Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: Urza's Bauble reveal

  1. #21

    Re: Urza's Bauble reveal

    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 the most formal, strict, and absolute sense of the word) what the rules are. If something were to be mushy-mushy or open to interpretation, then the CompRules would be 'failing' on that particular topic, as small as it may be, and relevant action should be taken to address the shortcoming.

    Now, 701.14 having been pointed out to me by the kind people of #mtgrules, formal interpetation (as it should) of the rules make it clear (at least to me, and in accordance with their explicit answer) that the targeted player doesn't know, so I wouldn't say things are open to interpretation (and it would be a failure if they were). Still, they could certainly appear so, or at least be considered a bit confusing or potentially misleading (one only needs to look at this thread to see they are). In which case, the CompRules are in effect imperfect even if they're formally solid, and I do agree it would be better to have an explicit additional mention.
    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

  2. #22
    !
    jrsthethird's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jan 2010
    Location

    Lehigh Valley, PA
    Posts

    1,669

    Re: Urza's Bauble reveal

    So I'm watching Round 8 of the SCG Team Open in Atlanta and this issue came up in the feature match on camera. The Bomberman player activated Urza's Bauble and the opponent laid out their hand face down and they rolled a die. The targeted player flipped over the card, a Horizon Canopy, and the Bomberman player quickly tried to cover the card as it was flipped so his opponent didn't see it. Didn't work, and both players could see the card. The judge ruled that since the card was known to both players, the effect was actually rewound and the die was rolled again to reveal a card. Bomberman player looked at the card in secret and then reshuffled the opponent's hand so that the actual card that was seen was not known. The ruling was not appealed.

    Thoughts? Should also be noted that, likely because of the impressive feature match, Urza's Bauble became a $5 card over the weekend. This interaction may end up becoming more common and we need a consistent ruling, especially considering that judges i paper don't seem to line up with how MTGO handles it.

  3. #23

    Re: Urza's Bauble reveal

    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 (the targeted player is in no way supposed to know what card has been looked at). So things look like they're being consistent :)
    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

  4. #24

    Re: Urza's Bauble reveal

    Still seems odd. How do you force someone to shuffel his hand. Like ok you roll your dice or whatever and I allow you to look at one card. Now Imho the effect is over so yah what are you gonna do about it? Call the judge that I dont properly shuffle my 2 cards in my hand. How is shuffleng 2 cards even a thing? I would still be able to track them. It alsoe doesnt say "Then shuffle your Hand" implying the order stays.


    I also I dont have to shuffle before these shenenigans. I just lay down my cards (knowing what they are); at some point you have to choose something...
    “Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

  5. #25

    Re: Urza's Bauble reveal

    Quote Originally Posted by HdH_Cthulhu View Post
    Still seems odd. How do you force someone to shuffel his hand. Like ok you roll your dice or whatever and I allow you to look at one card. Now Imho the effect is over so yah what are you gonna do about it? Call the judge that I dont properly shuffle my 2 cards in my hand. How is shuffleng 2 cards even a thing? I would still be able to track them. It alsoe doesnt say "Then shuffle your Hand" implying the order stays.


    I also I dont have to shuffle before these shenenigans. I just lay down my cards (knowing what they are); at some point you have to choose something...
    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 draw step instead of one... that's called cheating.

    But for the sake of argument, it's not like it's impossible nor even difficult to do it correctly. Let the opponent shuffle your cards. He then picks one, looks at it, puts it back, then shuffles them again and gives you your hand back. That's it. If you and your opponent can't agree on these terms, I guess you can always call a judge to shuffle the cards behind his back both times.
    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. #26

    Re: Urza's Bauble reveal

    No NO! I resolve it exactly the way the card is telling me to do.

    Ok I get where you comming from. You have this argument, that "something random is not supposed to be known etc."
    Its a fine argument, but one can bascially argue against it with a similar logic "well it might be supposed to be known etc"

    So lets just look at how this card is intended to be played at the kitchen table. Your friend resolves his bauble action. Then he just grabs a card from your hand and looks at it. Just like the card text told him to do. Pretty simple -> Occam's razor -> I am right!
    “Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

  7. #27

    Re: Urza's Bauble reveal

    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 the answer but also the relevant rules section, which was (at least I felt it indeed was) clear on the matter. So at this point, "opinions" on the card itself don't matter, whether you could do it differently doesn't matter, because that's not what the rules say it is, as confirmed by judges. There's really nothing to say anymore.

    If you're unhappy with this and still want to argue, then it's going to need to be about whether the exact written text of 701.14d is actually clear enough (which I'd say it is, although it could use a couple explicit examples as well). In which case you're probably wasting your time here and should take it to a judge channel.
    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

  8. #28

    Re: Urza's Bauble reveal

    This is really not the place to argue about rules application minutiae. The decision on how this unique effect is handled has been made, and thankfully Wizards long ago deliberately changed their template to avoid printing any more such effects.
    “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)