Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
I don't think this is right. If an opponent tells me that owning an expansion pack is expensive for them and the issue is purely about money (who knows what situation a person is in), then I'm willing to buy it for them. But if an opponent starts making excuses and coming up with reasons, but is willing to play with the expansion pack at someone else's expense, then I'm fundamentally not willing to help or accommodate them.
Actually, it's the opposite: in a tournament where owning an expansion pack isn't mandatory, the one who is accommodating is the one who agrees to play with the expansion pack, even if it's at their own expense. And when the opponent later says something like, "So you're willing to play with the expansion pack at someone else's expense," then there's no need to make concessions to such people.