+1 Barney.

Does it matter that Bob also looked through the graveyard and concluded that the Tarmogoyf is 5/6? I recall reading that if the opponent asks "how large is your Goyf", it's not a good idea to give an answer. Instead you should fan out your graveyard and let them do the calculations. Reason is if you do the calculations and get it wrong, you could end up with a game loss (!). The implication is if the opponent does the calculations and gets it wrong, it's not your fault.

I got into a weird situation like that once. All the information was on the board, i was attacking my opponent with lethal. He blocks a certain way, incorrectly, because he doesn’t seem aware of effects certain permanents on the board are giving certain creatures with trample and such. He blocks and asks me, « ...so I’m ok right? »

It’s a competitive qualifier so I didn’t feel like it was my job to play his game for him. So I answer, I dunno... maybe. Seems so » so he locks it in and I point out I have lethal and it sets off a storm. Lots of people watching the event. Almost exactly half split into two camps. Half think I’m right that I don’t need to play the game for him, the other half says i mispresented the board state

Judge comes over, rules on my side and that’s that

We were good friends too me and this opponent which made it worse

Damn, that's a tough situation for all involved. I don't even know how I would react, in-the-moment. In retrospect I think the best move is just look them in the eye for about 5 seconds, pokerface style. Then slowly ask, "Do you think that was an appropriate question given our current situation?" And just refuse to give an answer. But then, obviously, that translates to a "No, you're not alright." But it might just get them out of the right head space.



Ah yeah, I missed that point. Again, in situations with friends at home, there's a lot of patience and understanding that has to go on unless there's a gentlemen's agreement to not. I have one friend that when we play with him, there's no "going back." He expects you and anyone else to fully understand the cards and the rules that go along with them. If you don't you ask before you make a move, not after. Even if that could possible tip your planned tactics.

I guess that's the way to do it in Competitive REL since it puts the onus on your opponent. IMHO it feels cheap though. It's your 'Goyf, you need to keep track of it. Yes, I'm allowed access to your GY to make sure you are representing it properly, but you should be keeping a running count in your head. IMO you don't play with cards that you're not going to put the effort into playing properly and keeping track of */* is part of the effort of playing 'Goyf. In competitive situations it's all up to the judge, but we have the REL to tell us how we should expect a judge to make a decision.

Back to the home/tabletop situation; Also, take into consideration what's going on around you. If you guys are talking about the latest episode of Walking Dead and drinking margaritas while you're playing, then expect mistakes to be made, and be a little more forgiving of people wanting to take a move back because they missed a the fact that you played some bomb while they were in the middle of describing how

yeah, tough situation for sure. it's comes down to the difference between competitors and non-competitiors. The friend I was playing against at the qualifier was a very cool and casual player so it shocked him that we were playing different than we would in, say, his garage.

When I used to compete at top events for CCGs, i would practice with a really cool friend (i miss him) at his place. His g/f at the time would make us tea and we'd be up late practicing. It sounds stupid maybe but we would enforce full tournament rules, so there were no takebacks or anything. When we'd compete, we'd be sharp as a sword and it would help a bunch since lots of people make clumsy fumbles.

I see this in poker a lot too when people play very casual usually (string bets, flipped cards) which will hurt you in actual live play.

I like your solution to my situation Sixty but I think in retrospect the best answer was probably for me to not say anything. Let him figure it out and then there is NO WAY I am misrepresenting the board state. Just shrug.

Question about Field of Ruin. The card doesn't say searching is optional. However it also doesn't say "search your opponent's deck for a basic land ..." which means you don't get to look at your opponent's deck. How can you know that if the opponent searches but fails to find a basic, he's not cheating?

Another question about morph cards. Say my opponent has 3 morph cards in play. I Mindslaver him and see which morph creatures they are. Next turn, is he allowed to shuffle those morph creatures such that I no longer know which is which before attacking?

Ergo: Your opponent may fail to find a basic land off the Field of Ruin trigger or his own Evolving Wilds trigger.
He may not, however, fail to find off a general search trigger, e.g. Demonic Tutor.




I don't have the rules text ready for this, but he may not. In fact, he has to differentiate his morphs at any given time (so that you can always tell which morph he played turn 3 and which he played on turn 5, for instance).
At PT Khans, they actually noted down the order in which the Morphs came down on the Morph overlay cards; you may want to do something similar.

Really? Huh. I would've figured it was the same as your hand, in that it is hidden information and thus always capable of being re-organized (like shuffling your hand after your opponent peeks at it).

I've noticed in Arena games, once you've seen a card in opps hand (or even something that went to top of library IIRC), those cards are always revealed to you - showing as face out afterwards. Removes an element of memory skill from the game, but I wonder if it's done in the spirit of that rule (or a similar rule that isn't specific to morph cards)?

Reorganizing your hand after an opponent peaks seems pointless tho, except as maybe a mind game. Only advantage I can think of for doing it is if you draw a duplicate spell, but even in that case casting the copy they saw instead of the one you just drew does the same thing with keeping new information hidden.

I suppose so. Usually it came up where you'd discard a card at random, but that's only because we usually let the opponent choose the card, as opposed to something more perfectly random like a dice roll to determine it.

Found the rules text for it.



That is, in fact, one of the lesser known rules and I thought otherwise as well until I played the Khans Limited format.

If I have two Bomat Courier in play, can I sacrifice one, hold priority, and sacrifice the other to draw from both Bomats without losing anything?

It seems to me the answer is obviously "yes", but I tried to execute it in Arena and didn't succeed, so just checking.

Yes, it should work because the Discard is part of the cost and not the effect.
In Arena, you're gonna need to turn on full-control to be able to respond to your own effects, so that may be why you couldn't do it.

Wow, didn't even know that option exists. Thanks!

Omg whAt a cool idea, I’ve activated two bomats before but didn’t know I could keep both

Another paper magic question involving Bomat Courier!

Suppose my Bomat Courier has 3 cards exiled. My exile zone is currently empty. I activate a fetchland. That means, in principle, I can deduce what cards are under the Bomat Courier, but of course counting all the cards in my deck would be time-consuming. Can I tell my opponent, "to save time, can I just look at the cards under the Bomat Courier"?

So, you want to use a Evolving Wilds to deduce what cards are NOT in your library, hand and GY? Not the worst idea I've ever heard.


Here's the good news; I don't believe that there is any rules about asking your opponent a simple question.

However; He's under no obligation to allow you to. And here's the bad news; I'm not 100% sure on how your opponent and the judge would feel about you doing this. Not that it would be against the rules for you to look at each card in your deck, as you are searching the deck for something specific. But I do think that it would open the door for a possible "Tournament Error — Slow Play!" warning. And if the warning isn't enough, you could get a penalty after that.

That of course all depends on who you're playing with.

This is one I haven't tested yet:
Midnight oil and Reliquary Tower.

Which card takes prevalence?

You can ask, but I would say no. And if I saw you doing what you are doing after telling me, I would probably inform a judge on the issue of time. I honestly think a better solution would be to already have a complete printed out decklist and check against that as quick as you can without telling the other side to determine what is available. That would make him figure out what you're doing, inform a judge, and you could always just tell the judge you are working out strategy going forward.

This is one I didn't know either and was rather surprised by the ruling:



Ergo: The card you played later takes prevalence.


You may ask what "effects depend on XY" means. That is rule 613.7. Example in your case:
Suppose you have Midnight Oil with 0 counters, Reliquary Tower and Minamo Scrollkeeper out. Minamo's Scrollkeeper's effect is dependant on your maximum hand size, so it will "wait" and be applied last no matter when you played it. Your maximum hand size will be 1 (if Midnight Oil was played after Reliquary Tower) or you won't have a maximum hand size (if Tower was played after Oil).

Say I have three 1/1's. My opponent has Slimefoot, the Stowaway and a Saproling. He's at one life. I attack with everything. Is opponent:

1) Dead because he can only block two attackers -> one goes unblocked and his life goes down to zero, or
2) Alive because his saproling dies, Slimefoot triggers, and he gains one life?

I strongly suspect the answer is #1 since Slimefoot triggers presumably never resolve if one is at 0 life (because of state-based actions), but I'm not completely certain. However if one of my attackers had first strike then my opponent can stay alive by blocking that first striker with the 1/1. I had a similar situation come up in arena, but didn't get to confirm how it works then.