Can I change Phyrexian Revoker's named card during my opponent's turn?
Asked by Rabid_Wombat 8 years ago
Opponent played Phyrexian Revoker during his turn naming Urza's Tower as it's target.
During my turn I played an Expedition Map and tapped the Urza's Tower for mana. The opponent said I could not use it's activated ability due to the Phyrexian Revoker's coming into play effect. I replied that as he named a land card the effect actually had no effect.
We called a judge over (this was at a Modern Dublin PTQ) and she ruled that he could name a new card....and he chose Expedition Map so I had to put it back in my hand and this totally cost me the game (still feeling salty lol)
Did the level 2 Judge make the right call? Seemed wrong to me- first time in 20 years of MTG tournaments that an opponents misplay has ever caused me a loss....
Rabid_Wombat says... #2
This was the ruling of the head judge.
My point is the opponent did name a land card so the ability should have fizzled or whatever it's called now.
Fact is that he was rewarded for his incompetence by being able to re-name a card that I had revealed in my turn due to his misplay. Do you get it now?
July 24, 2016 11:58 p.m.
A spell or ability only "fizzles" (this isn't an official term) if all of it's originally legal targets become illegal when it tries to resolve. As Epochalyptik said, Phyrexian Revoker doesn't target.
Naming a nonland card means you have to name a nonland card when the ability resolves. You can't not name a card, and you can't name a land card and just let the ability be in vain. It's not a legal action to name Urza's Tower.
If you knew they were wrong to name that card, you should have called a Judge at the time, as at Competitive REL, you have to point out your opponent's errors unless it's a missed triggered ability (failure to do so is a reason for disqualification).
The problem with this fix, and the reason I can understand why you're angry about this, is that the Judge's ruling (which is acceptabe, though there would have been other possible fixes) caused your opponent to be able to name a card that wasn't in play before. This would be a problem with targetting abilities, but because you name a card here, it's perfectly legal to do so, and the fact that they got to decide on a name after you played the actual card is simply bad luck for you.
Also, Phyrexian Revoker doesn't prevent you from casting certain cards. I can't imagine a situation where you would have to return it back to your hand and also giving your opponent the "unfair" advantage described above, because the head judge either rolled back the game (in which case you could choose not to cast the Expedition Map), or they didn't (in which case Expedition Map stays in your graveyard and the land you fetched stays in your hand, as none of those cards are illegal in the zones they're in), or you already had Expedition Map on the battlefield, in which case your opponent could've just named Expedition Map in the first place.
July 25, 2016 4:45 a.m.
Addition to the last paragraph: This means the only way this judge call would have cost you the game is if the rest of your cards couldn't win you the game, which is an inherent mechanic of MTG (to be at a disadvantage if you don't draw the cards to win the game while your opponent does): Also, disrupting the opponent in exactly this fashion is the objective of Phyrexian Revoker.
July 25, 2016 4:50 a.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #5
If your opponent didn't make a legal choice for Phyrexian Revoker as it was entering the battlefield and you both allowed the game to progress from there without noticing the problem, your opponent would get an infraction for a Game Rule Violation and you would get one for Failure to Maintain Game State.
The standard fix for a situation like this is for the player to make a legal choice right now. The way you describe it, "right now" should be after you played Expedition Map, so I really don't know what happened for the judge to have you return it to your hand. Still, it's both players' responsibility to make sure the game is played correctly, and it's very possible to end up in a bad situation for not calling your opponent on a mistake when it first happens.
July 25, 2016 10:14 a.m. Edited.
Rabid_Wombat says... #6
BlueScope,Rhadamanthus many thanks for your detailed explanations- and as you mention the fault was mine as much as his for failing to note the infraction as it took place. Next time I will be like a hawk on a hunt for misplays :)
Thanks again!
July 25, 2016 8:50 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #7
Please remember to select an answer to remove your question from the active queue.
Epochalyptik says... #1
Link all cards in your question.
Phyrexian Revoker
Urza's Tower
Expedition Map
Nothing about Phyrexian Revoker allows you to name a new card. In order to do so, you'd need to blink Phyrexian Revoker so it enters the battlefield again (at which point it's a new object, so you're really just naming a new card for the new instance of Phyrexian Revoker).
THAT SAID, Phyrexian Revoker's ability says "nonland card," so your opponent cannot have named Urza's Tower.
It's likely that the judge's ruling was a response to the latter point, in which case it's acceptable.
Note that you can appeal a ruling to the head judge if you believe it to have been made in error.
Note also that Phyrexian Revoker's ability doesn't target. A spell or ability only targets if it uses the word "target" in its text. You simply name a card.
July 24, 2016 6:54 p.m.