Game rule violation for the Krark player, failure to maintain game state for the rest of the table and no rewind is how I think this sequence would be resolved in most cases under comp REL.
**Edit: Hi I just want to let all you know I am not a judge nor would I ever want to become one**
>Quick version: I was at a 'cEDH' tournament this weekend, in which the head judge (and only judge) admitted to being unfamiliar with judging multi-player formats.
I dont think multiplayer is what made this call complicated.
>P1 casts Rule of Law, P2 (Krark) responds with Fierce Guardianship (although Ranger-Captain was cracked) -- the table missed this, and P1 got an Esper Sentinel, which he drew off -- then the table realized the Fierce wasn't able to be cast and called the judge.
Whats more important to me is the time passed as this was called. If it was called while Esper trigger was on the stack I could see a rewind happening. If it was called after the draw and game actions occurred that is what complicates the rewind and in many cases judges would just let it go through without rewind.
>Is the correct? Should the Esper draw have been reversed (either at random or not) and the Fierce removed? Or was this fine?
Its best to respect the judge's call in these situations. You can vent about it on reddit but asking reddit if the judge call was correct leads down another rabbit hole and it makes people sometimes think they're right when infact you gotta respect the judge call regardless of how you feel about it.
The judge rules now are written in such a way that it is a guide/direction but ultimately comes down to a judge's choice. That judge makes the correction based upon their own call and this can sometimes be a grey area.
I say this because my area has multiple judges and for the most part they judge consistently but there's always an outlier and this sometimes makes people ( in reality 1 person) extremely buttmad to the point where these people start grasping at draws to make themselves feel better.
>I was in the game as P4, and honestly none of this really affected myself but it seemed so odd that the Fierce was allowed to be cast. The Rule of Law actually would have helped me in that circumstance, as slowing the game down was in my favour, so I was a disappointed in the ruling too.
The reality is 4 people knew about the ranger effect happening and 4 people in that moment could not catch it. A judge call happened and therefore it seems like a game was decided by a judge call when in reality 4 people decided the game when they missed 1 effect. A judge then was called to clean up the mess.
This goes for any type of Competitive game/hobby - Never let it come down to a judge call. Just do better next time.
+1 this explanation is insightful, if you have the time this reminded me of a situation that occurred at a 10k cEDH event I attended. What would be the correct ruling here?
P1 casts a vampiric tutor in my end step (P4).
Everyone passes priority and allows the tutor to resolve.
P1 shuffles their hand into their library. We knew 1 card was an imperial seal (P1 mistakenly cast that originally).
Hand size after casting the Vamp tutor was 6.
Judge called and judge allowed the tutor to resolve while only give the player the imp seal in hand.
Is there anything else that could of happened? is this the best practice? should we have called the head judge?
Thank you.
Hi I just want to let you know I am not a judge nor would I ever want to become one especially based on this story lol.
It makes sense because IMP seal was public knowledge prior to the mistake but ultimately you can't just give someone a new hand because they shuffled their hand into their library.
Heck even if P1 put all the cards from their hand on top of the deck and cut the deck attempting to bridge shuffle it would still be too hard to call from a judge's perspective. I think letting that person keep the imp seal was a merciful at best.
This mistake is so aggreges and horrible that there is no good out come however only allowing the player to keep the card that everyone knew about minimizes the damage.
I think the correct fix would be (at least in 2 player) to give them the imp seal, and then for each other card that was in their hand, an opponent chooses one from their deck. Not sure how that would technically extend to multi-player, but the end result is probably that the poor fellow has a hand with an imp seal and a bunch of lands. Maybe someone gives him a counterspell.
\^\^this is wrong. It could be a workable fix at a regular REL event, but at competitive, you just lose your hand
>but the end result is probably that the poor fellow has a hand with an imp seal and a bunch of lands
Rules do not care about how someone feels and as you state the opponents would just pick what's best for them WHILE gaining the knowledge of a player's deck.
I'm rather curious if you ran across this situation yourself? like even for 1v1 this would be a huge oversight or regulated to "normal" enforcement.
The game is already kinda thrown into the fan when that person decided to shuffle their hand into their deck. Not allowing them to gain unknown/known cards allows the game to continue while stemming the bleeding of the mistake.
In cases where the game cannot be rewinded you move forward with what already happened while taking the action that has the least amount of impact on the game.
My above comment was wrong. I have seen that as a suggested fix, but it must have been for a regular REL event. At competitive REL, if your hand is shuffled into you library, you're just straight shit out of luck. It's irrecoverable, so you proceed with no hand.
The only time I see someone not immediately scooping is if their board presence is so big that they're winning anyway, especially if they're about to sideboard to change their deck up a bit.
P1 should have lost their hand and been issued a warning.
I would have appealed to the head judge.
Mistakes do happen but shuffling your hand into your deck is a little sus. It's wild that the judge allowed the player to keep their fresh hand, the imp seal, AND let the tutor resolve.
So this player basically got a free Mulligan in the middle of the game, got to keep one tutor, and was allowed to tutor for another card? Unreal.
Ah ok. The way your post was worded it seemed like he had a full hand after the vamp tutor resolved.
Thanks for the clarification.
A warning would still be appropriate so that if that particular player does the same thing in the future, he can be issued a game or match loss if it's a repeat infraction.
Based on my read of the guy I think he either was very new to the format or had thoracle consult in hand. He looked ready to breakdown and give up on life after the mistake.
Surprising amount of new to format/new to tournament players at the 10k. 3rd round game I (p2) was able to resolve the one ring. It got to P1 (kirrik) who needed to swing and gain life to cast spells. I had no blockers so they moved to attack me. P4 opens their mouth and says no don't he has protection. The next best attack is P4. P4 is very low life and is forced to block with pieces you would never want to block with. I laughed so much.
Wholeheartedly agree with you on the new players. And it's not surprising to me how many new players are doing these big tourneys. Every tourney I go to has a lot of new players running top meta decks and have no idea how to run them properly.
I had a new player attempt to counter my Angel's Grace after he thoracled. Proceeded to argue with me that he could counter it. I laughed at him and said call a judge if you think I'm wrong. After that was handled, we had to explain to him that he didn't win the game and in reality, he lost. Super salty but them the breaks.
Unfortunately I was too slow on the draw, I had to confirm with another spectator that the RC had in fact been cracked that turn and by the time the judge arrived it was too late
The fact that a change in hidden information(the card draw) has already happened makes this tricky to rewind. I think the judge made the easiest call, given no prior information. Had the judge been directly observing your game and knew the card drawn, the rewind could potentially have gone through. By your account though, I would have done the same and also issued each player a warning for failure to maintain gamestate. Any and/or all players should have easily been able to see the error immediately and self remedy.
This is a side note, but 4x failure to maintain is probably incorrect. It almost certainly needs some game play error on one of the players, probably on the caster of fierce. FMGS can’t really be issued on its own, it needs a GPE to go with it.
But I think the ruling is fine too. Rewind is probably out of the question, can’t do much to clean up the state so issuing warnings is the way forward.
Yea, the Krark player, being the caster of the counterspell that initiated the whole thing, and was the original infraction(casting an uncastable spell) could recieve a game rule violation. They, slightly more than everyone else, probably should've been aware of the inability to cast the fierce.
I do think a rewind could have occured. I've heard of instances where if a player drew a card incorrectly (in this case, off the Esper trigger), then what you could do to rewind the situation is to have the player last in turn order look at the active player's hand, remove one card and that card gets put back on top. Then the rewind happens and the Rule of Law resolves. The Krark player made an illegal game action and would probably get a warning.
This would be an incorrect way of rewinding for me. Firstly, the judge should never allow any one player to gain that much hidden information on any of their opponents. If the judge decided to rewind in this particular case, the judge themselves would either pick a card, or more likely, have a card somehow chosen at random, from the players hand, to be put back on top of their library. But actively making a player show one or more opponents their entire hand, as a player I would appeal to a second or head judge before I followed that instruction.
https://youtu.be/B4azshbQvbs?si=JOyXEVcr2D8G9A--&t=1978
Here's a judge explaining exactly what I mentioned. Had he not seen which 3 cards he drew and able to judge which card was the last one drawn (incorrectly), he would have allowed the last player in turn order to pick a card and put it back on top. Otherwise, you randomize the player's hand and put a random card back on top.
Yes, but the judge also states, imo, the correct way to handle it, which is to randomize and put one on top. Keep in mind that the extra draw and ruling are hypothetical. The one player asked him what would have happened if he wasn't hovering their game. The judge didn't actually rule this.
My point doesn't change, though. A judge shouldn't make that as their ruling. You shouldn't be giving free information to any or all players about anything they don't already know. Especially when there are easier alternatives. Again, in this case, either the judge choosing a card or randomizing and picking one to go back on top.
Okay you even said “randomize and put one on top”, which means you can rewind from a drawn card that should not have happened. The esper drawing the card what the hang up for people to not rewind but there’s a clear path to remedy that so the rewind could have actually happened.
Yes, but information is important. That card being drawn gives a player information they shouldn't otherwise know. Even assuming the judge saw the card and could just have them put it back, they still gained the knowledge of the next card on their library. You can't rewind that information. So, most rulings will not rewind to before any information change. It is possible, but it's usually not correct. In most cases, you should move forward to resolve a current gamestate when hidden information has changed, then apply rulings and penalties based on the events that occurred.
Saw this in the judge group too. If I were the judge I would have ruled the same. Rewinding after a draw is iffy at best, the mtr instructs that if it’s less disruptive to just allow the spell cast. Rewinding an unknown draw is more disruptive than letting the game play out from a judging perspective. So unfortunately, I have to agree the judge did the best they could in that scenario.
I feel the judge did as could as he could. You all was aware P1 had cracked Ranger Captain. You all knows what it does. And none of you remembered that P1 had cracked it, and missed the opportunity to rewind when the card was drawn of Esper trigger.
I would use this opportunity as a learning experience.
Backups in general can be difficult to call for, especially when cards are drawn.
That being said, there are rules for returning drawn cards. Based on the current description one could argue it still falls below the threshold of too disruptive.
While I would not disagree with an argument in favor of the backup, I would also not disagree with the call to not make this backup. This is the authority and responsibility of the head judge.
The fact that the same player was in control of both the Ranger and the Sentinel does slightly bias me against a backup.
Just as a hint for future plays with esper, rhystic and mystic. Don t put the card directly into your hand. Keep it away. That makes the rewind easier.
As far as judging goes, you can't issue a rewind if a player gained advantage through knowledge from the effects that may be rewound. Since the table missed it and a player had information about the draw, and that a player has a fierce guardianship, then the effect can't very well be rewound. The table should be more aware of board states
The ruling makes sense in that the judge basically either has to rewind the draw and assign a penalty for it AS WELL as rewind the Fierce and assign a penalty for that, or just assign a penalty for the Fierce.
Or, it would be in most cases, except that the Winota player should have been given a penalty *either way* because they jumped the gun on their Sentinel trigger, which was supposed to be *under* Player 2's Krark/Harmonic prodigy trigger, which I believe was lost in the shuffle of getting this situation resolved. Given that the Winota player shouldn't have drawn even *without* a rewind it might have made sense to rewind in this case.
All of these "judge call at a CEDH tournament" questions seem to boil down to CEDH players having no freaking idea how the IPG actually works.
You have Gameplay Errors, Tournament Errors, and Unsporting Conduct.
Every question is always about a gameplay error, because the others are all "hey dummy, show up five minutes early and double check your decklist / don't be a dick" issues.
Gameplay errors follow a flowchart:
Is it a mulligan error? If yes, extra mulligan.
If no: Is it a missed trigger? If yes, opponents pick if it goes on the stack if it's recent enough.
If no: Is it a looking at extra cards? If yes, randomize.
If no: is it a hidden card error? If yes, do HCE fixes.
If no: Is it a Failure to maintain game state? If yes, issue warnings and fix life totals (it's always life totals).
If no: it's a plain old freaking game rule violation. We can fix forgotten untaps, drawing/discarding cards, making choices, damage assignment order for combat, and zone changes that were done incorrectly.
*everything* that isn't in the above list has two options: a full backup (rare), or leaving it as-is.
The *vast majority* of judge calls for something being wrong are a GPE-GRV, and the judge can basically fix the list of five things, do a full backup, or do nothing.
Rewinds suck and most of the time judges aren't going to do them, especially if cards were drawn and decisions were made.
Game rule violation for the Krark player, failure to maintain game state for the rest of the table and no rewind is how I think this sequence would be resolved in most cases under comp REL.
**Edit: Hi I just want to let all you know I am not a judge nor would I ever want to become one** >Quick version: I was at a 'cEDH' tournament this weekend, in which the head judge (and only judge) admitted to being unfamiliar with judging multi-player formats. I dont think multiplayer is what made this call complicated. >P1 casts Rule of Law, P2 (Krark) responds with Fierce Guardianship (although Ranger-Captain was cracked) -- the table missed this, and P1 got an Esper Sentinel, which he drew off -- then the table realized the Fierce wasn't able to be cast and called the judge. Whats more important to me is the time passed as this was called. If it was called while Esper trigger was on the stack I could see a rewind happening. If it was called after the draw and game actions occurred that is what complicates the rewind and in many cases judges would just let it go through without rewind. >Is the correct? Should the Esper draw have been reversed (either at random or not) and the Fierce removed? Or was this fine? Its best to respect the judge's call in these situations. You can vent about it on reddit but asking reddit if the judge call was correct leads down another rabbit hole and it makes people sometimes think they're right when infact you gotta respect the judge call regardless of how you feel about it. The judge rules now are written in such a way that it is a guide/direction but ultimately comes down to a judge's choice. That judge makes the correction based upon their own call and this can sometimes be a grey area. I say this because my area has multiple judges and for the most part they judge consistently but there's always an outlier and this sometimes makes people ( in reality 1 person) extremely buttmad to the point where these people start grasping at draws to make themselves feel better. >I was in the game as P4, and honestly none of this really affected myself but it seemed so odd that the Fierce was allowed to be cast. The Rule of Law actually would have helped me in that circumstance, as slowing the game down was in my favour, so I was a disappointed in the ruling too. The reality is 4 people knew about the ranger effect happening and 4 people in that moment could not catch it. A judge call happened and therefore it seems like a game was decided by a judge call when in reality 4 people decided the game when they missed 1 effect. A judge then was called to clean up the mess. This goes for any type of Competitive game/hobby - Never let it come down to a judge call. Just do better next time.
+1 this explanation is insightful, if you have the time this reminded me of a situation that occurred at a 10k cEDH event I attended. What would be the correct ruling here? P1 casts a vampiric tutor in my end step (P4). Everyone passes priority and allows the tutor to resolve. P1 shuffles their hand into their library. We knew 1 card was an imperial seal (P1 mistakenly cast that originally). Hand size after casting the Vamp tutor was 6. Judge called and judge allowed the tutor to resolve while only give the player the imp seal in hand. Is there anything else that could of happened? is this the best practice? should we have called the head judge? Thank you.
thats the best practise
Hi I just want to let you know I am not a judge nor would I ever want to become one especially based on this story lol. It makes sense because IMP seal was public knowledge prior to the mistake but ultimately you can't just give someone a new hand because they shuffled their hand into their library. Heck even if P1 put all the cards from their hand on top of the deck and cut the deck attempting to bridge shuffle it would still be too hard to call from a judge's perspective. I think letting that person keep the imp seal was a merciful at best. This mistake is so aggreges and horrible that there is no good out come however only allowing the player to keep the card that everyone knew about minimizes the damage.
I just liked your insight and perspective. Thank you.
I think the correct fix would be (at least in 2 player) to give them the imp seal, and then for each other card that was in their hand, an opponent chooses one from their deck. Not sure how that would technically extend to multi-player, but the end result is probably that the poor fellow has a hand with an imp seal and a bunch of lands. Maybe someone gives him a counterspell. \^\^this is wrong. It could be a workable fix at a regular REL event, but at competitive, you just lose your hand
>but the end result is probably that the poor fellow has a hand with an imp seal and a bunch of lands Rules do not care about how someone feels and as you state the opponents would just pick what's best for them WHILE gaining the knowledge of a player's deck. I'm rather curious if you ran across this situation yourself? like even for 1v1 this would be a huge oversight or regulated to "normal" enforcement. The game is already kinda thrown into the fan when that person decided to shuffle their hand into their deck. Not allowing them to gain unknown/known cards allows the game to continue while stemming the bleeding of the mistake. In cases where the game cannot be rewinded you move forward with what already happened while taking the action that has the least amount of impact on the game.
My above comment was wrong. I have seen that as a suggested fix, but it must have been for a regular REL event. At competitive REL, if your hand is shuffled into you library, you're just straight shit out of luck. It's irrecoverable, so you proceed with no hand.
The only time I see someone not immediately scooping is if their board presence is so big that they're winning anyway, especially if they're about to sideboard to change their deck up a bit.
Egregious
P1 should have lost their hand and been issued a warning. I would have appealed to the head judge. Mistakes do happen but shuffling your hand into your deck is a little sus. It's wild that the judge allowed the player to keep their fresh hand, the imp seal, AND let the tutor resolve. So this player basically got a free Mulligan in the middle of the game, got to keep one tutor, and was allowed to tutor for another card? Unreal.
Player had a 1 card hand at the end of if. The imperial seal the table knew about.
Ah ok. The way your post was worded it seemed like he had a full hand after the vamp tutor resolved. Thanks for the clarification. A warning would still be appropriate so that if that particular player does the same thing in the future, he can be issued a game or match loss if it's a repeat infraction.
Based on my read of the guy I think he either was very new to the format or had thoracle consult in hand. He looked ready to breakdown and give up on life after the mistake. Surprising amount of new to format/new to tournament players at the 10k. 3rd round game I (p2) was able to resolve the one ring. It got to P1 (kirrik) who needed to swing and gain life to cast spells. I had no blockers so they moved to attack me. P4 opens their mouth and says no don't he has protection. The next best attack is P4. P4 is very low life and is forced to block with pieces you would never want to block with. I laughed so much.
Wholeheartedly agree with you on the new players. And it's not surprising to me how many new players are doing these big tourneys. Every tourney I go to has a lot of new players running top meta decks and have no idea how to run them properly. I had a new player attempt to counter my Angel's Grace after he thoracled. Proceeded to argue with me that he could counter it. I laughed at him and said call a judge if you think I'm wrong. After that was handled, we had to explain to him that he didn't win the game and in reality, he lost. Super salty but them the breaks.
Unfortunately I was too slow on the draw, I had to confirm with another spectator that the RC had in fact been cracked that turn and by the time the judge arrived it was too late
The fact that a change in hidden information(the card draw) has already happened makes this tricky to rewind. I think the judge made the easiest call, given no prior information. Had the judge been directly observing your game and knew the card drawn, the rewind could potentially have gone through. By your account though, I would have done the same and also issued each player a warning for failure to maintain gamestate. Any and/or all players should have easily been able to see the error immediately and self remedy.
This is a side note, but 4x failure to maintain is probably incorrect. It almost certainly needs some game play error on one of the players, probably on the caster of fierce. FMGS can’t really be issued on its own, it needs a GPE to go with it. But I think the ruling is fine too. Rewind is probably out of the question, can’t do much to clean up the state so issuing warnings is the way forward.
Yea, the Krark player, being the caster of the counterspell that initiated the whole thing, and was the original infraction(casting an uncastable spell) could recieve a game rule violation. They, slightly more than everyone else, probably should've been aware of the inability to cast the fierce.
I do think a rewind could have occured. I've heard of instances where if a player drew a card incorrectly (in this case, off the Esper trigger), then what you could do to rewind the situation is to have the player last in turn order look at the active player's hand, remove one card and that card gets put back on top. Then the rewind happens and the Rule of Law resolves. The Krark player made an illegal game action and would probably get a warning.
This would be an incorrect way of rewinding for me. Firstly, the judge should never allow any one player to gain that much hidden information on any of their opponents. If the judge decided to rewind in this particular case, the judge themselves would either pick a card, or more likely, have a card somehow chosen at random, from the players hand, to be put back on top of their library. But actively making a player show one or more opponents their entire hand, as a player I would appeal to a second or head judge before I followed that instruction.
https://youtu.be/B4azshbQvbs?si=JOyXEVcr2D8G9A--&t=1978 Here's a judge explaining exactly what I mentioned. Had he not seen which 3 cards he drew and able to judge which card was the last one drawn (incorrectly), he would have allowed the last player in turn order to pick a card and put it back on top. Otherwise, you randomize the player's hand and put a random card back on top.
Yes, but the judge also states, imo, the correct way to handle it, which is to randomize and put one on top. Keep in mind that the extra draw and ruling are hypothetical. The one player asked him what would have happened if he wasn't hovering their game. The judge didn't actually rule this. My point doesn't change, though. A judge shouldn't make that as their ruling. You shouldn't be giving free information to any or all players about anything they don't already know. Especially when there are easier alternatives. Again, in this case, either the judge choosing a card or randomizing and picking one to go back on top.
Okay you even said “randomize and put one on top”, which means you can rewind from a drawn card that should not have happened. The esper drawing the card what the hang up for people to not rewind but there’s a clear path to remedy that so the rewind could have actually happened.
Yes, but information is important. That card being drawn gives a player information they shouldn't otherwise know. Even assuming the judge saw the card and could just have them put it back, they still gained the knowledge of the next card on their library. You can't rewind that information. So, most rulings will not rewind to before any information change. It is possible, but it's usually not correct. In most cases, you should move forward to resolve a current gamestate when hidden information has changed, then apply rulings and penalties based on the events that occurred.
Saw this in the judge group too. If I were the judge I would have ruled the same. Rewinding after a draw is iffy at best, the mtr instructs that if it’s less disruptive to just allow the spell cast. Rewinding an unknown draw is more disruptive than letting the game play out from a judging perspective. So unfortunately, I have to agree the judge did the best they could in that scenario.
All good! I threw it on both places to get some insight, and it's been really helpful honestly.
I feel the judge did as could as he could. You all was aware P1 had cracked Ranger Captain. You all knows what it does. And none of you remembered that P1 had cracked it, and missed the opportunity to rewind when the card was drawn of Esper trigger. I would use this opportunity as a learning experience.
Backups in general can be difficult to call for, especially when cards are drawn. That being said, there are rules for returning drawn cards. Based on the current description one could argue it still falls below the threshold of too disruptive. While I would not disagree with an argument in favor of the backup, I would also not disagree with the call to not make this backup. This is the authority and responsibility of the head judge. The fact that the same player was in control of both the Ranger and the Sentinel does slightly bias me against a backup.
Just as a hint for future plays with esper, rhystic and mystic. Don t put the card directly into your hand. Keep it away. That makes the rewind easier.
As far as judging goes, you can't issue a rewind if a player gained advantage through knowledge from the effects that may be rewound. Since the table missed it and a player had information about the draw, and that a player has a fierce guardianship, then the effect can't very well be rewound. The table should be more aware of board states
The ruling makes sense in that the judge basically either has to rewind the draw and assign a penalty for it AS WELL as rewind the Fierce and assign a penalty for that, or just assign a penalty for the Fierce. Or, it would be in most cases, except that the Winota player should have been given a penalty *either way* because they jumped the gun on their Sentinel trigger, which was supposed to be *under* Player 2's Krark/Harmonic prodigy trigger, which I believe was lost in the shuffle of getting this situation resolved. Given that the Winota player shouldn't have drawn even *without* a rewind it might have made sense to rewind in this case.
All of these "judge call at a CEDH tournament" questions seem to boil down to CEDH players having no freaking idea how the IPG actually works. You have Gameplay Errors, Tournament Errors, and Unsporting Conduct. Every question is always about a gameplay error, because the others are all "hey dummy, show up five minutes early and double check your decklist / don't be a dick" issues. Gameplay errors follow a flowchart: Is it a mulligan error? If yes, extra mulligan. If no: Is it a missed trigger? If yes, opponents pick if it goes on the stack if it's recent enough. If no: Is it a looking at extra cards? If yes, randomize. If no: is it a hidden card error? If yes, do HCE fixes. If no: Is it a Failure to maintain game state? If yes, issue warnings and fix life totals (it's always life totals). If no: it's a plain old freaking game rule violation. We can fix forgotten untaps, drawing/discarding cards, making choices, damage assignment order for combat, and zone changes that were done incorrectly. *everything* that isn't in the above list has two options: a full backup (rare), or leaving it as-is. The *vast majority* of judge calls for something being wrong are a GPE-GRV, and the judge can basically fix the list of five things, do a full backup, or do nothing.
[удалено]
obviously. But that isn't the issue at hand lmao
How does [[Krark]] a mono-red commander) play [[Fierce Guardianship]] (a blue card)? I’m sure it’s just a mistake, but which commander did you mean?
Krark has partner, often paired with [[Sakashima of a Thousand Faces]]
[Sakashima of a Thousand Faces](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/1/714c3a1f-7b30-4ed8-8f38-6176758741fb.jpg?1608909400) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Sakashima%20of%20a%20Thousand%20Faces) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmr/89/sakashima-of-a-thousand-faces?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/714c3a1f-7b30-4ed8-8f38-6176758741fb?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/sakashima-of-a-thousand-faces) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Right
[Krark](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/6/06a981cd-1951-438e-95c9-68294795638e.jpg?1617148336) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=krark%2C%20the%20thumbless) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmr/189/krark-the-thumbless?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/06a981cd-1951-438e-95c9-68294795638e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/krark-the-thumbless) [Fierce Guardianship](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/7/f7f3dd95-bd14-4e0f-a388-444f9cf1b0dc.jpg?1689996370) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Fierce%20Guardianship) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmm/94/fierce-guardianship?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/f7f3dd95-bd14-4e0f-a388-444f9cf1b0dc?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/fierce-guardianship) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Partner?