Printable View
If I cast Portent and target my opponent, is the order of the three cards intrinsic to the looking at the three cards when resolving the spell?
If in paper, upon resolution of Portent, my opponent takes the top 3 cards of their library, rearranges them face down and then hand the three cards to me, has there been any violation?
Would this answer be different if my opponent already was aware of the arrangement of their library, at least the top three cards?
Your're supposed to know the order of the cards. Generally though it doesn't matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by PirateKing
Put it this way:
If portent didn't let you rearrange the cards, if it only said "look at these three" would you think your op gets to rearrange/shuffle them?
I'd think the order would be revealed, yeah. See top card first, second card second, etc.
But is that explicitly part of the rules or just the "spirit of the game" type of stuff, because that's where the angle shooter corner case stuff lives, hence the question.
If one of my goals was to glean information on what card my opponent was floating on top, and my opponent wanted to obscure that information (as much as possible by randomly rearranging the top three before handing them over...) I'd be inclined to call a judge.
But I don't know the answer, and if it's interpretation of the intent of the rules, that risks different results from different judges.
Just got back from the SCG event at Valley Forge PA.
Got feedback from a number of judges presented with this scenario.
A few said they could not make a final determination without looking a the rules, which the poor cell signal prevented.
The rest said while unconventional, there was nothing preventing the opponent targeted from giving the top three cards a shuffle before handing them over.
Some said it seemed against the spirit of the game, but not the letter of rules.
No judges said that an infraction had occurred and none said they would rule against the opponent if they did this and you called a judge.
I'm very aware this would mostly result in nothing gained for any player, but if it ever does come up, now we know.
I think that's kind of horseshit, lolQuote:
Originally Posted by PirateKing
Like I don't have time to read the Comp Rules and see if an answer lies in there but card order knowledge can impart a great deal. I mean we play fetches and Brainstorm in this format ffs, chances are high against a Blue player that they already know what the top X cards are and set them that way on purpose, why wouldn't I want that knowledge? The placement of a fetchland in the top 3 cards says a lot about a deck manipulator's current hand, if you know they put it on top or bottom that can change your decision-making process.
I totally agree, I'd did not expect the answers I got, but they were consistent.
If I cast Portent and my opponent shuffled the top three before handing them over, that's an immediate judge call from me. But turns out I'd be appealing to the head judge and then writing an angry message here after the fact.
I'd still be very happy to be shown how this is not the case.
401.2. Each library must be kept in a single face-down pile. Players can’t look at or change the order of cards in a library.
The library is ordered. A player can't change that order because they feel like it. When you look at the cards they don't move zones, so they should retain their order because they're still in the library. Shuffling the stack they're handing to you would change that order
brb got some Judges to fight