Ixalan Policy Updates.

[square_two]

Policy changes for Ixalan include making sure that your opponent is choosing not to do an optional thing from one of your spells/abilities.

Ghost Quarter them? If they don't go grab a basic then you have to confirm that they are choosing not to. Ditto with Path to Exile and Veteran Explorer. :/

Link (https://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2017/09/25/policy-changes-for-ixalan/)


Recently, there’s been some question about what we expect players to do when they play a spell or ability – most commonly Path to Exile, but Ghost Quarter comes up, too – and their opponent doesn’t do an optional part of the instruction. Since it’s optional, that’s theoretically a legal result, even if they didn’t realize that they had the option. Given the preponderance of textless and foreign cards, and communication rules that don’t require you to explain everything a card does (because that way lies madness), there was incentive for scurvy dogs to not bring up those parts of a card.

Revised communication rules have added text to preempt this. Now, if a spell or ability you play gives an opponent a choice, you must get confirmation from them that they aren’t doing the optional thing. You still don’t have to remind them while they decide if they want to respond, but once it resolves and the time comes, no making assumptions...

[Ronald Deuce]

Policy changes for Ixalan include making sure that your opponent is choosing not to do an optional thing from one of your spells/abilities.

Ghost Quarter them? If they don't go grab a basic then you have to confirm that they are choosing not to. Ditto with Path to Exile and Veteran Explorer. :/

Link (https://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2017/09/25/policy-changes-for-ixalan/)

That makes a lot of sense from a sportsmanship perspective, but it definitely undercuts an important element of the game. I guess it's nice they're making it harder for people to win off the back of "obscure clause on an obscure card in Korean," but I've had a lot of games/matches that were decided by people's forgetting to do or failing to notice something important. I've been that person, and so have my opponents.

I guess it's good that they're (perhaps unwittingly) touching on the difference between not knowing how cards work and not noticing details in board-states.

[Cire]

but I've had a lot of games/matches that were decided by people's forgetting to do or failing to notice something important. I've been that person, and so have my opponents.
I actually like this change due to this reason - I hate losing because of that AND I hate winning like that

[TsumiBand]

There are Jedi mind tricks, and then there are foreign cards with optional effects that you leave it to your opponent to remember. I think it's underhanded to introduce this kind of obfuscation in a card game with tens of thousands of game pieces with varied text, so this new rule is fine by me.

[ReAnimator]

Hooray!!! no more scum bagging and feel bads from Tabernacle.


@Mods

Can this be a separate thread? Seems like there is a discussion to be had over this and it doesn't have anything to do with the Ixalan set.

[Claymore]

But Tabernacle gives the ability to the opponent...

[Crimhead]

Hooray!!! no more scum bagging and feel bads from Tabernacle.

Of course there are the people who purposely don't pay because they think it's on the Tabernacle player to remember. They deserve what they get.


Dinosaurs and Pirates. I still can't get over the ridiculousness of that combination of themes. It's like something out of a Calvin and Hobbes fantasy sequence.
I have no issues with pirates exploring tropical islands in a fantasy setting ala Arthur Conan Doyle - I actually like this. And the merfolk make perfect sense in a nautical world. I do feel like the vampires are tacked on though. Skeletons would have been a much better fit imo.

[Canderson3000]

Does the change affect Tabernacle at all? Or is it only on the Tabernacle player to advise their opponent if the new "ability" once when it comes into play?

[Ronald Deuce]

I do feel like the vampires are tacked on though. Skeletons would have been a much better fit imo.

Wizards is making a point about the historical nature of the Conquistadors—they're bleeding everything dry literally, in Ixalan, as well as metaphorically.

[H]

Does the change affect Tabernacle at all? Or is it only on the Tabernacle player to advise their opponent if the new "ability" once when it comes into play?

No, it won't change anything for that. The actual rule is:


During the resolution of one of their spells or abilities, a player may not assume their opponent has taken a shortcut. They must seek confirmation that a choice with no visible impact was taken.

One, Tabernacle is neither a spell nor an ability you control (it's the creature, who they control's ability) and also it has a definite visible impact. It would just be a missed trigger on their part, which you aren't responsible to remind them of.

[Dice_Box]

@Mods

Can this be a separate thread? Seems like there is a discussion to be had over this and it doesn't have anything to do with the Ixalan set.
Sounds reasonable.

For the record, this will only effect triggers I control that are optional. In Lands this is basically Ghost Quarter and little else. Tabernacle is a global effect, just like the early Lords are. I don't have to remind you your Mutavault could hit me for Lethal thanks to a stats boost and Islandwalk and I also don't have to remind you your creatures now have a upkeep trigger.

[ReAnimator]

Sounds reasonable.

For the record, this will only effect triggers I control that are optional. In Lands this is basically Ghost Quarter and little else. Tabernacle is a global effect, just like the early Lords are. I don't have to remind you your Mutavault could hit me for Lethal thanks to a stats boost and Islandwalk and I also don't have to remind you your creatures now have a upkeep trigger.


Thank you!


Hrm, the tabernacle thing seems like it is sort of against the spirit of this, but it does make sense.


Overall i think this is a great change, i personally hate winning on technicalities, and want wins to come from my own play and skills not on my opponent not knowing how cards work or being confused.

[PirateKing]

A quick gatherer search for card text "opponent may" brought back 31 cards, nothing notable. Searching for "controller may" brought back 43 cards, including Ghost Quarter and Path to Exile. That number also includes the reminder text for Cipher, so really 30 cards; not a whole lot of affected cards.
Interesting that "controller may" covers all the 'chain of' cards, looking forward to aggressively asking if my opponent will choose the option of paying :r::r: to copy my Chain Lightning. Are you? ARE YOU? I MUST KNOW!

[thecrav]

Interesting that "controller may" covers all the 'chain of' cards, looking forward to aggressively asking if my opponent will choose the option of paying :r::r: to copy my Chain Lightning. Are you? ARE YOU? I MUST KNOW!

As long as they've got two cards in hand, they could ape-chain you!

[twndomn]

As long as they've got two cards in hand, they could ape-chain you!

How hard is it for Elves to generate 2 Red Mana via DRS? Or any decks with DRS in play for that matter?

Also, cards with "each opponent may," notably Veteran Explorer.

[tescrin]

Does this rule interact with Tabernacle? the losses resulting from "not choosing fast enough" because you drew a card or some such, does that get turned into a "you take a penalty for drawing early" or does it remain a "You need to remember or get screwed" thing?

I've not lost to it before, but I've watched people throw games to that problem.

[H]

Does this rule interact with Tabernacle? the losses resulting from "not choosing fast enough" because you drew a card or some such, does that get turned into a "you take a penalty for drawing early" or does it remain a "You need to remember or get screwed" thing?

I've not lost to it before, but I've watched people throw games to that problem.

I answered above, but as per the current wording of this, there is no interaction with Tabernacle.