Not sure I get what do you mean on “we don’t get into the mandatory shuffle from field discussion”.

Still, a corner case: what if the player wants to shuffle, e.g. his only out was scryed to the bottom?

More generally, how much knowledge about the format, inducing common card choices, is required form the judge to be able to decide whether an ability can potentially impact the game or not?

(I read the question/answer at https://blogs.magicjudges.org/blog/2019/06/14/magic-judge-monthly-may-2019/?fbclid=IwAR3uS1q7vobqvnfNVWp_9MUQYrrC4KAj4aJgPRMdwgYrkosL7LiVtg8RJgU )

Originally posted by Szilveszter Nadas:

Not sure I get what do you mean on “we don’t get into the mandatory shuffle from field discussion”.

Field of Ruin makes you search (and shuffle) even if you know you don't have a land. Path to Exile lets you choose not to search (and shuffle).

Originally posted by Szilveszter Nadas:

Still, a corner case: what if the player wants to shuffle, e.g. his only out was scryed to the bottom?

Like any shortcut - if the players have established a shortcut (i.e. AP casts Path to Exile, it resolves, and NAP chooses not to search), then if a player wants to do something different than the shortcut, it is their responsibility to say so. It's like when a player casts a spell, the shortcut is that they are passing priority. So someone who wants to activate Lion's Eye Diamond in response to their own spell must actively say that they are holding priority. So a player who has been choosing not to search (and shuffle) that suddenly wants to (e.g. if they scried something to the bottom) has to actually say so. We are not going to penalise AP for abiding by the shortcut even if there may be strategic reasons for NAP to do something different.

Originally posted by Szilveszter Nadas:

Still, a corner case: what if the player wants to shuffle, e.g. his only out was scryed to the bottom?

Like any shortcut - if the players have established a shortcut (i.e. AP casts Path to Exile, it resolves, and NAP chooses not to search), then if a player wants to do something different than the shortcut, it is their responsibility to say so. It's like when a player casts a spell, the shortcut is that they are passing priority. So someone who wants to activate Lion's Eye Diamond in response to their own spell must actively say that they are holding priority. So a player who has been choosing not to search (and shuffle) that suddenly wants to (e.g. if they scried something to the bottom) has to actually say so. We are not going to penalise AP for abiding by the shortcut even if there may be strategic reasons for NAP to do something different.

I see and this is relevant for the opening post in the forum indeed. Still even the opening post does not say that they agreed in the shortcut in any way. Also the player is not required to tell the truth regarding having or not having basic.

However the judge monthly said

2. AP plays Path to Exile targeting one of their opponent’s creatures. AP knows for some reason (e.g. via Surgical Extraction) that NAP does not have any more basic lands in their deck and fails to tell the player they can search for a basic land. In Competitive REL is this CPV?

A: It’s not. If the action would not have impact in the current game state, it’s not an infraction to fail to demonstrate awareness of it.

Approved by Scott Marshall

Cards: Path to Exile; Surgical Extraction

This assumes even less agreement from the searching player. I feel this significantly different from this forum post.

Originally posted by Szilveszter Nadas:

Still even the opening post does not say that they agreed in the shortcut in any way.

the bit where the opponent says they're not going to search because they have no more basics is the shortcut that the players are establishing.

In this situation, I would say that there's a difference between saying nothing and saying “Fail to Find” because the latter implies that a search is being shortcut and that a shuffle still must occur. The former would imply that the no action branch of the may was being taken, and there would be no shuffle.

There's also the issue of what exactly is the situation? Is this game 2 of the match, and several paths have resolved over the course of the match? is this game one, and the first path of the match? In the former case I would say that the person casting path shouldn't have to continue to point out the search, the opponent should know what path does at that point. The latter case on the other hand could warrant the player casting path reminding their opponent about the search.