Hi everyone,
Example for the sake of the discussion:
Ashton (a Golgari Midrange player) activates the +1 ability of Vivien Reid, looks at the top four cards, reveals a land card and quickly put the remaining 3 cards at the bottom of their library without shuffling/presenting them to his opponent.This situation can be adapted to any card with the template “Put the rest on the bottom of your library in a random order. ” like
Militia BuglerOn a pure technical standpoint on policy, this falls under
MTR 3.9 - Insufficient Shuffling because he forgot to shuffle part of his library (the remaining cards to be put on the bottom). To be noted that the Cascade ability has the same wording (
When you play this spell, remove cards from the top of your library from the game until you remove a nonland card that costs less. You may play it without paying its mana cost. Put the removed cards on the bottom in a random order.)
However, I have trouble strictly enforcing the penalty for those cases for many reasons :
1. Many players (especially the ones with lots of experience) are so used to the use of the older template “put the rest on the bottom of your library in any order” that they hadn't noticed the detail on Vivien's ability text. I observed today at the PPTQ I head judged that even when these players are taught about this, more often than not, they still forget to do the shuffle/present. When asked about this, many players mentioned to me that going through the motions is quite counter intuitive considering the low number of cards that are put back on the bottom this way and they don't see how they could hopefully gain an advantage from putting 3-4 cards in a non-randomized way at the bottom for the vast majority of the cases. I also observed that almost all players do not actively change the order of the cards seen by the ability before putting them back on the bottom. What is even worse in the case of
Vivien Reid, is that players can go through the motions on multiple straight turns).
2. Insufficient Shuffling is a tournament Error, which means that the 2nd+ occurence of the infraction gets upgraded to a Game Loss. Considering my previous point there is a reasonable risk that any player who knew about the policy could choose to “Rules Lawyer” their way into playing “Gotcha” with their opponent. What helps is that this infraction used to be so seldom used that most players are not really aware of this infraction or the mention about shuffling part of a library. (And I can bet that some judges weren't aware neither ?)
3. I suspect that the way the infraction was worded before regarding “shuffling/present part of a library” was mainly because of Cascade, which has a higher ceilling of potential abuse when Cascade reveals a great number of cards (Examples: Living End, Restore Balance decks). However, most cards with the new “at random” template operate with 3 to 4 cards to be put back at bottom, limiting risks of abuse to very specific situations, but the tournament policy did not change so mistakes like those can be seen as punished way more harshly than they should.
Should the policy be adjusted to take account of the template seen on Vivien Reid, Militia Bugler and other present/future cards that will adopt this “put the rest on the bottom of library at random” template ?
Edited David Lachance-Poitras (Dec. 2, 2018 09:54:45 PM)