Originally posted by Olivier Jansen:No, that would be onerous at best.
is it still a cpv to not mention the option to search
If a triggered ability would have no impact on the game, it’s not an infraction to fail to demonstrate awareness of it.While that's a different infraction, the guiding principle remains the same: no harm was done, no bad intentions by the player(s), so no infraction necessary.
Originally posted by Szilveszter Nadas: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).
Not sure I get what do you mean on “we don’t get into the mandatory shuffle from field discussion”.
Originally posted by Szilveszter Nadas: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.
Still, a corner case: what if the player wants to shuffle, e.g. his only out was scryed to the bottom?
Originally posted by Szilveszter Nadas: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.
Still, a corner case: what if the player wants to shuffle, e.g. his only out was scryed to the bottom?
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?This assumes even less agreement from the searching player. I feel this significantly different from this forum post.
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
Originally posted by Szilveszter Nadas: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.
Still even the opening post does not say that they agreed in the shortcut in any way.
You must be registered in order to post to this forum.