I think that this is highly unsatifactionory. This is unsporting and I don't see any any benefits for the game. I think this rule needs to be changed... But thanks for the video, I didn't know that before.... I thought, since she searched his libary, she had all information about the deck. Elsewise, why shouldn't players always note every card of the opponents librabry and search multiple times to get them all. This just makes the game slow...
Then again, imo requesting for a judge to confirm your suspicious for unsportmanship behaviour should be met with penalty as well. I remember that in our play group there is that one person who constantly would wave his hand and ask from judge to shuffle, check or do thing X so they receive small penalties by the course of the game. I remember he got a free win by game loss because the played had two warnings by then.
@@RiverbrookTsodmi in a competative setting players know what they are doing. And Judges are not stupid. In regular REL at an FNM. I would have taken that player to the side between rounds and would state my impression, that his behavior is disruptive to the relaxed enviroment the store wants give to all players. If your judge hasn't done anything, I would have talked to the judge between rounds and statet your problems. If he doesn't see the problem, you could ask with the store owner.
That may be the rule, but it seems unhealthy for the game. By permitting lying in this situation, we're essentially banning telling the truth, since Amy can never trust Nick and has to search his entire deck regardless of what he says. It's also creating a bit of an obligation to lie, since there's a chance it might work and no downside at all. For new players this produces a very unpleasant shock, and for experienced players it's just a mandatory waste of time every time an effect like this is played. Really wish WotC would reconsider this.
I mean, yes, competitive MTG is absolutely an unpleasant shock for new players. I remember when I first started, it was harsh. But these rulings are for competitive tournament play where money is at stake. At a regular FNM or casual play, the MTR is not used.
@@Rillant Still, I don't see what value there is in allowing this kind of underhanded strategy to function at competitive levels of play. It's just bad sportsmanship, which is bad for the players and bad for spectatorship.
@@Rillant Sure, and I get that the needs of tournament players are different from those of people playing their first game at their local shop. But I don't see how this serves the needs of tournament play either. No one that plays Slaughter Games or similar cards is going to fall for this more than once, but they'll be stuck searching for cards that aren't there for the rest of their tournament career. The gameplay depth to added inconvenience ratio here seems way off.
you hear about this new game they got called poker? in any competitive game you don't and shouldn't have to trust your opponent on anything except that they won't cheat. misdirection and bluffing have a long tradition in card games especially.
yeah im in agreement with some of the comments talking about public decklists. In this situation its not but in a lot of current tourneys you submit the decklists and they are public. I feel like its important to address lying about what is considered public information, correct?
This is the type of bull that is unhealthy for the game where people who have been playing the game for years can exploit newer players. The player with the Jace deck in this scenario straight up cheated and needs to be punished with some sort of infraction. That being said, no hate at all towards this channel. Thank you for what you do.
Wouldn't Nick's entire deck, hand, and graveyard be considered "public information" as Slaughter Games resolved? After all, it allows Amy to see every card in his deck in this scenario. If both players are able to see every card, it isn't really "hidden" at that point.
I think its private since Amy wouldn't know the number of Jaces before hand and revealing the entire deck only shows cards and not the number of a certain card. She can "determine" the number of Jaces but doesn't automatically "know" the number of Jaces.
@@TobiasLeonHaecker but that is still something she has to "determine" and not given. Like she isn't given the deck list, she only has the opportunity to view the different areas. I think this make sense mechanically but this kinda thing is dirty af.
@@tabaltprintscreen the ruling says "able to determine it from the current visual game state" when holding the deck would you not be able to determine it? and if you are not able to determine it how would you ever get the correct number
@@tabaltprintscreen The thing is you cannot lie about derived information. If Amy asks Nick how many copies he runs, he isn't required to answer, just like how if Amy asks Nick how many lands he has untapped, he doesn't have to directly answer. However, if Amy asks Nick how many lands he hands untapped, and he knowingly replies "Four" when he has five with the intent to get his opponent to play as if he has four, then he is cheating, as players may not represent derived, free, or status information incorrectly. Nick is not required to answer, but if he does choose to answer, he must answer honestly about derived information. The real question here is why are the contents of the deck still considered hidden information after slaughter games has been cast despite the fact that both players can see it?
Even though this is almost the textbook example of this (the example in MTR is about Slaughter Games naming Scapeshift), I really don't like it. It feels to me like while Slaughter Games is resolving, the contents of the deck should become derived information. Nick shouldn't be obliged to help or provide complete information, but also shouldn't be allowed to lie about cards in a zone that Amy is currently legally allowed access to.
While the information about zones and how Slaughter Games makes sense. Her opponent straight up lied to gain an advantage when asked straight up how many Jace's were in the deck. At the very least give him a warning/game loss for unsporting conduct, regardless of the card interaction
This video reminds me about one situatuon on Aether Revolt standard FNM in our club: Amy plays Gonti, Lord of Luxury, looks at 4 top cards from Nick's deck and exiles a Very-Important-Card, puts other 3 on bottom. Then she casts Lost Legacy and names one of those 3 cards and searches Nick's library and exiles all 4 of it, then gives Nick's deck to him for shuffling. Nick flips the deck, quickly looks throughout it and then starts to shuffle. My question is : does Nick have a permission to look through his deck in this case? (In that tournament he had realized what card is under Gonti and just plays around it. Was it legal or not?)
I'm pretty sure you can't look through your library when you shuffle, if you aren't also searching - Praetor's Grasp makes me believe this cause if you could look during THAT shuffle, you could figure out what card was exiled and it would make the "face-down" part pointless.
So basically if my opponent tells me that he has only 3 Jaces in the deck and I decide to throw an Island among with the three Jace what he claims to have. What kind of penalty we both get if I claim to thrown ALL the Jaces like my opponent told he had and I had no idea that he had four of them. Then when we search and we notice that there is indeed a 4th Jace in the deck, can we then throw that last Jace out because I as a player insist that I want to throw all the jace without specifying the number to the judge / opponent. So can opponent lie to the judge about private info/hidden zone and tell him (judge) that his 3 Jace which are thrown are his ALL Jaces even when we have all seen that he has 4 of kind?
here's a scenario for you, "Amy" has Sarkhan the Masterless, and Tibalt, Cosmic Imposter, she +1's Sarkhan, then mutates Porcuparrot (or any other card with mutate) over Tilbalt, if she uses any of Tibalt's abilities are you able to cast the cards exiled now that the name of the card doesn't match the name on the emblem?
201.4 "Text that refers to the object it’s on by name means just that particular object and not any other objects with that name, regardless of any name changes caused by game effects." The name change doesn't matter - the emblem refers to the object, which is the same object that created it. I think. Not 100% sure.
I agree it's a lame move from Nick, but how long does it take to sort through 50 some odd cards? An extra 30 seconds and Amy could just make sure and not worry about it.
My main issue with the ruling revolves around alternate art versions of a card. Sure, a player can fail to find any number of cards. But to rule that the intent in this particular case was to deliberately leave a copy in the deck; just seems a little sus. How could that be an action that a reasonable player would want to make? Again, where alternate art is concerned, not recognizing a version of a card could be problematic and way for players to abuse the stated ruling.
At the only competitive REL event I played at, I was Thoughtseized. A turn or so later, my opponent asked what one of the cards he looked at did. I didn't think I had to tell him so he said he could just get a judge to read him the oracle text since he knew the card's name. I just went ahead and told him, but was that actually true? Would a judge have provided him info about a card that wasn't currently being played? Not that it matters but it was a Flesh//Blood.
Yes, you can ask a judge to provide the full oracle text of any card at any time, there's no restriction on that - though I suspect the judge might refuse for wasting their time if you choose something clearly not in the format.
So many rounds already go to time. Having to do several exhaustive searches of a player's deck if you find less than 3 copies of a card will just exacerbate this issue. In order to quicken rounds I think the player being searched should have to be truthful in this situation
Ì am not sure if this is really the way the rules want to be set up. As what this promotes is slowing the game down, not taking the word of your opponent as he has the advanatge if he lies and means you are better off litrally going through the deck 1 card at a time and taking notes. Which for Nick is not fun, is no fun for amy, but is the only way for amy to protect herself from the rules that give nick an advantage for lieing and assuming information amy could access was private.
Hi Dave I Have question on the ruling Naban, Dean of Iteration is on the and Meddling Mage enters the field would the ability triggered an additional for chosing 2 names, am confused? Am asking because on MTG Arena is chose only 1 name, is that a mistake on the game or not? LoL
Meddling Mage has an "As ... enters the battlefield" effect, not a "When ... enters the battlefield." Naban doesn't affect those. See the third ruling here: gatherer.wizards.com/pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=442946 Meddling Mage's ability isn't a trigger that goes on the stack. If your Meddling Mage enters the battlefield and you name Lightning Bolt, for example, your opponent can't respond by bolting the mage (as they could if Meddling Mage was an ETB trigger)
@@NagaProject Right, Naban is "If a Wizard entering the battlefield under your control causes a triggered ability of a permanent you control to trigger..." Meddling Mage doesn't cause an ability to trigger. There's no trigger for Naban to copy.
@@princess-celestia ya I see the point but i still see it as a dumb rule because as it enters it prevent a certain spell to be cast but I understand its pretty OP so they put that rule just for that, in my point of view xD
@@NagaProject The distinction between "when" or "as" is actually quite large. A creature that does something *when* it enters the battlefield puts an ability on the stack. This ability can be responded to by either player (such as, with a removal spell to kill the creature) and it doesn't resolve until both players pass priority without doing anything. You can think of the trigger as a completely different game object than the creature. A creature with an "as" ability, on the other hand, doesn't put anything on the stack when it ETBs. You would choose the spell for Meddling Mage as the creature spell resolves, then its static ability would already be in play the next time any player received priority. That means that if you named Lightning Bolt, your opponent couldn't cast Bolt to kill the Meddling Mage. Hydras are a good example of this in action. They're often 0/0 creatures that get counters *as* they ETB. If their ability was a triggered ability, they'd die as a state-based action before the counters could be put on them. But because the counters are put on them *as* they ETB, nobody has a chance to react before they're above 0 toughness, so they survive.
I feel like this should fall under IPG 4.8 Unsporting Conduct - Cheating. I understand your that you say that their deck is hidden information but why wouldn't it be known information after resolving the spell or while they are searching the library? I think they are just suggesting a shortcut and rather taking a note of every card in the library. And because both players can know how many of that card is in the the deck. So lying about it would be considered cheating.
Can I cast Slaughter Games, name JaceTMS, let the spell resolve and than say: "I want to find all copys of this card." As a declaration of my intension, am I allowed to see my opponets deck list and bypass this problem?
@@BlaineTog Slaughter Games makes hand and deck visible. And when I say: "I want to see your four copys of JTMS." And you say: "I onely play three.", thats a lie about a public infomation. Right?
@@timrabe3457 That's a separate issue. My point is, the card instructs its CONTROLLER to do something, not the target player. You have to actually go through their deck and remove the exact copies you want. You can't specify a number of a category (such as "all") and expect the target player to perform the action for you, because that's not what the card says to do. I'm inclined to agree with you that lying about your deck contents when your deck is fully revealed is tantamount of lying about a board state, but that doesn't mean the caster could get around the issue if they just phrase their request differently. The spell needs to resolve the same way regardless of the phrasing used to name the card.
@@timrabe3457 Whether you are entitled to view the player's decklist would be a separate rule set by the tournament. Cards only do specifically what they say they do -- nothing more, nothing less. Slaughter Games does not instruct the target player to present a decklist to the caster, so you wouldn't automatically get to do that as part of the resolution of the spell. Now if the tournament *does* require players to submit their decklists and they allow players to access their opponent's lists at any time, then yes, you could then take a few moments to look over your opponent's decklist while resolving Slaughter Games. But that's not a game action.
I understand this ruling based on the rules written but I think that rule should be modified for situations like this specific one. Slaughter games was giving her access to all that private information about his deck, so him lying n playing it off like he wants to advance the game state n not waste time is 100% gtfo n never come back if u did it at a kitchen table. Moments like this make we which IRL card games were like playing YuGiOh in the anime n assholes like that would get sent to the shadow realm :P
@@timrabe3457 Slaughter games does not make a decklist public information. It makes it so you can determine the number of Jaces, but it doesn't make it public.
@@Rillant if she searches the deck, she could make a note of the remaining deck. he doesn't have to tell how many he plays but to lie, that she doesn't search in depth to save both their times is nothing that should be encouraged by any form. Stuff like this is the reason many people don't like the competative szene
@@TobiasLeonHaecker And that's totally fine! Competitive MTG isn't for everyone. I'm very much enjoying playing casual EDH right now over grinding tournaments every weekend.
And it was at that moment that Amy stopped playing competitive MtG
I think that this is highly unsatifactionory. This is unsporting and I don't see any any benefits for the game. I think this rule needs to be changed...
But thanks for the video, I didn't know that before....
I thought, since she searched his libary, she had all information about the deck. Elsewise, why shouldn't players always note every card of the opponents librabry and search multiple times to get them all. This just makes the game slow...
Lying should be unsportsmanlike conduct
And is it the same for competative and regular REL?
Then again, imo requesting for a judge to confirm your suspicious for unsportmanship behaviour should be met with penalty as well. I remember that in our play group there is that one person who constantly would wave his hand and ask from judge to shuffle, check or do thing X so they receive small penalties by the course of the game. I remember he got a free win by game loss because the played had two warnings by then.
@@RiverbrookTsodmi in a competative setting players know what they are doing.
And Judges are not stupid.
In regular REL at an FNM. I would have taken that player to the side between rounds and would state my impression, that his behavior is disruptive to the relaxed enviroment the store wants give to all players.
If your judge hasn't done anything, I would have talked to the judge between rounds and statet your problems. If he doesn't see the problem, you could ask with the store owner.
That may be the rule, but it seems unhealthy for the game. By permitting lying in this situation, we're essentially banning telling the truth, since Amy can never trust Nick and has to search his entire deck regardless of what he says. It's also creating a bit of an obligation to lie, since there's a chance it might work and no downside at all.
For new players this produces a very unpleasant shock, and for experienced players it's just a mandatory waste of time every time an effect like this is played. Really wish WotC would reconsider this.
I mean, yes, competitive MTG is absolutely an unpleasant shock for new players. I remember when I first started, it was harsh. But these rulings are for competitive tournament play where money is at stake. At a regular FNM or casual play, the MTR is not used.
@@Rillant Still, I don't see what value there is in allowing this kind of underhanded strategy to function at competitive levels of play. It's just bad sportsmanship, which is bad for the players and bad for spectatorship.
@@Rillant Sure, and I get that the needs of tournament players are different from those of people playing their first game at their local shop. But I don't see how this serves the needs of tournament play either. No one that plays Slaughter Games or similar cards is going to fall for this more than once, but they'll be stuck searching for cards that aren't there for the rest of their tournament career. The gameplay depth to added inconvenience ratio here seems way off.
Agreed
you hear about this new game they got called poker? in any competitive game you don't and shouldn't have to trust your opponent on anything except that they won't cheat. misdirection and bluffing have a long tradition in card games especially.
yeah im in agreement with some of the comments talking about public decklists. In this situation its not but in a lot of current tourneys you submit the decklists and they are public. I feel like its important to address lying about what is considered public information, correct?
Firstly I
This is the type of bull that is unhealthy for the game where people who have been playing the game for years can exploit newer players. The player with the Jace deck in this scenario straight up cheated and needs to be punished with some sort of infraction.
That being said, no hate at all towards this channel. Thank you for what you do.
Wouldn't Nick's entire deck, hand, and graveyard be considered "public information" as Slaughter Games resolved? After all, it allows Amy to see every card in his deck in this scenario. If both players are able to see every card, it isn't really "hidden" at that point.
I think its private since Amy wouldn't know the number of Jaces before hand and revealing the entire deck only shows cards and not the number of a certain card. She can "determine" the number of Jaces but doesn't automatically "know" the number of Jaces.
@@tabaltprintscreen but she could have make a note of the rest of the deck
@@TobiasLeonHaecker but that is still something she has to "determine" and not given. Like she isn't given the deck list, she only has the opportunity to view the different areas. I think this make sense mechanically but this kinda thing is dirty af.
@@tabaltprintscreen the ruling says "able to determine it from the current visual game state" when holding the deck would you not be able to determine it? and if you are not able to determine it how would you ever get the correct number
@@tabaltprintscreen The thing is you cannot lie about derived information. If Amy asks Nick how many copies he runs, he isn't required to answer, just like how if Amy asks Nick how many lands he has untapped, he doesn't have to directly answer. However, if Amy asks Nick how many lands he hands untapped, and he knowingly replies "Four" when he has five with the intent to get his opponent to play as if he has four, then he is cheating, as players may not represent derived, free, or status information incorrectly. Nick is not required to answer, but if he does choose to answer, he must answer honestly about derived information. The real question here is why are the contents of the deck still considered hidden information after slaughter games has been cast despite the fact that both players can see it?
This feels extremely unsportsmanlike and should be changed.
Even though this is almost the textbook example of this (the example in MTR is about Slaughter Games naming Scapeshift), I really don't like it. It feels to me like while Slaughter Games is resolving, the contents of the deck should become derived information. Nick shouldn't be obliged to help or provide complete information, but also shouldn't be allowed to lie about cards in a zone that Amy is currently legally allowed access to.
Pokémon if you blatantly lie in order to gain an advantage like this it’s a DQable offense.
Bluffing is allowed but lying like this is not.
While the information about zones and how Slaughter Games makes sense. Her opponent straight up lied to gain an advantage when asked straight up how many Jace's were in the deck. At the very least give him a warning/game loss for unsporting conduct, regardless of the card interaction
In the example, she didn't actually ask him. He just said there were only 3 unsolicited.
This video reminds me about one situatuon on Aether Revolt standard FNM in our club: Amy plays Gonti, Lord of Luxury, looks at 4 top cards from Nick's deck and exiles a Very-Important-Card, puts other 3 on bottom. Then she casts Lost Legacy and names one of those 3 cards and searches Nick's library and exiles all 4 of it, then gives Nick's deck to him for shuffling. Nick flips the deck, quickly looks throughout it and then starts to shuffle. My question is : does Nick have a permission to look through his deck in this case? (In that tournament he had realized what card is under Gonti and just plays around it. Was it legal or not?)
I'm pretty sure you can't look through your library when you shuffle, if you aren't also searching - Praetor's Grasp makes me believe this cause if you could look during THAT shuffle, you could figure out what card was exiled and it would make the "face-down" part pointless.
Just wondering, if this is a open-decklist tournament, and this is game1, is the deck still considered hidden information?
So basically if my opponent tells me that he has only 3 Jaces in the deck and I decide to throw an Island among with the three Jace what he claims to have. What kind of penalty we both get if I claim to thrown ALL the Jaces like my opponent told he had and I had no idea that he had four of them. Then when we search and we notice that there is indeed a 4th Jace in the deck, can we then throw that last Jace out because I as a player insist that I want to throw all the jace without specifying the number to the judge / opponent.
So can opponent lie to the judge about private info/hidden zone and tell him (judge) that his 3 Jace which are thrown are his ALL Jaces even when we have all seen that he has 4 of kind?
here's a scenario for you, "Amy" has Sarkhan the Masterless, and Tibalt, Cosmic Imposter, she +1's Sarkhan, then mutates Porcuparrot (or any other card with mutate) over Tilbalt, if she uses any of Tibalt's abilities are you able to cast the cards exiled now that the name of the card doesn't match the name on the emblem?
201.4 "Text that refers to the object it’s on by name means just that particular object and not any other objects with that name, regardless of any name changes caused by game effects."
The name change doesn't matter - the emblem refers to the object, which is the same object that created it. I think. Not 100% sure.
so it would only work if the card said 'remove all instances of that named card'?
I agree it's a lame move from Nick, but how long does it take to sort through 50 some odd cards? An extra 30 seconds and Amy could just make sure and not worry about it.
My main issue with the ruling revolves around alternate art versions of a card. Sure, a player can fail to find any number of cards. But to rule that the intent in this particular case was to deliberately leave a copy in the deck; just seems a little sus. How could that be an action that a reasonable player would want to make? Again, where alternate art is concerned, not recognizing a version of a card could be problematic and way for players to abuse the stated ruling.
At the only competitive REL event I played at, I was Thoughtseized. A turn or so later, my opponent asked what one of the cards he looked at did. I didn't think I had to tell him so he said he could just get a judge to read him the oracle text since he knew the card's name. I just went ahead and told him, but was that actually true? Would a judge have provided him info about a card that wasn't currently being played? Not that it matters but it was a Flesh//Blood.
Yes, you can ask a judge to provide the full oracle text of any card at any time, there's no restriction on that - though I suspect the judge might refuse for wasting their time if you choose something clearly not in the format.
So many rounds already go to time. Having to do several exhaustive searches of a player's deck if you find less than 3 copies of a card will just exacerbate this issue. In order to quicken rounds I think the player being searched should have to be truthful in this situation
Ì am not sure if this is really the way the rules want to be set up. As what this promotes is slowing the game down, not taking the word of your opponent as he has the advanatge if he lies and means you are better off litrally going through the deck 1 card at a time and taking notes. Which for Nick is not fun, is no fun for amy, but is the only way for amy to protect herself from the rules that give nick an advantage for lieing and assuming information amy could access was private.
Hi Dave
I Have question on the ruling
Naban, Dean of Iteration is on the and Meddling Mage enters the field would the ability triggered an additional for chosing 2 names, am confused?
Am asking because on MTG Arena is chose only 1 name, is that a mistake on the game or not? LoL
Meddling Mage has an "As ... enters the battlefield" effect, not a "When ... enters the battlefield." Naban doesn't affect those. See the third ruling here: gatherer.wizards.com/pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=442946
Meddling Mage's ability isn't a trigger that goes on the stack. If your Meddling Mage enters the battlefield and you name Lightning Bolt, for example, your opponent can't respond by bolting the mage (as they could if Meddling Mage was an ETB trigger)
@@princess-celestia oh ok I see the rules but it's dumb, Naban it not whenever or when it's "if a" so thats mean it on a instance LoL
@@NagaProject Right, Naban is "If a Wizard entering the battlefield under your control causes a triggered ability of a permanent you control to trigger..." Meddling Mage doesn't cause an ability to trigger. There's no trigger for Naban to copy.
@@princess-celestia ya I see the point but i still see it as a dumb rule because as it enters it prevent a certain spell to be cast but I understand its pretty OP so they put that rule just for that, in my point of view xD
@@NagaProject The distinction between "when" or "as" is actually quite large.
A creature that does something *when* it enters the battlefield puts an ability on the stack. This ability can be responded to by either player (such as, with a removal spell to kill the creature) and it doesn't resolve until both players pass priority without doing anything. You can think of the trigger as a completely different game object than the creature.
A creature with an "as" ability, on the other hand, doesn't put anything on the stack when it ETBs. You would choose the spell for Meddling Mage as the creature spell resolves, then its static ability would already be in play the next time any player received priority. That means that if you named Lightning Bolt, your opponent couldn't cast Bolt to kill the Meddling Mage.
Hydras are a good example of this in action. They're often 0/0 creatures that get counters *as* they ETB. If their ability was a triggered ability, they'd die as a state-based action before the counters could be put on them. But because the counters are put on them *as* they ETB, nobody has a chance to react before they're above 0 toughness, so they survive.
I feel like this should fall under IPG 4.8 Unsporting Conduct - Cheating. I understand your that you say that their deck is hidden information but why wouldn't it be known information after resolving the spell or while they are searching the library? I think they are just suggesting a shortcut and rather taking a note of every card in the library. And because both players can know how many of that card is in the the deck. So lying about it would be considered cheating.
Can I cast Slaughter Games, name JaceTMS, let the spell resolve and than say: "I want to find all copys of this card." As a declaration of my intension, am I allowed to see my opponets deck list and bypass this problem?
I wouldn't think so because that's not what Slaughter Games instructs you to do.
@@BlaineTog Slaughter Games makes hand and deck visible. And when I say: "I want to see your four copys of JTMS." And you say: "I onely play three.", thats a lie about a public infomation. Right?
@@timrabe3457 That's a separate issue. My point is, the card instructs its CONTROLLER to do something, not the target player. You have to actually go through their deck and remove the exact copies you want. You can't specify a number of a category (such as "all") and expect the target player to perform the action for you, because that's not what the card says to do.
I'm inclined to agree with you that lying about your deck contents when your deck is fully revealed is tantamount of lying about a board state, but that doesn't mean the caster could get around the issue if they just phrase their request differently. The spell needs to resolve the same way regardless of the phrasing used to name the card.
@@BlaineTog Okay, and am I authorized to see my opponets decklist after I named a card?
@@timrabe3457 Whether you are entitled to view the player's decklist would be a separate rule set by the tournament. Cards only do specifically what they say they do -- nothing more, nothing less. Slaughter Games does not instruct the target player to present a decklist to the caster, so you wouldn't automatically get to do that as part of the resolution of the spell.
Now if the tournament *does* require players to submit their decklists and they allow players to access their opponent's lists at any time, then yes, you could then take a few moments to look over your opponent's decklist while resolving Slaughter Games. But that's not a game action.
I understand this ruling based on the rules written but I think that rule should be modified for situations like this specific one. Slaughter games was giving her access to all that private information about his deck, so him lying n playing it off like he wants to advance the game state n not waste time is 100% gtfo n never come back if u did it at a kitchen table. Moments like this make we which IRL card games were like playing YuGiOh in the anime n assholes like that would get sent to the shadow realm :P
Shouldn't deck lists be public information?
Think so too. At least Slaughter Games makes them public.
Decklists are no public information, quite the opposite actually.
@@timrabe3457 Slaughter games does not make a decklist public information. It makes it so you can determine the number of Jaces, but it doesn't make it public.
@@Rillant if she searches the deck, she could make a note of the remaining deck. he doesn't have to tell how many he plays but to lie, that she doesn't search in depth to save both their times is nothing that should be encouraged by any form.
Stuff like this is the reason many people don't like the competative szene
@@TobiasLeonHaecker And that's totally fine! Competitive MTG isn't for everyone. I'm very much enjoying playing casual EDH right now over grinding tournaments every weekend.
People just don't like being baited and outsmarted