Artichoke casts Ancient Stirrings, sets his hand aside and picks up the top five cards of his library. He looks through them for a moment, rearranging them a bit while thinking. It's at this point he realizes that he's looking at six cards instead of five. Judges are called, and after much investigation, intent is ruled out.

What is the infraction and remedy?

(I'd share what I did in the RL scenario that inspired this one but I'm fairly certain it was embarrassingly wrong.)

Edited Aaron Huntsman (June 29, 2014 08:59:47 PM)

Looking at Extra Cards.

Put back a random one of the 6, shuffle the random portion of the library,
continue resolving Ancient Stirrings.

I would rule Game Play Error - Game Rule Violation - Improperly resolving Ancient Stirrings.

Randomly pick one of the revealed cards and shuffle it into the unknown portion of the library. Continue resolving Ancient Stirrings.

GPR-GRV is more of catch-all: “If it's a GRV that isn't one of those other things, then it's probably this”

Since the actual error in resolution was “Looking at 6” instead of “Looking at 5”, we're literally in “Looking at Extra Cards” land, so we don't need the catch-all. I also like the “shuffle 1 card away” fix.

GPE - Looking at Extra Cards.

Issue a Warning. Randomly select one of the six, shuffle it back into the library, continue resolving Ancient Stirrings.

GPE - GRV has the same result, so it would be fine. L@EC fits better though.

This should be GPE-L@EC,
shuffle 1 of the revealed card back into the library,
continue resolving Ancient Stirrings

(If it's a GRV, the back up will only put back a random card on top of the library, without shuffling it, unlike L@EC where we shuffle the card to keep it unknown.)

We have a card whose identity should not reasonably be known under the circumstances. Why wouldn't we shuffle even if it was a GRV (accounting for known cards as usual, of course)? These aren't cards in hand so I have a hard time believing that shuffling will cause any particular damage to the game.

The Game Play Error (GPE) section of the IPG should be parsed “top-down”; as soon as you find a specific infraction that fits (and actually IS a GPE), then you apply that.

Since Game Rule Violation is the last GPE listed, GRV only applies when none of the preceding GPEs apply.

So, we see this is GPE - Looking at Extra Cards, and we assess that penalty (Warning), apply the Remedy that's appropriate (I agree with randomly choosing one of the six to shuffle away), and carry on (perhaps including a time extension, if that took you more than a minute).

Note that we will also ask if Artichoke has already seen any of those top six, maybe from a Scry effect (standard procedure for L@EC). If so, we may have to believe what Arty says, about which card(s) he's previously known. Set those aside, then randomly choose one of the others to shuffle away.

Hopefully, Arty isn't Artful Dodger, and doesn't angle-shoot this opportunity - or, hopefully, if he does he's really bad at lying to us, and we catch it.

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

as soon as you find a specific infraction that fits (and actually IS a GPE)

Sorry, thick wording there…

First, determine if a Game Rule has been violated - i.e., something in the Comprehensive Rules. Violations of the MTR are not GRVs.

Then, parse the GPE section, top-down, to see if any of the specific GPEs apply. If not, GRV is the catch-all that applies.

Note also that I said GRV is the last GPE - it's not, since Failure to Maintain Game State is listed after that - but FtMGS is a specific side-effect of an opponent's GPE, and not an infraction that can be earned by the player breaking the rules.

d:^D

Thanks for the responses. I just wanted some confirmation that the “shuffle one at random” fix was generally acceptable, as I was certain it was L@EC. In this case it mattered because it was the player's third L@EC infraction (in the span of about twenty minutes).

Just curious, because it's relevant to the actual situation (though not necessarily the proposed situation). Since it was the players third L@EC, did the HJ consider upgrading the penalty to a GL?

Originally posted by Darcy Alemany:

Since it was the players third L@EC, did the HJ consider upgrading the penalty to a GL?

The penalty was upgraded to a GL.