Hey everyone! I just had a small question. I have been asking a few judges and have heard different answers so I wondered if I could get some of them here.

Here is the situation:

Armadillo casts Chord of Calling chooses X=2 and finds Forest Bear. He picks up his deck, and right before he starts shuffling he decides he doesn't want the Forest Bear and wants Ashcoat Bear instead. Nightingale calls “Judge!” and asks if he is allowed to do that.

What is your answer?

Thanks everyone!

Edited Lexie Steele (June 29, 2014 05:19:37 PM)

Unless I believe Armadillo was fishing for, or reacting to a reaction from Nightingale, yes, I allow that.

At Gahteher we have such card ruling under Jace, Architect of Thought:
10/1/2012: For each library, the search is complete only when you explicitly say it is. For example, you can look through one player's library, set that library down, look at another player's library, choose a nonland card in the first library, then choose a nonland card in the second library. Don't reveal any cards from those libraries to any other player until you exile them.
So it will apply only for Jace?

Bartłomiej, that's the same philosophy. You, as the controller of that search effect, decide when you're done searching.

In the original example, there's a key phrase: “before he starts shuffling”. That makes it fairly clear that the player just hadn't finished deciding yet. I'm not saying that starting to shuffle is an absolute dividing line - but it's also the point at which you start to get a reaction from your opponent, and might learn something that could cause you to change your mind - no fair!

Example: searching for a creature (Chord of Calling), reveal FOO; opponent says “whew - I was worried you were going to get BAR” and you say “oh, I do have BAR in here, I'll go get that instead!” - we can't allow that, for fairly obvious reasons.

Example: searching for Jace's ultimate, you set aside (but don't reveal!) an Emrakul from O1's library, then discover that O2 also has Emrakul, but doesn't have another card that you saw in O1's library. You choose O2's Emrakul, and a different card from O1. - this is fine.

Example: resolving Enlightened Tutor, you put Phyrexian Processor on the table, face up, then start to shuffle and say “oh, wait, I can't pay enough life to make that worthwhile” and instead choose an Enchantment. Assuming you didn't read a reaction from your opponent (and we believe that), then this is probably fine, too.

Hopefully, that make sense?

d:^D

So that “Don't reveal” clause is there to prevent getting additional information from another player?
Assuming I play UW against R/x opponent, after using Jace ultimate, searching my library first for AEtherling, revealing him face up I found in opponent library Puprhoros, the God and realized, that him with my Elspeth would create better synegry. I'm not allowed now to exchange my AEtherling for Elspeth. And I assume that will be case in any other “search more that one library effects”?
It make sense :)

I think the gatherer clause is a word to the wise. The way Jace AoT is worded is that you have access to all libraries simultaneously. You therefore have the option to consider cards from your library alongside other player's libraries, so by not revealing them you aren't seemingly making a choice.

This prevents one player from being “gotcha'd” before they're reasonably finished making a choice, and prevents the other player from being suckered into reacting and giving an unfair advantage to “that wasn't my final choice.”

I wouldn't look to far into the “don't reveal” or “before shuffling” as hard-fast rules in your rulings. Use your best judgment in whether you think they've completed their choice and to make sure they're not just baiting the opponent.

Originally posted by Evan Cherry:

I wouldn't look to far into the “don't reveal” or “before shuffling” as hard-fast rules in your rulings. Use your best judgment in whether you think they've completed their choice and to make sure they're not just baiting the opponent.

This.

At the same time shouldn't we be careful of the distinction between the active player fishing for a reaction from their opponent, and the non-active player reacting without being fished? Otherwise, this interpretation has the unpleasant side-effect of allowing the opponent to automatically react to any searched card that the active player reveals, effectively locking that player into their choice.

Originally posted by Darcy Alemany:

this interpretation has the unpleasant side-effect of allowing the opponent to automatically react to any searched card that the active player reveals, effectively locking that player into their choice.

Players can do countless tricks to try to “game” their opponents which can then lead to a disagreement between the players and require judges to straighten out the problem.

This case is no different. If this would happen, it will be up to the result of an investigation to determine if NAP was fabricating a reaction and if AP observed that reaction before changing his mind.

Originally posted by Darcy Alemany:

At the same time shouldn't we be careful of the distinction between the active player fishing for a reaction from their opponent, and the non-active player reacting without being fished? Otherwise, this interpretation has the unpleasant side-effect of allowing the opponent to automatically react to any searched card that the active player reveals, effectively locking that player into their choice.

Simple. The searcher can simply not reveal his preliminary choices before making a final choice. That way the non-searcher cannot “game” this situation at all.