A while ago I was playing in a GP and my opponent cracked a fetchland, he selected a land from his deck, put it down on the table then proceeded to start shuffling his deck. While he was doing this he looked like he was deep in thought, then he picked up the land he had placed on the table, selected a different land from his deck and started shuffling again. I told him that I didn't think he could do that, and he told me that he was 'just moving cards around'. The guy seemed convinced that he was allowed to do what he did, and I didn't call a judge.
I have always wondered if I should have called the judge, and what the correct ruling should have been.
This is going to be difficult to get an exact ruling on since there are multiple things that factor into the ruling. The best bet in these situations is to always call a judge.
When resolving an ability or spell you must always follow the order of the directions on the card. In this case, search for the land card, put it into play, and then shuffle the deck. Since, your opponent didn't announce that he was playing the land, it is possible for him to argue that he hasn't completed the search for a land instruction. In this case he would be able to continue to search for another land instead of the one he placed on the table.
If he had announced that he was playing the land he placed on the table, then he has passed the point of searching for a land and must shuffle his deck. This is why a judge would need to be called, to determine if by placing the land on the table he had indeed completed his land search.
In the past I have seen this many times and the rulings generally follow the logic that if he has not presented the deck to be cut, or verbally announced what land he is playing, then he may continue to search his library.
Should you have called a Judge? Yes, definitely. If you think your opponent is messing up or if there's a disagreement between you and your opponent about a technical issue then you need to call a Judge to help you sort it out.
What was the correct ruling? Well, this is one of those "you had to be there" moments. The Judge responding to the call would have discussed the situation with both of you to get the story of exactly what happened, and would have made a decision based on that discussion. If your opponent didn't use his first choice to bait out any kind of response from you before changing his mind, or didn't gain any other additional information from the move, then it would likely be considered legit. While he was resolving the effect he happened to reveal some information that he had access to, and there's no rule against that. If he did somehow get some information after making his first choice that would conceivably influence his change of mind, then the Judge would likely make him stick to the first choice.
Thanks guys. He didn't say anything until I questioned it, so basically what you have said is what I thought, there is no way to discern that he had finished searching, and he is quite entitled to shuffle his deck during a search.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have always wondered if I should have called the judge, and what the correct ruling should have been.
When resolving an ability or spell you must always follow the order of the directions on the card. In this case, search for the land card, put it into play, and then shuffle the deck. Since, your opponent didn't announce that he was playing the land, it is possible for him to argue that he hasn't completed the search for a land instruction. In this case he would be able to continue to search for another land instead of the one he placed on the table.
If he had announced that he was playing the land he placed on the table, then he has passed the point of searching for a land and must shuffle his deck. This is why a judge would need to be called, to determine if by placing the land on the table he had indeed completed his land search.
In the past I have seen this many times and the rulings generally follow the logic that if he has not presented the deck to be cut, or verbally announced what land he is playing, then he may continue to search his library.
What was the correct ruling? Well, this is one of those "you had to be there" moments. The Judge responding to the call would have discussed the situation with both of you to get the story of exactly what happened, and would have made a decision based on that discussion. If your opponent didn't use his first choice to bait out any kind of response from you before changing his mind, or didn't gain any other additional information from the move, then it would likely be considered legit. While he was resolving the effect he happened to reveal some information that he had access to, and there's no rule against that. If he did somehow get some information after making his first choice that would conceivably influence his change of mind, then the Judge would likely make him stick to the first choice.
I'm Mike, from The Mana Pool.
Check out my Tapped Out profile and comment on my decks!