. There is approximately a zero percent chance that Anna will now crack the Wilds.

2) Partial fix. OK, but where in the library does Approach go? If we put it where it should have been as part of resolution, that is an advantage to Anna. If we shuffle it in, that is likely a huge hit to Anna.

3) Leave as is. Does this suck for Anna more than shuffling the card in to the library? Probably.

After thinking about this most of the day I have landed on full rewind, but for a while I was on leave as is. It now seems to punitive to Anna though.

Originally posted by IPG 1.4, Backing Up:

A good backup will result in a situation where the gained information makes no difference and the line of play remains the same (excepting the error, which has been fixed).

The existence of a “fetch land” - i.e., Evolving Wilds - is the classic example given when we advise against backing up. In fact…

For example, returning cards to the library when a player has the ability to shuffle their library is not something that should be done except in extreme situations.

…and…

backups are regarded as a solution of last resort, only applied in situations where leaving the game in the current state is a substantially worse solution

I don't think it's substantially worse to leave things as is; in fact, the existence of Evolving Wilds tells me it's much worse to back up, so I'd reject the full rewind option.

As for a Partial Fix:

If an object is in an incorrect zone either due to a required zone change being missed or
due to being put into the wrong zone during a zone change, the identity of the object was known to all players, and it can be moved with only minor disruption to the current state of the game, put the object in the correct zone.

The card was supposed to move from the stack to the library; instead, it moved to the wrong zone, the graveyard. Anna has chosen to shuffle her library, so she's already accepted the likelihood that the card will no longer be the seventh card - and then she notices her error.

I would have her continue shuffling after adding that card to her deck.

d:^D

Thanks Scott and thanks everyone for your answers and your help. :)

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

In fact …

For example, returning cards to the library when a player has the ability to shuffle their library is not something that should be done except in extreme situations.

In context, this section appears to be only about random/unknown elements. I didn't feel like it applied in this situation, but I can see how it could.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

The card was supposed to move from the stack to the library; instead, it moved to the wrong zone, the graveyard. Anna has chosen to shuffle her library, so she's already accepted the likelihood that the card will no longer be the seventh card - and then she notices her error.

I would have her continue shuffling after adding that card to her deck.

d:^D

Philosophically I agree with this fix as it gives us the cleanest result. Even though it feels a bit like diverting from the literal words in the documents to me, there is very little chance that either of the players will feel like this fix is unfair.