I honestly don't know if this is the correct place for this question, but I don't know a better place…

I control Sylvan Library. During my upkeep I cast and resolve Brainstorm. Then I draw for the turn and resolve the Library's ability. I want to choose cards drawn with Brainstorm for the Library's instruction to “choose two cards in your hand drawn this turn”. May I?

I know I can do this if I keep the Brainstorm-drawn cards separate from the rest of my hand so my opponent can verify I am making a legal choice. But, as a player, can I ask a judge to observe my play instead to verify the legality of my choice, and just put the cards in my hand with the rest as I resolve Brainstorm? And as a judge, do I have to honor such a request from a player?

(The player who asked me this question is assuring me that this is actually a relevant, non-hypothetical question for a deck he's building.)

Moved to Competitive REL.

Daniel Kitachewsky
L3, Paris, France
Rules NetRep

It's the player's responsibility to keep separate “cards drawn this turn”, as long as Sylvan Library is relevant.

It's not a very effective use of Judge resources to have a Judge monitor that player's draws, for this purpose. I would discourage allowing a player to abdicate any of their responsibilities, just because a judge is watching; I would never support a player making that the judge's responsibility instead of their own.

In short, I can't imagine a scenario in which this is a request that I would grant very often.

d:^D

Looks like Scott Marshall beat me to the punch, but here's what he stated in 2011:

“As you might imagine, the lots of discussion on this list has led to
lots of discussion; we even dragged Wizards' employees in to this.

For Competitive and Professional REL, the player must be aware of
their responsibilities re: Sylvan Library (or, not play it - that's an
option, too). Players will not have an option to return a card that
can't be proven to have been drawn this turn. In the unfortunate
circumstance where
they put all 3 cards into the rest of their hand, they will find
themselves paying 8 life. (Of course, a judge should still do due
diligence, to see if there's any way to prove which cards were already
in hand - say from an opponent's Duress the previous turn.)

For Regular REL - please, PLEASE, educate the player, encourage good
play practices. The harshness of that philosophy *only* makes sense
in the more competitive environments, not at all when governed by
Judging at Regular REL.”

Just a longer version of the succinct 2014 version. :)

Thanks, exactly the answer I was hoping for! :-)

Really? This seems akin to showing a player's hand to another player for the purposes of resolving a judge ruling. If I Brainstorm and my opponent knows how many of the cards I kept, that's giving my opponent information they shouldn't have, information which would not be given if a judge was present for the 4-5 minutes total it would likely take to resolve these actions, and that's an upper limit. Not granting the request for a judge to watch in this scenario seems highly draconian.

Which cards were drawn this turn is public information when there is a Sylvan Library trigger in the air, as it is a detail of past game actions that still affect the game state.

The problem becomes when this player wants to use a judge as their personal assistant every single turn. At no REL would that be acceptable. There's no reasonable way to do so, so for this particular corner situation we tell the player “I'm sorry, but that won't be allowed. Your opponent must be able to verify the draws, a judge is not available for this.” While you might not think that is likely, remember that Snapcaster Mage exists, and is quite good in decks that play Brainstorm.

Allowing this would encourage other players to adopt the same strategy, and that's when it really gets silly.

-Ben Quasnitschka

Originally posted by Ben Quasnitschka:

The problem becomes when this player wants to use a judge as their personal assistant every single turn. At no REL would that be acceptable. There's no reasonable way to do so, so for this particular corner situation we tell the player “I'm sorry, but that won't be allowed. Your opponent must be able to verify the draws, a judge is not available for this.” While you might not think that is likely, remember that Snapcaster Mage exists, and is quite good in decks that play Brainstorm.

Allowing this would encourage other players to adopt the same strategy, and that's when it really gets silly.

-Ben Quasnitschka

Having played Legacy every week for a year at local events that drew about 15 players per week, the Brainstorm/Sylvan Library interaction came up exactly once. Not one match, not one game, one time. Period. In a year of events. It seems to be so common and happens so often that the tournament judge didn't even realize it was a rules interaction that happens until one of the other players in the store explained the situation.

That aside from the fact that Snapcaster Mage is almost never played in the same deck as Sylvan Library, except in very very old RUG Delver variants which play 1-of Sylvan on the sideboard and Snap in the main.

Yeah, I guess if someone comes to the tournament equipped with “LOL let's waste the judges' time and be giant trolls even though our deck sucks, we'll just make all the judges hate us”-dot-dec, then there's a problem. In “normal” cases, though, it almost never comes up.

@Sean: How does this differ from a normal Brainstorm? Is it legal to shuffle the cards in your hand when you Brainstorm, or must you reveal the cards you drew from the Brainstorm in all cases? Consider, for example, the interaction where an Alchemist's Refuge is activated after the upkeep Brainstorm resolves and a Sylvan is flashed into play. How is this handled?

Edited Lyle Waldman (April 9, 2014 11:50:47 PM)

Magic is designed to be played without the intervention of exterior parties to verify the legality of plays. In most cases, this is enforced naturally and fairly unobtrusively by the wording of the cards themselves. For example, if I activate Domri Rade's first ability and find a creature on the top of my library, the effect itself tells me to reveal it. But if I put the top card of my library into my hand without revealing it, I have failed to fulfill my responsibilities as a player in an egregious way.

Sylvan Library is really no different. The controller of the Library is the one who is responsible for ensuring that they can legally carry out the Library's instruction to “choose two cards in your hand drawn this turn.” Even though this isn't written on the card, the only practical way for a player to do this is to physically separate the cards they've drawn this turn from the rest of their hand.

It's not about being draconian or being nice; it's about ensuring that the game is played how it's supposed to be played.

How does this differ from a normal Brainstorm? Is it legal to shuffle the cards in your hand when you Brainstorm, or must you reveal the cards you drew from the Brainstorm in all cases? Consider, for example, the interaction where an Alchemist's Refuge is activated after the upkeep Brainstorm resolves and a Sylvan is flashed into play. How is this handled?

By “normal” Brainstorm I assume you mean a Brainstorm without Sylvan in play. It is certainly legal to shuffle my hand together in that case.

Somehow acquiring a Sylvan Library in my upkeep after I've Brainstormed doesn't really change anything. If I choose to use the Library's ability (which is optional, after all), I need to be able to prove that I drew the cards I want to put back this turn. If I can't, I need to pay 4 life for each of them. (It's a better fix than outright losing the game.)

Originally posted by Paul Baranay:

(It's a better fix than outright losing the game.)

Which infraction would it be when someone puts back cards which aren't verified?
And why would that make them lose the game?

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Really? This seems akin to showing a player's hand to another player for the purposes of resolving a judge ruling. If I Brainstorm and my opponent knows how many of the cards I kept, that's giving my opponent information they shouldn't have, information which would not be given if a judge was present for the 4-5 minutes total it would likely take to resolve these actions, and that's an upper limit. Not granting the request for a judge to watch in this scenario seems highly draconian.

Sometimes what card text means and says might be subtly different, like the Archangel of Thune versus Boros Reckoner case from a while ago.

“Card drawn this turn” should be interpreted as “Cards drawn this turn kept separately from the hand”. If you reveal a creature with Domri Rade that's not “giving my opponent information they shouldn't have”. It's a choice to give your opponent information as part of a beneficial effect. Sylvan Library is the same really. It might not say it in card text like Domri does, but the game rules say it.

Otherwise, miracle opens up a whole can of worms. If we allow judges to verify the legality of Sylvan Library triggers, then how about a miracle card that was just drawn but put into the hand while a judge was watching?

Edited Toby Hazes (April 10, 2014 03:13:24 AM)

/

Originally posted by Richard Drijvers:

Which infraction would it be when someone puts back cards which aren't verified?
And why would that make them lose the game?

Game Play Error–Game Rule Violation, upgraded to a Game Loss per the following in MIPG 2.5…

An error that an opponent can’t verify the legality of should have its penalty upgraded. These errors involve misplaying hidden information, such as the morph ability or failing to reveal a card to prove that a choice made was legal. If the information needed to verify the legality was ever in a uniquely identifiable position (such as on top of the library or as the only card in hand) after the infraction was committed, do not upgrade the penalty and reveal the information if possible.

…as that was a change made in September 2012, as I believe that's when Game Play Error–Failure to Reveal was removed as a separate infraction and was collapsed into general Game Rule Violations. (The situation with Sylvan Library being one of the reasons for this change.) If the opponent can't verify the legality of returning cards drawn this turn, then it is a GPE-GRV, and the penalty issued should be a Game Loss.

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

Otherwise, miracle opens up a whole can of worms. If we allow judges to verify the legality of Sylvan Library triggers, then how about a miracle card that was just drawn but put into the hand while a judge was watching?

I don't understand the comparison being made here. The point I'm trying to get at is that without judge intervention in the Brainstorm + Library case, NAP has information he shouldn't, i.e. the number of cards AP kept from his Brainstorm. In the case you're trying to create here, what is the analogous “broken gamestate” (for lack of a better technical term)?