Hello,

This came up in the final Swiss round of the God of Modern event at Hareruya last weekend:

Anton controls Lantern of Insight. Norbert casts Thirst for Knowledge in Anton's end step, draws 3 cards, untaps, draws a revealed Elspeth, Knight Errant for for his turn, plays a land and casts the Elspeth. This is when a nearby judge notices the Thirst for Knowledge in the graveyard and asks what was discarded for it. Norbert realizes that he forgot to discard for Thirst. During the interviews, neither player is sure whether or not cards #2 and #3 were revealed during the draw for Thirst but most likely they weren't. The Head Judge was involved almost immediately and a few minutes of deliberation ensued.

In the end, Norbert got a GPE-HCE and Anton chose 2 cards to shuffle back into the random portion of Norbert's library. Anton got a GPE-GRV for not having Norbert reveal cards on top of his library as he drew them. We have discussed this ruling at the store for the past two days and something doesn't feel quite right since the failure to discard is more of a GRV and the extra card(s) should end up in the Graveyard. What do you think?

Also, how should we rule if it was a Weave Fate cast by Norbert instead, and he failed to reveal as he drew? My instinct is to rule GPE-HCE and since the number of cards drawn and resulting hand size is legal, have Norbert reveal his hand and have Anton choose 0 cards to shuffle back into the random portion of the library. But since there is no condition tied to the revealed cards like with Domri Rade, perhaps this is just a GRV and we leave things as they are?

Thanks in advance for your opinions!

Resolving the spell incorrectly is, in and of itself, a GRV. However, as a direct consequence of the incorrect resolution, the player ended up with an excess of cards in a hidden zone (their hand), which “morphs” this into HCE instead. The excess is two cards, and having them get shuffled into the library instead of going in the graveyard is one of the consequences for HCE. I would have ruled the same way.

I'm not completely sure that I agree with the GRV for Anton, however. That's one of those things that's hard to make a call on without having been on the location to investigate, though. If Norbert drew the cards to quickly for Anton to be able to interject that they should be revealed, he can't be held responsible for it.
If the investigation concluded that it's likely that Anton had the opportunity to object to the top card not being revealed at all times, then I'm fine with the GRV. Otherwise, I would have issued a FTMGS for them not calling out the failure to discard when resolving the Thirst. The new “double GRV” clause is not entirely easy to translate into something actionable, in my opinion.

In the hypothetical Weave Fate-case, I agree with your resolution of HCE, with the fix of revealing the hand an selecting zero cards.

I'm more inclined to call this a GRV. Forgetting to discard after you draw seems like a error that can be catched puplicly but leads to a uncorrectable situation if not dealt with it. Also, there is still a example in the IPG under GRV:

Originally posted by GPE - Game Rule Violation Examples:

E. A Player casts Brainstorm and forgets to put two Cards back on the top of his library.

I would let Norbert discard now and the game continues. I personally dont agree with the GRV for Anton as well, Anton isn't responsible for the Game Rule Violation - Norbert has to remind himself that there is Lantern of Insight on the battlefield so he Needs to reveal all drawn Cards.

Example E from GRV:

E. A player casts Brainstorm and forgets to put two cards back on top of his library.

also, additional remedy:

If a player forgot to draw cards, discard cards, or return cards from their hand to another zone, that player does so.

So we have GRV there - additional cards in Norbert hands are result of incorrectly resolved spell.
Since both players are not sure if drawn cards were revealed I don't see infraction there and I think punishing players for that might feel wron, especially if they realise later that Norbert revealed those cards while drawing.

For the Weave Fate scenario, I think HCE “for 0” would be nice solution there, but I'm not sure if it's supported by policy that way.

http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/25048/

Kinda simular situation, GRV not HCE.