Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28

Thread: Urza's Bauble reveal

  1. #1
    !
    jrsthethird's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jan 2010
    Location

    Lehigh Valley, PA
    Posts

    1,669

    Urza's Bauble reveal

    I was playing someone on MTGO who was using Urza's Bauble and was surprised that I could see the card that was revealed. He said that he was playing in paper and the judge said that it was random and he shouldn't know. I'm assuming MTGO is correct, but I can't find a ruling to justify it. Any thoughts?

  2. #2

    Re: Urza's Bauble reveal

    Wait.... you're asking if a card that is looked at, at random is known to both players? Yes. You have the right to see your hand at all times, when they look at a card at random, you see what card they look at.

    Sent from my ASUS_Z00TD using Tapatalk
    Belcher
    Delver
    Dredge

    When your heart won't beat, your eyes go black
    There's a light in the tunnel and you can't turn back
    Your friends can't save you, your family's gone
    You're waiting on your judgment at the foot of the throne
    Will you beg for some mercy? Will you cop some pleas?
    Will you stand on your own or get down on your knees?
    Will your angels release you from where demons dwell?
    Will you make it into Heaven or go right back to Hell?
    Only time will tell

  3. #3

    Re: Urza's Bauble reveal

    I'm guessing there might be confusion because players typically put their hand face down to let their opponent randomly choose a card? Your hand zone is still visible to you at all times though, so you know what card it was that your opponent looked at.

    If your opponent chose another player's hand, like his own, then no, you don't know what the card was since the effect is "look" and not "reveal".
    It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.
    -David DeLaney

  4. #4
    !
    jrsthethird's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jan 2010
    Location

    Lehigh Valley, PA
    Posts

    1,669

    Re: Urza's Bauble reveal

    That's what I thought. The judge in the other player's event was wrong then. Thanks.

  5. #5

    Re: Urza's Bauble reveal

    Quote Originally Posted by cdr View Post
    Your hand zone is still visible to you at all times though, so you know what card it was that your opponent looked at.
    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 the fact that "my hand is visible to me at all times" should be enough to logically imply that according to the game rules, I shoud know which card an opponent discovers from my hand.

    - On a computer game, this is obviously not a physical impossibility.
    - On a paper game, you could imagine a system like a judge looking at your hand and then whispering one of the cards to your opponent. I agree it is obviously unrealistic to expect to be able to do this, but this is just to demonstrate there's no physical impossibility here either.

    (Additionally and in fact, i'd say just because something implicit would happen to be (or seem) physically undoable is no justification for it not being stated in the rules, if only for the sake of being explicit. Anyway, as seen above, the current example is actually feasible in both paper and online worlds.)

    So, is there an explicit ruling or mention somewhere on this particular question ?

    Unless there is, then letting you know really is an assumption that actually can not be derived from the rules. Meaning it's not part of the rules and thus it's undecided at best.
    Quote Originally Posted by cdr View Post
    140x Relentless Rats
    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Bleiweiss
    I wish that Wizards would have just gone ahead and done away with the Reserved List entirely. It is nothing but a blight on the game and one that long outlived its purpose. [...] I am wholeheartedly in favor of getting rid of the Reserved List and reprinting higher-dollar staple cards from EDH and Legacy. Pete Hoefling the owner of StarCityGames.com agrees with my point of view as well.
    - Ben Bleiweiss, SCG General Manager, Feb 2010

  6. #6

    Re: Urza's Bauble reveal

    The card is chosen at random, you will see what card is chosen....

    402.3: A player may arrange his or her hand in any convenient fashion and look at it as much as he or she wishes. A player can't look at the cards in another player's hand but may count those cards at any time.

    , Sacrifice Urza's Bauble: Look at a card at random in target player's hand. You draw a card at the beginning of the next turn's upkeep.

    Sent from my ASUS_Z00TD using Tapatalk
    Belcher
    Delver
    Dredge

    When your heart won't beat, your eyes go black
    There's a light in the tunnel and you can't turn back
    Your friends can't save you, your family's gone
    You're waiting on your judgment at the foot of the throne
    Will you beg for some mercy? Will you cop some pleas?
    Will you stand on your own or get down on your knees?
    Will your angels release you from where demons dwell?
    Will you make it into Heaven or go right back to Hell?
    Only time will tell

  7. #7
    !
    jrsthethird's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jan 2010
    Location

    Lehigh Valley, PA
    Posts

    1,669

    Re: Urza's Bauble reveal

    From my conversation with the original player, when the judge was called for the paper game, they laid the cards face down on the table, rolled a die to determine the random peek, and then shuffled the hand before returning it back to the player.

    Given that this is standard procedure for random hand actions (i.e. Hymn to Tourach), it's understandable for a sloppy player to scoop up the hand and miss what card was chosen. If that happens, and you don't keep track of which card was revealed, too bad. However, I don't think there's anything in the rules that allows for you to not know where a card in your hand is at all times.

  8. #8

    Re: Urza's Bauble reveal

    Quote Originally Posted by Beatusnox View Post
    The card is chosen at random, you will see what card is chosen....

    402.3: A player may arrange his or her hand in any convenient fashion and look at it as much as he or she wishes. A player can't look at the cards in another player's hand but may count those cards at any time.

    , Sacrifice Urza's Bauble: Look at a card at random in target player's hand. You draw a card at the beginning of the next turn's upkeep.

    Sent from my ASUS_Z00TD using Tapatalk
    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.
    Last edited by ParkerLewis; 03-06-2017 at 06:06 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by cdr View Post
    140x Relentless Rats
    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Bleiweiss
    I wish that Wizards would have just gone ahead and done away with the Reserved List entirely. It is nothing but a blight on the game and one that long outlived its purpose. [...] I am wholeheartedly in favor of getting rid of the Reserved List and reprinting higher-dollar staple cards from EDH and Legacy. Pete Hoefling the owner of StarCityGames.com agrees with my point of view as well.
    - Ben Bleiweiss, SCG General Manager, Feb 2010

  9. #9

    Re: Urza's Bauble reveal

    Just because common short cutting or procedure places your hand down to choose something at random does not make it so.

    It seems like you're being intentionally obtuse here.

    You look at a random card in a players hand. It is pretty straightforward. I can take the opposite line from you and say "this is all fine and dandy, but as has been said (and demonstrated why), this in no way make it a logical implication that you aren't entitled to know what card your opponent has seen."

    As stated above by CDR if they choose you, you will see what card is chosen. Of they choose not you, you don't.

    Sent from my ASUS_Z00TD using Tapatalk
    Belcher
    Delver
    Dredge

    When your heart won't beat, your eyes go black
    There's a light in the tunnel and you can't turn back
    Your friends can't save you, your family's gone
    You're waiting on your judgment at the foot of the throne
    Will you beg for some mercy? Will you cop some pleas?
    Will you stand on your own or get down on your knees?
    Will your angels release you from where demons dwell?
    Will you make it into Heaven or go right back to Hell?
    Only time will tell

  10. #10

    Re: Urza's Bauble reveal

    Quote Originally Posted by Beatusnox View Post
    You look at a random card in a players hand. It is pretty straightforward.
    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 ones for which you wouldn't. Both in the paper world and the computer world. Which is basically exactly why, unless it is very specifically referenced somewhere, the answer to the question is in fact really not as obvious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beatusnox View Post
    I can take the opposite line from you and say "this is all fine and dandy, but as has been said (and demonstrated why), this in no way make it a logical implication that you aren't entitled to know what card your opponent has seen."
    "You can't assume A" doesn't contradict "you can't assume A".

    Quote Originally Posted by Beatusnox View Post
    As stated above by CDR if they choose you, you will see what card is chosen.
    Not that I don't trust cdr, quite the opposite, but I'm just the kind of person who can't accept an answer as definite unless explicit proof is available, especially when the subject is delicate and/or hazardous, which it actually is. It's only true if it's explicitly written in the rules (or referenced somewhere as an official ruling or equivalent). Is it, or is it not ? After a quick search for the word "hand", I have not been able to find a relevant mention in the CompRules.

    [And please, no, 402.3 in no way answers the question. If you really don't see why, that's really really fine, but let's please not go around in circles.]
    Last edited by ParkerLewis; 03-08-2017 at 06:54 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by cdr View Post
    140x Relentless Rats
    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Bleiweiss
    I wish that Wizards would have just gone ahead and done away with the Reserved List entirely. It is nothing but a blight on the game and one that long outlived its purpose. [...] I am wholeheartedly in favor of getting rid of the Reserved List and reprinting higher-dollar staple cards from EDH and Legacy. Pete Hoefling the owner of StarCityGames.com agrees with my point of view as well.
    - Ben Bleiweiss, SCG General Manager, Feb 2010

  11. #11

    Re: Urza's Bauble reveal

    Just because you want the rule that answers your question to be incorrect does not make it so.

    Sent from my ASUS_Z00TD using Tapatalk
    Belcher
    Delver
    Dredge

    When your heart won't beat, your eyes go black
    There's a light in the tunnel and you can't turn back
    Your friends can't save you, your family's gone
    You're waiting on your judgment at the foot of the throne
    Will you beg for some mercy? Will you cop some pleas?
    Will you stand on your own or get down on your knees?
    Will your angels release you from where demons dwell?
    Will you make it into Heaven or go right back to Hell?
    Only time will tell

  12. #12

    Re: Urza's Bauble reveal

    Quote Originally Posted by Beatusnox View Post
    Just because you want the rule that answers your question to be incorrect does not make it so.

    Sent from my ASUS_Z00TD using Tapatalk
    Nowhere does he say he wants the rule to be different, he is simply suggesting that "you get to know the identity of the revealed card" doesn't follow logically from "you are allowed to know the contents of your hand at all times" and he has cogent arguments, especially the point that this can easily be executed either way in the real life card game.

    The closest example I can think of is Library of Leng vs e.g. Hymn to Tourach, where if you have Library on the battlefield and an effect makes you discard cards at random you do get to know which cards are randomly chosen, and individually decide for each card whether you want to put it on top of your library or not. In my mind this does lend credence to the position of "if a card from your hand is randomly selected you do get to know which card it is" but it could be argued that this situation is too different, due to the fact that cards are changing zones and there is an element of decision-making involved. (Compared to the Urza's Bauble scenario any alternate ways of resolving this interaction are also far less elegant or intuitive - I have to decide whether to put unknown face-down cards on top of my library? Library of Leng just doesn't work for random discards? etc)

  13. #13

    Re: Urza's Bauble reveal

    Quote Originally Posted by ParkerLewis View Post
    Not that I don't trust cdr, quite the opposite, but I'm just the kind of person who can't accept an answer as definite unless explicit proof is available, especially when the subject is delicate and/or hazardous, which it actually is. It's only true if it's explicitly written in the rules (or referenced somewhere as an official ruling or equivalent). Is it, or is it not ? After a quick search for the word "hand", I have not been able to find a relevant mention in the CompRules.

    [And please, no, 402.3 in no way answers the question. If you really don't see why, that's really really fine, but let's please not go around in circles.]
    The comp rules cannot contain everything, even as lengthy as they are. This one falls under "basic English language meaning", or "common sense".

    Whenever someone selects a card, you know which particular card was selected. Even if the selected card is in a hidden unordered zone like exiled-face-down, you can still track the selected card and if it gets revealed later (like getting played) you will know which card it was. Since your hand is a zone that's visible to you, you will immediately know what the selected card was.

    If you want to discuss it further, try the Magic Judges chat.
    It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.
    -David DeLaney

  14. #14

    Re: Urza's Bauble reveal

    Quote Originally Posted by kombatkiwi View Post
    Nowhere does he say he wants the rule to be different, he is simply suggesting that "you get to know the identity of the revealed card" doesn't follow logically from "you are allowed to know the contents of your hand at all times" and he has cogent arguments, especially the point that this can easily be executed either way in the real life card game.

    The closest example I can think of is Library of Leng vs e.g. Hymn to Tourach, where if you have Library on the battlefield and an effect makes you discard cards at random you do get to know which cards are randomly chosen, and individually decide for each card whether you want to put it on top of your library or not. In my mind this does lend credence to the position of "if a card from your hand is randomly selected you do get to know which card it is" but it could be argued that this situation is too different, due to the fact that cards are changing zones and there is an element of decision-making involved. (Compared to the Urza's Bauble scenario any alternate ways of resolving this interaction are also far less elegant or intuitive - I have to decide whether to put unknown face-down cards on top of my library? Library of Leng just doesn't work for random discards? etc)
    As an aside, you need to look at the errata for library. Library of Leng

    Artifact
    5E
    You have no maximum hand size.
    If an effect causes you to discard a card, discard it, but you may put it on top of your library instead of into your graveyard.

    The "at random" was taken off the card for the 5E release, and the Oracle text is as above.

    Sent from my ASUS_Z00TD using Tapatalk
    Belcher
    Delver
    Dredge

    When your heart won't beat, your eyes go black
    There's a light in the tunnel and you can't turn back
    Your friends can't save you, your family's gone
    You're waiting on your judgment at the foot of the throne
    Will you beg for some mercy? Will you cop some pleas?
    Will you stand on your own or get down on your knees?
    Will your angels release you from where demons dwell?
    Will you make it into Heaven or go right back to Hell?
    Only time will tell

  15. #15

    Re: Urza's Bauble reveal

    Quote Originally Posted by Beatusnox View Post
    As an aside, you need to look at the errata for library. Library of Leng

    Artifact
    5E
    You have no maximum hand size.
    If an effect causes you to discard a card, discard it, but you may put it on top of your library instead of into your graveyard.

    The "at random" was taken off the card for the 5E release, and the Oracle text is as above.

    Sent from my ASUS_Z00TD using Tapatalk
    The card still functions the same way, the errata was not functional. Refer to the Gatherer ruling from 2004. (5th edition was released in 1997).
    10/4/2004 You can look at a randomly discarded card before deciding where it goes.

  16. #16

    Re: Urza's Bauble reveal

    Quote Originally Posted by cdr View Post
    The comp rules cannot contain everything, even as lengthy as they are. This one falls under "basic English language meaning", or "common sense".
    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 I'm wrong, once upon a time "at random" was not defined anywhere, "assuming" that it would logically follow that "at random" means "according to a uniform distribution across all possible outcomes". Then someone either pointed it out, or someone else abused this (don't know which), and now this is explicitly stated (and in the Comp Rules themselves if I'm not mistaken, or at least on the cards official rulings).

    Also, let's not forget that even with this apart, "common sense" is everything but a given for a game with a global audience and played by players of sometimes very different cultures. Not saying that relying on "common sense" is systematically wrong, but it for sure can be and should be avoided whenever possible, and especially in a document such as the Comp Rules.

    Quote Originally Posted by cdr View Post
    Whenever someone selects a card, you know which particular card was selected. Even if the selected card is in a hidden unordered zone like exiled-face-down, you can still track the selected card and if it gets revealed later (like getting played) you will know which card it was. Since your hand is a zone that's visible to you, you will immediately know what the selected card was.

    If you want to discuss it further, try the Magic Judges chat
    I get what you're saying, but I have an issue is with the initial sentence. I just don't see where I can make this premise from the CompRules (most notably given how it's not only totally possible to do it in a way that does not imply this, and also because depending on the medium, the most natural / easy / direct way of doing so does sometimes NOT imply it). I will do as you suggest and try to submit this to a Magic Judges chat.

    Thanks to you and others who got the gist of the issue and why there actually can be one.
    Last edited by ParkerLewis; 03-10-2017 at 06:57 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by cdr View Post
    140x Relentless Rats
    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Bleiweiss
    I wish that Wizards would have just gone ahead and done away with the Reserved List entirely. It is nothing but a blight on the game and one that long outlived its purpose. [...] I am wholeheartedly in favor of getting rid of the Reserved List and reprinting higher-dollar staple cards from EDH and Legacy. Pete Hoefling the owner of StarCityGames.com agrees with my point of view as well.
    - Ben Bleiweiss, SCG General Manager, Feb 2010

  17. #17

    Re: Urza's Bauble reveal

    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.

    <ParkerLew> Hi, I have a question that is as much rules as logic and what can be assumed that is actually not stated anywhere in the Comprules (at least couldn't find it)
    <ParkerLew> If an effect (like Urza's Bauble) allows you to look at another player's hand AT RANDOM, should this player KNOW what card you ended up seeing / look at ? Actually, I am most interested in the proof of the answer, as I can't find any way to infer it from the CompRules (402.3 is not enough to imply this)
    <Volo> ParkerLew: !107.14d is probably the one you're after.
    <Datatog> 2 entries similar to "107.14d." found: (1) 107.14. (2) 107.4d.
    <Volo> !701.14d
    <Datatog> 701.14d. Some effects instruct a player to look at one or more cards. Looking at a card follows the same rules as revealing a card, except that the card is shown only to the specified player.
    <ParkerLew> ah
    <Volo> The player whose card you're looking at is under no rights to know the card
    <ParkerLew> thank you
    So it would indeed actually appear that NO, the player you're targeting does NOT know which card you've looked at (701.14d).

    Interestingly, everything stems from the use of the word "look". If it had been "reveal" (a term for which basic language meaning is indeed very clear this time), then 'obviously' both players would have known.

    [As an aside, I was arguing before that 402.3 wasn't enough to conclude that the targeted player should know. While I'm convinced from 701.14d and the answer I got that said targeted player indeed doesn't know, there's a very tiny part of me that can't help thinking there also *might* be some fallacy here making us still unable to conclude. 701.14d is only dismissive of the action of SHOWING it to the targeted player, not of him knowing which one was SELECTED. If the ComRules are silent about this, I have far less trouble assuming players don't have access to info unless explicitly stated otherwise, than the opposite (assuming they do have access unless explicitly stated otherwise), so this possible 'reverse' fallacy does not actually bother me. End of the aside]
    Quote Originally Posted by cdr View Post
    140x Relentless Rats
    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Bleiweiss
    I wish that Wizards would have just gone ahead and done away with the Reserved List entirely. It is nothing but a blight on the game and one that long outlived its purpose. [...] I am wholeheartedly in favor of getting rid of the Reserved List and reprinting higher-dollar staple cards from EDH and Legacy. Pete Hoefling the owner of StarCityGames.com agrees with my point of view as well.
    - Ben Bleiweiss, SCG General Manager, Feb 2010

  18. #18

    Re: Urza's Bauble reveal

    Huh, that's a different opinion than what I've heard before and I don't know that person. If no one corrected them, though, I guess maybe that's the current opinion.
    It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.
    -David DeLaney

  19. #19

    Re: Urza's Bauble reveal

    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 much solve the matter, without having to rely on a matter of opinion (?). If not for this specific reference, I for sure wouldn't have accepted that answer any more than the other I previously encountered here :)

    In any case, if you think there might be something weird, asking again is always possible.
    Quote Originally Posted by cdr View Post
    140x Relentless Rats
    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Bleiweiss
    I wish that Wizards would have just gone ahead and done away with the Reserved List entirely. It is nothing but a blight on the game and one that long outlived its purpose. [...] I am wholeheartedly in favor of getting rid of the Reserved List and reprinting higher-dollar staple cards from EDH and Legacy. Pete Hoefling the owner of StarCityGames.com agrees with my point of view as well.
    - Ben Bleiweiss, SCG General Manager, Feb 2010

  20. #20

    Re: Urza's Bauble reveal

    701.14d. is really only relevant to hidden zones or multiplayer. Your hand is already visible to you at all times.

    Occasionally things are a bit open to interpretation I guess. Is this one important? I don't think so. It's only relevant to the one dated card, as far as I know. Things that cross a certain threshold of relevance get added to the comp rules.
    It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.
    -David DeLaney

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)