Hello friends, and welcome to You Make the Ruling! This is the first installment of what I hope will be a regular feature here on Bearz Repeating. The idea is to drop you right into a number of real-life rulings that test your knowledge of rules and policy, as well as your application of the relevant philosophy.
The following are all real scenarios from Legacy Championships at Eternal Weekend. If it matters, you can assume that you’re directly responding as the Head Judge. In actuality, most of these rulings came to me on appeal or as a consultation, but it would be tedious to write that out every time.
With that said, let’s get right down to it!
- Alistar and Nami are resolving mulligans. Alistar is playing first and has declared he’s keeping his opening seven. Nami decides to mulligan. Before she draws a new hand, their table is announced as a feature match. Alistar absentmindedly puts his cards back into his library, and Nami calls a judge. How do you proceed?
- Ahri is playing Nasus. Ahri has a Young Pyromancer in play. At the end of Ahri’s turn, Nasus cracks a fetch. In response, Ahri casts Dig Through Time. As Ahri is exiling cards for the Dig, Nasus presents their deck and Ahri quickly cuts it. Ahri picks up 7 cards from their library and looks at them, then points to their Young Pyromancer. Is the trigger missed?
- Azir controls Thopter Foundry and Sword of the Meek. Azir sacrifices the Sword to create a Thopter, which triggers the Sword’s ability. In response to the Sword trigger, Nidalee Punishes the Thopter. What happens to the Sword?
- Zyra controls the Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale; Heimerdinger controls a Phyrexian Revoker. Zyra passes at the end of their turn, then Heimerdinger draws a card. Now what?
- Later in the match, Zyra combos off: she uses Thespian’s Stage to copy Dark Depths, then bins the original Dark Depths to the legend rule, and puts the Stage-Depths’ trigger on the stack. In response to this trigger, Heimerdinger Wastelands the Stage-Depths. Zyra thinks the Stage-Depth’s trigger should go onto the stack again, on top of the Wasteland trigger. Is she right? Does Zyra get a 20/20 eldritch monstrosity?
- In round three, you take a call from Rek’Sai, who has great difficulty communicating in English; her girlfriend helps translate a few things for you. While you’re writing the time extension on her match slip, you notice Rek’Sai take out a piece of paper with a list of cards in Chinese and their English names. When you ask her about it, she explains she made it so she can tell her opponents what card she’s naming with Pithing Needle. Is she allowed to use this list? What do you do?
- Ashe casts Gitaxian Probe, looks at her opponent’s hand, and draws a card. Her hand of cards is face-down on the table. Ashe then absent-mindedly draws another card and sets it sideways on top of her other cards. What’s the appropriate infraction, penalty, and fix?
- Ariel has a Chalice of the Void on 1 and a Cavern of Souls on Merfolk. She casts a Cursecatcher using an Island, which both players let resolve. Ariel then casts a Lord of Atlantis, at which point Nunu points out that the Cursecatcher should have been countered. How do you rule?
[expand title=’Reveal Discussion!‘]
Of the scenarios presented here, this has the least applicabile philosophy for guidance. Fortunately, it is also the least likely to occur again.
I do not believe there is a single best answer to this. What’s important for this ruling, like most others, is to understand what both players want. In this specific case, Alistar wanted to avoid going down to six cards, whereas Nami wanted Alistar’s absent-mindedness to be treated like a mulligan to six. Effectively, each player’s happiness can only come at the expense of the other.
I ultimately answered this ruling by pondering what I would do if this situation occurred outside of a feature match. Even though Alistar hasn’t drawn any new cards yet, I feel that shuffling your hand into your deck simply has to be treated like taking a mulligan when you weren’t supposed to. As such, I ruled that Alistar would draw six cards, and make mulligan decisions from there.
When discussing this with Alex Mullins later, Alex suggested an alternate ruling: tell Alistar that the ruling would normally be that he draws six cards, but in this case, the game will be restarted due to moving to the feature match. In the actual situation, the players ultimately did do this, but I did not impose it as part of my ruling; rather, I reminded them that they always have the option to draw a game and move on to the next. I like Alex’s solution because you can present it as both players getting a little something, which makes the mistake easier for Alistar to swallow.
As an aside, when giving this ruling, I initially told the players I felt Alistar should be allowed to re-draw seven new cards. When Nami asked for my explanation, I started thinking about the reasoning I mention in the second paragraph, and actually ended up reversing myself in the middle of talking to the players! While this was suboptimal, I would rather address Alistar’s frustration that I changed my mind than stick to a bad ruling.
[/expand]
[expand title=’Reveal Discussion!‘]
I ruled that this trigger was not missed. I believe that Out-of-Order Sequencing applies here: Ahri is simply resolving items on the stack in the wrong order. Since the Pyromancer trigger contains no options, it’s impossible for Ahri to be gaining any information that could impact her decision.
[/expand]
[expand title=’Reveal the Answer!‘]
The Sword will still return to the battlefield. Sword of the Meek’s trigger isn’t targeted (or dependent on that creature at all, once it’s triggered), so it will resolve as normal. As the Sword’s wording spells out, returning the Sword to the battlefield and attaching it to the triggering creature are completely independent actions. Since resolving abilities do as much as possible, the Sword will still return to the battlefield even though it can no longer attach.
[/expand]
[expand title=’Reveal Discussion!‘]
This is certainly a missed trigger…but whose trigger? In this case, it’s Heimerdinger’s! The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale does not have a triggered ability itself; rather, it grants a triggered ability to all creatures. This means it’s each creature’s controller to resolve the trigger properly, not the controller of the Tabernacle. Moreover, the Tabernacle trigger has a default action associated it with. So we assume that Heimerdinger has chosen not to pay {1}, and we resolve the default option of destroying his Phyrexian Revoker.
At least, that’s how we would normally handle it. In this specific case, Zyra was willing to let Heimerdinger pay for the missed trigger, and I saw no reason to disallow this. In fact, I believe this is a great example of sporting behavior. The IPG tells us that “If a minor violation is quickly handled by the players to their mutual satisfaction, a judge does not need to intervene,” and I believe a similar philosophy applies here.[/expand]
[expand title=’Reveal the Answer!‘]Sadly, Zyra is not correct. Dark Depths has what’s called a state trigger (CR 603.8), which constantly checks to see if its condition has been met. Zyra knows enough of the rules to realize that these abilities will constantly check, but she doesn’t realize that the ability can’t trigger again while one instance is still on the stack. As such, Wasteland will resolve first, so Zyra will be unable to sacrifice her Stage-Depths to her trigger (since it’s in her graveyard). Marit Lage will continue to slumber…for now.[/expand]
[expand title=’Reveal Discussion!‘]
Of all the rulings from this post, I believe this is the most complex one. Several commenters felt that this is Outside Assistance, as the sheet only contains relevant choices for Pithing Needle, so it is providing strategic advice; however, no one really believed it was a slam dunk. Looking at the definition and philosophy of Outside Assistance in the IPG, I personally felt this scenario is much closer to an “Oracle page” than “external advice or directions.”
When writing up this explanation, I decided to phone-a-friend and consult Toby for his opinion. He stated, Rek’sai “seems to be making efforts to make her opponent more comfortable. Doesn’t sound like outside assistance to me. Besides, she’s been nerfed enough.” So, there you have it.
[/expand]
[expand title=’Reveal Discussion!‘]
In the past, I have held that the line between Drawing Extra Cards and Looking Extra Cards does not occur simply when cards touch, but when the player loses control of the new card and it becomes indistinguishable from the rest. This was a reasonable line to draw when Drawing Extra Cards carried a Game Loss penalty, but less so today, when the penalty is a Warning.
Moreover, having a clear and consistent line is broadly beneficial for the judge program and players in general. For that reason, I feel that this should be treated as Drawing Extra Cards, with a Warning and the Perish the Thought fix (reveal all and shuffle one) applied.
(If sleight of hand were impossible, I would be perfectly comfortable saying “that card, there, is the extra one — put it back.” But, unfortunately, our policies have to be written with this in mind.)
[/expand]
[expand title=’Reveal Discussion!‘]
Ariel has missed her Chalice of the Void trigger. However, we’re now beyond the point of the erorr. Although we could ask Nunu if he’d like to put the trigger on the stack, this won’t do anything, as he has already let Cursecatcher resolve. There’s no provision in the Missed Trigger policy to additionally back up to the point of the error. As such, Cursecatcher will remain on the battlefield. Ariel will receive a Warning for missing a generally detrimental trigger: as a trigger with a symmetric effect, the Chalice is detrimental when applied to Ariel’s spells, but not when it applies to Nunu’s.
As an additional note, the presence of the Cavern of Souls makes it unlikely that Ariel is cheating: her play would have been completely legal if she had cast the Cursecatcher with her Cavern. It’s always worth probing a little further in these situations, though!
[/expand]
And that’s it for this edition of You Make the Ruling! Since this is a new feature, I haven’t decided how to handle presenting my “answers” to these scenarios. Would you prefer that I include how I handled in the original article (behind a spoiler tag)? Or does it make more sense to save the follow-up for its own article — maybe published on a day other than Wednesday?
Let me know your thoughts in the comments!
1) Ugh. I would choose to give the player a new 7. Alistar wasn’t even entitled to mulligan at that point, but he wasn’t trying to. He’s entitled to look at and decide to keep a 7-card hand if he wants to, this isn’t his fault. We’ll deviate due to the exceptional circumstances of coverage taking a long time, and choose not to issue IDSG, and instead we’ll let them draw 7. I believe it’s unfair, but not wrong, to force Alistar down to 6. Either way, make a decision, commit to it, and get the players going.
2) No, this is a legitimate out of order sequence, in which the player executes the “batch” of items in an incorrect order. There is not any information that Ahri is getting early, and then using inappropriately. Trigger resolves.
3) Sword returns to the battlefield.
4) MT-W for Heimerdinger, resolve using the default action.
5) State-triggered abilities retrigger if their trigger condition is still true and their trigger is removed from the stack. They do not trigger on top of themselves.
6) I really don’t want to issue OA, but the more I go back over it, I feel like we have to. The inclusion or absence of a card on this list is strategic advice. Even if it wasn’t, these are notes under a strict reading of OA. OA, Match Loss. The girlfriend is not involved in this infraction and receives no penalty. I may consider deviating due to the extreme difficulty that the player has communicating in an all-english event, and due to the lack of any evidence that this is actually being used strategically, but this may be due to taking details from the actual event that weren’t included in this scenario.
7) DEC-W, new fix to shuffle back in 1 card of the opponent’s choice.
8) MT-W for the symmetrical triggered ability. The upgrade to a warning is not strictly based on whose turn it is, as for Howling Mine, but for any situation where it matters “who is being affected”. We cannot place the trigger on the stack now (we can, but it won’t do anything) so we leave the game state as it is.
1. Alistair should mulligan to 6, and should be reminded to be more careful next time. This is similar to the Knowledge Pool scenario from last week, in that pregame procedure violations, while not allowed, do not carry a specific penalty according to the IPG.
2. This situation worries me, since Nasus shouldn’t be ‘presenting his deck’ until after the Dig resolves, since Dig is ‘in response’ to the fetch. Given that, I’d lean toward ruling missed trigger since the trigger was not acknowledged until after Dig was resolving. I could see OoS applying, but that would depend on how long of a pause there was between the beginning of Dig’s resolution and the indication of the Pyromancer trigger.
3. Sword returns to play. Since the thopter is now gone but was not targeted by the sword ability, sword’s triggered ability still resolves and does as much as it can.
4. Heimerdinger has missed a generally detrimental trigger, so he gets a warning. Since the trigger has a default action, he sacrifices the revoker now.
5. No. Dark Depths has a ‘state trigger’ which is prevented from triggering by the rules of Magic as long as a copy of the ability is on the stack. Otherwise it would continually trigger in response to itself and the game could not proceed.
6. Unlike the other respondents, I think this is okay. The major exception to the ‘notes made before the start of the current match’ rule is Oracle text, and the only things listed on the ‘cheat sheet’ are oracle text, so she is allowed to have access to those at all times. The AIPG specifically mentions that players are allowed to carry their own copies of Oracle text with them (including, I assume, partial Oracle texts) so I see no problem with this.
7. Currently, this is DEC, and the fact that the illegally drawn card is, in theory, distinguishable from the rest of the hand is not relevant. The card has still been drawn since it touched the rest of the hand, so we should have her reveal her hand and have her opponent select a card to be shuffled back.
8. This is a missed trigger, and would be considered detrimental, so we issue a warning to Ariel and ask Nunu if he would like the ability to be placed on the stack now. either way, nothing will happen, as the ability can no longer counter cursecatcher.
I too would like your rulings included with spoiler tags.
Before looking at any resources other than Oracle text:
1. So, I can’t really think of a penalty that fits here. The closest I can come is Improper Drawing at Start of Game, but I’m not 100% sure this fits here. Once I allow myself to go look at the IPG I’ll see if that fits.
2. My initial reaction to this was “Yeah you missed it because you didn’t take the physical action in time,” but I feel like this actually might just be out of order sequencing. There’s no advantage to be gained by looking at the top 7 before resolving the Pyromancer trigger, so assuming that resolving that trigger doesn’t change anyone’s plays, I’d let them have the token and just remind them to maybe be a little more careful about the order of events to prevent confusion like this.
3. Oof I want to Google this one so bad. I feel like the answer is no, you can’t, because the cards says you may return it then attach it. Since you can’t return then attach the Sword, because there’s nothing to attach it to, you can’t say “yes” to the may part of the ability. (My brain’s telling me it’s similar to how you can’t Dredge 6 when you’ve got 5 cards in your library.)
4. So the argument exists here for “Yep you missed the trigger when you drew the card, so now you have to take the default action.” And honestly I think that should happen here. This doesn’t feel like out of order sequencing, because the draw could easily help steer the player’s decision of whether or not to pay the upkeep cost. So I’m going to stick with my initial reaction and say it’s a missed trigger with a default resolution, so we resolve it.
5. HAH I KNOW THIS ONE! That’s a triggered ability that triggers off of the game state. It only re-triggers if the triggered ability is no longer on the stack, like if it resolved or if it was Stifle’d. Putting Wasteland, or anything else, on top doesn’t cause it to re-trigger. Wasteland resolves, and we have a very sad stage.
6. OK, you said I’m the head judge, right? Because if I’m not the head judge, the first thing I do is go get the head judge and ask them if they OKed this. If I’m the head judge, I certainly didn’t okay this, or I’d know that by now. Without them asking me first, this is Outside Assistance. That sheet, unless it has literally every card they could legally name printed on it, has been selectively culled down to just a few cards. Those few cards can serve as strategic advice, reminding the player what they should be naming with Pithing Needle. That may not be the intent, but it is doing that for them. The problem I have though is that I don’t want to issue a Match Loss here. It doesn’t sit right with me. I’m looking forward to hearing how you handled this, because honestly I have no idea what I’d do.
7. *sigh* This is the “it touched the hand!!1!” debate. I honestly fall on the side of checking with the players to make sure that’s ALL she did – she didn’t look at the card, she didn’t pick up her hand any after putting the card on top, and that all players and spectators agree that the sideways card was, and should be, the top card of the library. If that’s all the case, move the card back, no penalty. If the card was looked at, or had the opportunity to be seen, then issue a Looking at Extra Cards, and proceed with the standard “randomize the random portion of the deck” fix. If the hand could have been manipulated, issue a Drawing Extra Cards penalty, and proceed with the Shuffle Clique fix.
8. Missed trigger, it’s detrimental, Warning. Putting the trigger on the stack now would be pointless. I’m in favor of a small backup because it’s incredibly simple – rewing the Lord of Atlantis cast by putting it back in hand, untap any lands used for the spell, and put the Cursecatcher back on the stack, with the Chalice trigger above it. Continue play (with the likely outcome of the Cursecatcher being countered).
WOO! That was a fun one.
Looking at the IPG now, changes I’d make:
1. Yeah, that’s ID@SoG. They mulliganed after they were allowed to by shuffling their hand back into the library. I’d issue the Warning, and sadly they’d be mulling to 5 here – the 6 they would be at after mulling, and the additional card because of the penalty. I’d also remind the players that if they both wish, they can agree to call the first game a draw, and that if they did so they would still be playing until a player had won twice – this removes a lot of the feelbads from the equation, as both players will probably be happy to go back to 7 after that.
3. It looks like I was wrong here – the difference between this and Dredge is that Dredge starts by saying “As long as you have at least N cards in your library…” *facepalm* So yeah, this resolves the best it can, you can totally say “yes” to the may, and the sword will be on the battlefield unattached.
8. There’s actually no policy support for that rewind. Whoops. Uh. I suppose there’s no fix for this then. That feels bad. I want to rewind this anyways, because it’s almost a microscopic rewind, but I don’t want to deviate from policy. Grumble…
1. I’d let Alistar effectively redo mulligan decisions. He gains no advantage by his actions (why state you’re keeping 7 and THEN fish for a “free mulligan”?) and a new hand will be just as random as the previous one. (Nami’s mulligan decision isn’t affected, and her decision to go to 6 remains intact at the point where we pick up at the FM table.)
2. Technical policy as written says yes – picking up the cards for DTT means that we’re past the point where Young Pyromancer’s trigger should have resolved. In reality I think a lot of players will do this out of order and it’s fine – the specific circumstances of investigation would probably matter a lot.
3. The Sword’s ability should do as much as it can, so it will return to the battlefield even though the creature it was going to attach to isn’t present any longer.
4. Heimerdinger is going to be very sad, because this triggered ability has a default action and will destroy the Phyrexian Revoker.
5. The ability is already on the stack (CR 603.8), so no Lovecraftian nightmare monsters for Zyra 🙁
6. This is difficult – obviously we don’t want to hamper the player due to their language barrier, but this list is presumably not a comprehensive list of all magic cards, but rather likely/high-value targets for Pithing Needle, which falls pretty cleanly under strategic information, I think. Rek’Sai could probably enlist her girlfriend to help translate any cards that need to be communicated for this purpose; I’m coming up a little short on other solutions. (I suspect this is one of my weaker points as a judge – trying to bring customer service up to meet any gaps where tournament policy otherwise prohibits something a player may be doing in good faith.)
7. This delves a bit into the now old hat “cards touching” argument – on the one hand, the card has clearly made contact/been placed with the rest of Ashe’s hand. On the other, by all visual accounts the card is clearly separate and distinguishable from the rest of the hand. However, the kind of stunts you can pull with even moderate sleight of hand knowledge tell me that policy is intentionally broad on how cards are to be considered entering the hand; the visual distinction is not sufficient to perform the “simple” correction of returning the card to its correct zone. The fact that DEC is now a Warning makes this way less of an awkward feelbad, as well. I’m comfortable simply applying the now “standard” DEC penalty and fix; Ashe gets a warning, her opponent will get to see Ashe’s hand and shuffle one card from it into the library.
8. I assume we’re past the point of investigating for cheating; this would be a prime opportunity to try and slip something by your opponent, though it’s also just highly likely (and very easy) to slip into a mental state of “Merfolk can’t be countered now” on both sides of the table and forget about it (or forget about your own Chalice; heaven knows I’ve seen that plenty of times). Assuming everything is above board we’re just dealing with a missed trigger for Ariel – I feel this is detrimental when it’s her own spells, so she gets a Warning, but we play on from the game in its current state.
1. Good lord. I have no clue 🙂 I’d come up with something if I had to, but I really don’t know what I would do and I really don’t know if it would be right.
2. I’m okay with calling this Out of Order Sequencing. The standard for OoOS is that the player cannot get information that could “reasonably” affect their decision. Since Pyromancer’s trigger is universally beneficial and is not optional, looking at those seven cards can’t reasonably affect the non-decision to resolve the trigger and get an elemental.
3. Sword enters play and then fails to attach to anything.
4. Tabernacle gives Revoker an ability, which means that Heimerdinger is responsible for the trigger from his own permanent. He gets a warning for missed triggers (since the trigger is clearly detrimental). Because the missed trigger has a default action (destroy this creature), the trigger resolves with the default choice chosen.
5. No. State-based triggers can only have one instance on the stack. The trigger would re-trigger if the first instance was stifled. Otherwise, Zyra is out of luck.
6. Unfortunately, this list is almost certainly Outside Assistance. The key here is that this list seems to be a list of cards that are *reasonable to name with Pithing Needle.* If Sensei’s Divining Top is on the list but Sylvan Library is not, then the list is providing strategic advice on what cards should or should not be named with the needle. Rek’Sai and her girlfriend, though well meaning, will both get match losses.
7. The IPG is unambiguous here: a card is considered drawn once it has “touched” the other cards in Ashe’s hand. DEC and the Thoughtsieze fix apply.
8. I definitely have a conversation with the Merfolk player, to rule out cheating; forgetting what your own cards do when it’s inconvenient raises red flags (though it’s certainly something players, myself included, do by mistake quite often). Assuming I’m not suspicious, I leave the game state as is with a warning for Ariel. This is a Missed Trigger, and unlike a GRV, backing up to the point of error isn’t an IPG-supported fix. Ariel keeps the Cursecatcher.
On 6 – Why do you give the girlfriend a Match Loss here? She seems to only be translating for the player, which is not providing any sort of strategic advice. She may have made the sheet, but you can’t hold the author of the notes responsible for their use, or else a loooot of Reddit users who make ” Combat Trick Cheat Sheet!”s would have Match Losses.
I think I misread the prompt? I assumed that the girlfriend had written the list specifically for that tournament, which would make her complicit in the OA infraction; however, the prompt doesn’t actually say that.
I think it will be much better to use spoiler tag and include your solutions. If someone will find this article later he has oportunity to find answers imidiately without searching for second article with answers. With spoiler tag anyone can still make his own judgement and reveal answer later.
Great point! Thanks for your input.
The rub-ins
Here’s my rulings:
1. Alistar is forced to mulligan even though he wanted to keep his opening hand.
2. It is missed. Ahri started to resolve Dig Through Time without a token in play. What Nasus was doing is irrelevant.
3. The Sword is returned to the battlefield, unattached.
4. The Revoker is sent to the graveyard and Heimerdinger receives a Warning for Missed Trigger.
5. She is incorrect. While a state trigger is still on the stack, it cannot retrigger.
6. She is not permitted to use this list. Even though the list contains only Derived information, it is still notes made before the beginning of the match and thus cannot be used. You should give her a Match Loss for Outside Assistance, though in this case I would probably deviate and give no penalty.
7. Ashe committed Drawing Extra Cards. Even if both players agree, and the card is still sideways on top of her hand, she must reveal her hand and allow her opponent to pick any card to shuffle back.
8. We rewind to the resolution of Chalice’s ability. Lord of Atlantis is rewound, Cursecatcher goes to the graveyard, a Warning goes to Ariel for GRV and Nunu for FtMGS.
I’ll take a shot!
1. Ugh. Well let’s start with what we can’t do: Reconstruct Alistar’s hand. Because we can’t reconstruct his hand, we’re left with two options: Re-draw to 7, or re-draw to 6. The biggest problem for me personally is that there’s no policy I can think of to back up where I want to go with this. The closest thing I have is that, by a very literal reading of actions according to game rules, Alistar has mulliganed, and thus should draw to 6 and continue decisions from there. No infraction fits, so none given.
2. Yes, the trigger has been missed. A physical change in the state (token being created) was not done before a subsequent game action was performed (looking at top 7). It feels a bit off that the opponent might have gamed this by offering the cut (which is also out of sequence; the Dig should resolve before the fetch does…) but this is a pretty by the book Missed Trigger. No Warning.
3. We return the Sword to the battlefield. That’s all. We do as much as we can with the resolving ability, since it doesn’t get countered upon resolution by game rules.
4. Missed Trigger – Warning. Resolve the default action, which is to destroy the Revoker.
5. No; It’s a state trigger. It will not trigger again while it is still on the stack. If it were countered it would re-trigger and be put on the stack again, but Wasteland works fine here.
6. … ARRRRRRRGH. Well, she hasn’t done anything illegal … yet. You can refer to notes made before the tournament between games. You can’t refer to notes made during a game. My only problem here is that these notes aren’t ‘strategic advice’ and are just translations, so if I were HJ here I would likely let it slide (it does say HJ is final arbiter on acceptable notes, but it seems that might be in context of ‘card alters’…?) Giving an Outside Assistance penalty here feels really wrong, but I can’t find policy on ‘translations’ as opposed to ‘notes’, so I’m not sure on this one.
7. We’re in DEC territory, because it’s touched her hand. It doesn’t matter that it’s oriented differently. Warning, and apply the remedy that the opponent chooses a card from their hand to get shuffled back in. This might feel bad, but the lesson here is ‘Don’t Draw Extra Cards. Not even Accidentally.’
8. Ha! Fun one. This one is a Missed Trigger… And we can’t rewind for that. Definitely a Warning since Ariel controlled the Chalice, and we can put the trigger on the stack. Though, since the spell it’s trying to counter isn’t on the stack anymore, it sort of does nothing. MT – Warning.
1. and 6. were the most interesting, though I suspect there might be more to 8. than what I ruled… I’m interested to hear what happened!
Slight change to 6. When I first read it I thought the game was over for some reason; if we’re inside a game and you pulled out a list of notes, that’s textbook OA.
I would want to confer with another judge as to whether ‘Card Name Translations’ fall under ‘Oracle pages’ according to the IPG.
I don’t believe these notes count as strategic advice, because she knows the Chinese name of the card she wants to name before pulling out the list, and is using it to translate that to the English name of the card. While they don’t name Every Card, and thus theoretically only have valid things to name with Needle on it, it cuts both ways. There could be a card she would want to name with Needle, but isn’t on the list.
The really good argument FOR an OA ruling, is that if someone just pulled out a list of English card names with ‘NEEDLE TARGETS’ across the top, that’s pretty obviously OA. The ‘translation’ element is where I’m hung up.