Contributing some to this discussion, I issued a GPE-GRV & FtMGS for failing to scry from Rage of Purphoros. Many judges disagreed and it generated some discussion of this issue at the event which also divided the judges between technical play/responsibility to follow the game rules & judges not penalizing players for depriving themselves of information/shortcutting.

In discussing the ruling with the HJ during my debrief, the question poised was whether or not taking hidden information gained and who benefits/loses out should be a factor in determining whether to apply a penalty. It basically came down to whether or not you apply a penalty/fix to a GRV for Scry any different because it involves one-sided access to hidden information and why the IPG for GRV is structured so that 4000+ judges don't handle it differently on a case-by-case basis.

From this forum and discussions at the GP, I think it is acceptable to apply a GRV for failing to perform a mandatory scry during the resolution of a spell or ability. In any other action, would we not consider “forgetting to do a mandatory action” and “choosing to not do a mandatory action” a GRV? (I'm basing GRV over USC-Cheating for choosing not to do a mandatory action without the criterion of intent for advantage)

I think the policy is pretty clear: backup or don't.

Edit: Said MPG. Meant IPG.

Edited Evan Cherry (Oct. 11, 2013 07:40:44 PM)

Evan, would you consider it a play error if a player, while resolving a scry, simply said “scry” without touching his library to acknowledge the ability without actually carrying it out (because, for example, the player had scried previously and wanted to leave the top card there)? Is acknowledgement sufficient or must there be some degree of physical activity demanded by the game rules?

I agree with you in principle that our example demands a GRV/FTMGS but in reality the circumstances of these situations will vary widely.

Originally posted by Riki Hayashi:

As for the notion that there isn't a prescribed solution in the IPG, I disagree. Back it up or leave it alone.

I can see this being a very “common” Judge call considering the current PTQ season is Sealed, and most of them being Theros Sealed events. So I as a L1 will go by what my RC Riki Hayashi has stated, either back up the game or don't. Either way, a GPE-GRV will be issued as per the IPG to one and most likely both players. I look forward to working with L2 and L3 Judges this coming year to gain more experience in handling these kinds of situations.

Edited Elliot Van Wormer (Oct. 11, 2013 09:28:44 PM)

Aaron:

I feel that acknowledgment of the scry is sufficient if they have already scryed. In that case, they have actually gone through the process of looking at the top card of the library previously and are choosing to skip the dexterity part of having to pick it up and put it back. In this case, the identity of the card is already known. If the player plans to play 2-3 spells with “scry 1” tacked on and know they want the card, requiring them to waste time by picking the card up and looking and putting it back every time does not seem in line with encouraging players to play in a timely manner and not requiring them to be 100% technically correct in their gameplay. They are allowed to establish a shortcut as long as both players understand the end state (I want this card on top).

I can see why allowing it to be ok when the only difference between scrying “again” in a turn and not when scrying in the first place on a “scry 1” spell seems out of synch, but it's a difference between actively taking a shortcut (I've already scryed and choose not to do so again to get the card) and trying to say that they're shortcutting when they forget that they're scrying and putting back, which is not an established shortcut. If the players are close to the wire on time and say “let's not do the scry 1 thing and just keep cards on top so we can finish before time”, they've established a shortcut for their match. I don't expect this to happen.

I agree with you in principle that our example demands a GRV/FTMGS but in reality the circumstances of these situations will vary widely.

I think the trap here is to let circumstances mitigate your decision, which sounds like a trap for determining whether to apply the penalty, and whether to rewind or not. The policy documents are trying to push us towards consistency, so we should be searching for our own internal consistency based on criteria in the documents. What circumstances would cause a judge to deviate from principles?

Edited Evan Cherry (Oct. 12, 2013 12:04:46 AM)

That isn't consistency though.

Let's say I Scry 3 and leave all 3 cards on top. Two turns later I have a
spell that lets me Scry 1. Is it an infraction not to look if and only if I
have forgotten what the top card of my library is from that Scry two turns
ago? What if I both forgot the Scry and remember what the top card is and
want it? I actually wasn't shortcutting, but there is no way for anyone to
tell the difference. So, is it an infraction? Does my opponent need to
remind me to Scry if he thinks I'm just shortcutting even though I forgot?
What if my opponent is dead on board when the spell my Scry is attached to
resolves, making the order of my library 100% irrelevant to the outcome of
the current game? Should we assume the player is shortcutting, or do we
enforce the GRV? Is “I didn't do it because I didn't care what the card
was. The game was over,” really unacceptable? Is it Cheating if I skipped
it because I'm in a hurry to get to game 3?

These are problems inherent in making failure to scry an infraction. They
all cease to exist if you just interpret not picking up a card as choosing
to leave everything the same every time.

For the sake of consistency, it should either always or never be
permissible to skip physically going through the motion of or verbally
indicating a Scry. And the fact that there are fairly common circumstance
that would make you not want to enforce the GRV (like prior Scry effects)
at least suggests that it should always be permissible.

I think that trying not to enforce a GRV for a missed Scry is irrelevant. I can only think of four possibilities when AP fails to Scry (assuming it's not caught immediately):

1) AP calls a judge because he wants to go back and Scry. GRV awarded, no bad feelings (even if you choose not to back up–the player is basically taking a Warning for a chance to redo his missed Scry).

2) AP calls a judge because he wants to do the right thing, but doesn't care about the Scry. HJ may downgrade the Warning to a Caution.

3) NAP calls a judge. GRV for AP, FtMGS for NAP–both players are on equal footing, penalty-wise.

4) No one calls a judge. Nothing happens.


At the end of the day, I think it's better to have fewer exceptions, and just keep a missed Scry as a GRV. It's possible that there might be some feel-bad situations, but I don't believe they come up often enough to warrant adding an exception to the IPG. Heck, players facing a GRV could probably tell the judge that they remembered, but chose not to carry out the physical actions for whatever reason–we're likely to believe them and not issue a penalty, correct?

This is the reason that I believe the missed trigger philosophy needs to be expanded to a “missed beneficial event” where there is a possibility that the beneficial event could potentially leave the game in the exact same state. If a player looks and declines to either change the order of scried cards or put one or more on the bottom of the library, there is no effect on game state in any way and the player has just “missed” the opportunity to acquire private information. If this is handled as a GRV, if a player plays a card with scry 2 and leaves the cards unchanged, should there be 2 GRVs issued if the same player plays two other cards with scry 1 or scry 2 and does not scry because he already knows that the cards are in the exact order that he wants them? In other words, should players be forced to take the extra time to scry when the results are a foregone conclusion? From a pure rules standpoint, the answer is yes. From a spirit or the rules standpoint, the extra scrying is unnecessary and actaually slows gameplay. Extending that logic to the missed trigger logic, a missed scry should be handled as a missed beneficial trigger.

To be fair, I've not had time to monitor this entire thread (there's this Pro Tour thing going on…) - but I do want to report that, at this Pro Tour, there have been a few GRVs awarded due to Scry mistakes.

And, as far as we can tell, the sky has not fallen, the world has not ended. We have had some conversations here; while the L4s touched on most of the points raised in this discussion, and we share some of the concerns, the predominant conclusion is that Scry is just fine the way it is, players will learn to process it correctly, and we don't need to modify policy.

If you have serious concerns about the various pitfalls related to Scry mistakes, please put effort into educating your players; help them become better at technically correct play.

I apologize in advance to those who still had one more thing (heh-only Uncle gets to say “One more thing!”), but I am closing this thread. We've shared a lot of interesting thoughts, and I appreciate all of it - now, take those thoughts and go improve your local community!