Search:

If your question is about "what is the intent of the card", well, that was the entire point of the discussion until it was suggested to ask official judges, which I then did, and who gave me not only...

As long as the expected game action has been clarified, saying that you can choose to not resolve it the way the game is telling you to, well, yeah. Just like you can choose to draw two cards on your...

Not that I'm any kind of authority, but 701.14d seemed pretty much clear to me once #mtgrules kindly pointed to its existence. Apparently it was also applied as is in the example you're describing...

Oh, I most certainly don't consider it a critical threat to the current game. It's a very little corner case. Still, it's a matter of principles, if you will. The CompRules are here to formalize (in...

It would also bother me if it turned out to be a matter of opinion ! (More exactly, that'd be quite a damning sign that something would be missing from the rules)

But 701.14d does seem to pretty...

Double post, but that's because I'm just back from the #mtgrules chat and I figured it was worth separating it from my previous post.



So it would indeed actually appear that NO, the player...

I agree with the first sentence, and the implication that sometimes it's simply a question of "basic language meaning".

But "common sense" is already quite fishy. For example, and correct me if...

Well, you would think that it is, but in fact there are lots of different ways to actually do that. And the thing is, there are ones for which you would end up knowing what card was looked at, and...

This is all fine and dandy, but as has been said (and demonstrated why), this in no way makes it a logical implication that you are entitled to know what card your opponent has seen.

Just stumbling into this thread. The logical implication here would merit justification, I'd say (ie by a statement in the comp rules. is there one ?).

To be absolutely explicit, I don't see how...