I believe, Nathaniel, that the distinction is a player accidentally picking up 2 cards on a Scry 1 vs. a player saying “Scry 2” when it's supposed to be a Scry 1. Basically, accidentally messing up a Scry 1 vs. Scrying more than the Scry effect calls for because you thought it was supposed to be more. If they've improperly executed the Scry instruction they were trying to execute, then we're likely looking at L@EC. If they've executed the wrong Scry instruction, then we're more likely in HEC territory.

I invite anyone to correct me if I have misinterpreted.

Sent from my iPad

The way I understand it, the distinction between LEC and HCE has to to with exactly what action you're performing and whether you've made an error in the completion of that action. For example:

The action “draw a card” involves picking up a card from the top of your library and putting it into your hand. If instead you pick up 2 cards and look at them before moving them to your hand then the rest of the error can go one of two ways: either you finish adding the cards to your hand or you stop yourself before you get that far. The first situation is an HCE because you drew too many cards. The second is just LEC, because you haven't completed an erroneous “draw” action, you just saw a card you weren't supposed to see while you were trying to start the action.

For “scry N”, looking at N cards completes the action. If you look at N+1 cards then you've made an error with the “scry” action and now it's HCE. The only way to avoid the error after picking up too many cards is to put them down before looking at them, and in that case no infraction has been committed at all.

Edited Michael Shiver (April 14, 2016 03:52:36 PM)

Before we get too far off track, let me point out a thread where we've previously tackled the HCE/LEC line. I don't want this thread to go too far off into that territory, because I'm genuinely interested in the MPE vs Everything Else line that this thread is trying to resolve.

What we discovered in that thread is that if it's clear to everyone what the order is - if the players could agree on the “correct” game state without our intervention - it isn't HCE. HCE is a separate infraction /because/ at least one of the players doesn't have, and could not have gotten, all the information needed to 1) verify that actions were taken legally, or 2) return the game to the correct state.

So, Mulligan Procedure Error. Does the fix even apply to this situation? Does it make sense to have a player mulligan a hand of cards that he's already kept, and that hasn't had anything bad happen to it?

Originally posted by Nathaniel Lawrence:

Scry 2 instead of Scry 1

That's when you thought you were supposed to Scry 2, not when you dislodge a 2nd card and see it.

d:^D

While the mulligan “scry” is technically the same action and process as a Scry 1, it's not worded so in the Comprehensive Rules so the fact that HCE mentions Scry 2 instead of Scry 1 doesn't automatically make misplaying the part of the mulligan process HCE.

That aside, it definitely feels more like L@EC or HCE (depending on whether the order has been maintained) than MPE. While I understand that MPE is supposed to supercede HCE for pre-game things, it's primarily to deal with the mulliganing issues drawing too many cards after mulliganing, mulliganing after the mulligan “scry” etc.

While I understand the purpose behind separating HCE and MPE, I think we may need to do some more clarification and cleanup of the IPG here. We've been talking about the line Scott indicated (before the game begun vs. after) insofar as it applies to HCE vs MPE, but I'm not really clear on why HCE cannot apply during pregame. Obviously all the TE can apply before a game. I'm not sure how Missed Trigger could, but certainly L@EC can, as Scott confirmed in his earlier post in this thread. While technically after mulligans, improperly resolving a Gemstone Cavern ability or a Leyline could result in a GRV/FtMGS also. So, only HCE cannot apply during pregame. If we could apply it, the fix here is clear, intuitive, and likely more satisfying to the players. But, it appears that we cannot. Why not?

Obviously, the easy answer is “because then there's no reason for MPE,” but surely we can do better than that. I will grant that I do not see a reason not to apply MPE and its additional fix to this situation, but it certainly doesn't appear very logical, and I can easily imagine players being unhappy with our explanation.

It's also worth considering that, if nothing else, HCE and MPE should probably be switched in numbering in the IPG if we are continuing to apply the flow-chart logic of the last iteration of the IPG. That way, the clear answer here could be “MPE applies first because it comes up first in the GPE section.” As it is, applying flow-chart logic leaves us never using MPE, which is clearly incorrect.

Sent from my iPad

I don't think we need to appeal to any special corner case or order-of-infractions logic here to understand why Scry 1 on 7 or Scry 2 on 6, preceded or followed by an intent to keep, should be treated as MPE.

The IPG already indicates, “If a player looks at the top card of his or her library after taking a mulligan, it is assumed that they have chosen to keep their hand unless they make it very clear that they intend to mulligan again, either verbally before looking or by picking up multiple cards from the top of their deck.”

A player is doing a thing listed in the IPG as clearly indicating that they intend to mulligan by picking up additional cards from the top of their deck. And they are doing so after indicating that they intend to keep the hand. Textbook MPE.

Edited Joshua Feingold (April 15, 2016 06:12:23 AM)

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

I can't imagine where this player got the idea it was Scry X, with X=number of mulligans! - and it just won't happen enough to justify a change to how all the “normal” MPEs are handled.

d:^D

There's a number of kids in my Middle School Magic Club who I correct on this every time they mull to five, and they still get it wrong the next time it comes up. The idea that you Scry for each card you're missing isn't a big step in logic. Additionally mulligans aren't incredibly common, and mulligans to 5 are even less common. So it doesn't come up often enough for people to correct misconceptions.

I wouldn't assume this is an incredibly uncommon incorrect assumption.

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

A player is doing a thing listed in the IPG as clearly indicating that they intend to mulligan by picking up additional cards from the top of their deck. And they are doing so after indicating that they intend to keep the hand. Textbook MPE.

I'm going to agree in principle. Yet Adam's original post here, and subsequent discussion, very much matches another discussion he led in a different forum for other Judges. While this is an MPE, it's something that is a bit confusing in my opinion. I think that while a revision isn't necessary, some additional clarity can bring a lot to the party. Adding an example with the next iteration of the IPG doesn't cost much and would help better define the difference here. If we were to say under examples in MPE, “Any scry error prior to turn one,” (apologies for templating) and if it helps better define this and precludes Judges from issuing HCE incorrectly, then that's a win, right?

I do want to say I've delved deeper on this policy than I have with any other and have enjoyed the experience. I really feel I've learned something valuable here, so to everyone who have contributed, thank you. :)