Sorry for all the questions, we're having a kind of epic magic night here
If someone Praetor's Grasps my deck, and grabs a card out of my flashback deck, can I play Runic Repetition on my turn and attempt to target the face down card?
No you cannot. It's face down, so it doesn't have flashback (even if it has flashback when it's not face down).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI Level 2 Judge
Scientists have calculated that the chance of anything so patently absurd actually existing are millions to one. But magicians have calculated that million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten.
No you cannot. It's face down, so it doesn't have flashback (even if it has flashback when it's not face down).
Are you 100% on that? because I know face down creatures don't have the abilities of the other side, but I was positive that when referring to a "card" and not anything specific (such as target sorcery or instant) that it referred to the entire card, including both sides. That's the basis for the new innistrad 2 sided cards having color identities on both sides of the card, because it doesn't say your creatures need to have the color, it says the card, which refers to both sides. The upside down part of the card doesn't have flashback, but the card itself does, and the text refers to the card.
W may only be paid with white mana. U may only be paid with blue mana. B may only be paid with black mana. R may only be paid with red mana. G may only be paid with green mana. C may only be paid with colorless mana. 1 may be paid with white, blue, black, red, green, or clolorless mana.
406.3. Exiled cards are, by default, kept face up and may be examined by any player at any time. Cards "exiled face down" can't be examined by any player except when instructions allow it.
Runic Repetition does not automatically allow a player to examine it and hence cannot target it.
You do not know if the card has flashback, so you cannot target it
In this situation, my next move I diabolic tutored, which is how I found the card that was exiled was the flashback card. (Devil's Play) was missing, my opponent exiled it not to use it, but so I couldn't. The identity of the card is known to me through legal play.
You (and more importantly) do not know the characteristic of the face down card. The only thing known for certain about that card is that you are the owner of that card. Since the game doesn't know for sure that it has flashback, you cannot target it with the Repetition.
I don't really understand your point with double-faced cards. Unless the card is on the battlefield and transformed, you ignore the other side. The front sides of double-faced cards do not have color indicators, only the back side (and the back side has color indicators since they would either be colorless since color is determined by their mana cost (which they have none), or they would have needed a line of text saying "~this~ is a green card"). Commander has a separate rule that tells you to look at the back side of a double-faced card when figuring out a card's color identity.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI Level 2 Judge
Scientists have calculated that the chance of anything so patently absurd actually existing are millions to one. But magicians have calculated that million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten.
still doesn't matter, the grasp says it's exiled face down, whether you know what the card is or not doesn't make ruin repitition go, "hey it has flashback, i can target it" Face down cards have no "other side" they're face down, Morph is treated differently, with the face down being a 2/2 critter. And DFC's are never face down.
So, No. Ruinic Rep, Doesn't and will not. Allow you to target the face down "Devils Play" Because devil's play nolonger exists in the course of the game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ravarshi Kashaku, Ancient Dragon of the Darkened Realms;
The Merciless Lord of Torture, Permanently Bound To: ">[THE PACK] 11/5/63 - 11/25/09 Goodbye mom, i'll always love you...
Ok Thank you guys for helping us out there. It's a loss for me, but an educated one
Wow... I should have gone to magiccard.info first :/ 9/22/2011: A card that's exiled face down doesn't have any characteristics or abilities, so it can't be the target of Runic Repetition. I feel dumb. Natedogg you were spot on, I play more Commander than any magic so sometimes my commander rules bleed into my normal rules :/
Does anyone know where in the comprehensive rules the "9/22/2011: A card that's exiled face down doesn't have any characteristics or abilities, so it can't be the target of Runic Repetition." ruling is based on? The closest I can find is 707.2, but that applies only to face-down spells and permanents, not exiled cards. 406.3 says they can't be examined by other players, but doesn't say they don't have characteristics/abilities.
Hmmm.... 406.3 says they can't be examined by other players, but doesn't say they don't have characteristics/abilities.
That's where my hope was :/ I've been looking in the comprehensive rules for the last 10 minutes trying to find this very information. It's my understanding that the magic rules need to specifically state what happens in every situation... Which is why "protection" is weird because of how it's written, it's global destroy can kill something with protection from it, yet global damage cannot. This seems to fit in that same "undefined" loophole.
I just ctrl+f'd the entire comprehensive rules for "face down" and the closest ruling I found was
707.2. Face-down spells and face-down permanents have no characteristics other than those listed by the ability or rules that allowed the spell or permanent to be face down. Any listed characteristics are the copiable values of that object's characteristics. (See rule 613, "Interaction of Continuous Effects," and rule 706, "Copying Objects.")
But, since the card was never played, it counts as a card, and not a spell.
111.1. A spell is a card on the stack...
110.1 A permanent is a card or token on the battlefield. (It's not on the battlefield)
110.6d Only permanents have status. Cards not on the battlefield do not. Although an exiled card may be face down, this has no correlation to the face-down status of a permanent. Similarly, cards not on the battlefield are neither tapped nor untapped, regardless of their physical state.
There is no rule in the entire comprehensive rules that states that the face down card does not have the abilities of both sides. Only defined is "face down spells" and "face down permanents" which to my knowledge, this is neither.
The rules are a guideline for the game; they will not and can't define every situation, and some information does have to be derived. For example, the only rule for Static Abilities is that they are always on, but you have to know Layers to understand how some Static Abilities work.
In this case, the ruling is derived. The exiled card is face-down, so even though you could know what it is, there is no way for you to confirm it, without cheating and flipping it over.
406.3. Exiled cards are, by default, kept face up and may be examined by any player at any time. Cards "exiled face down" can't be examined by any player except when instructions allow it.
It can't be examined, so you can't check if it's a legal target, so Runic Repetition can't be cast to return it.
*Protection is fairly well defined. Section 702.15 is entirely dedicated to it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you don't wear your seatbelt, the police will shoot you in the head."
- To my youngest sister when she was 6.
Everyone knows that good luck and good game are such insincere terms that any man who does not connect his right hook with the offender's jaw on the very utterance of such a phrase is no man I would consider as such.
It can't be examined, so you can't check if it's a legal target, so Runic Repetition can't be cast to return it.
My deck was searched with Diabolic Tutor and the missing card was Devil's Play, the card is 100% known to me through legal play. Does that not matter? (I don't mean to sound redundant but nobody has answered that question yet)
The rules are a guideline for the game; they will not and can't define every situation, and some information does have to be derived. For example, the only rule for Static Abilities is that they are always on, but you have to know Layers to understand how some Static Abilities work.
The comprehensive rules are meant to be comprehensive. Hence the name.
If face-down exiled cards have no characteristics, the rules must say so. Otherwise, they would by default have the card's characteristics. This is why 707.2 exists: it overrides the default for face-down spells and permanents. Cards have the characteristics printed on them, unless a rule or effect overrides them.
In this case, the ruling is derived. The exiled card is face-down, so even though you could know what it is, there is no way for you to confirm it, without cheating and flipping it over.
406.3. Exiled cards are, by default, kept face up and may be examined by any player at any time. Cards "exiled face down" can't be examined by any player except when instructions allow it.
It can't be examined, so you can't check if it's a legal target, so Runic Repetition can't be cast to return it.
There's a difference between something not being true and you not having access to the information to confirm whether or not something is true.
You can call over a judge to check. See the old (pre-errata) rulings for Copper Gnomes.
It's likely an oversight which will be corrected in the next rules revision. Until then, we can follow the ruling.
My deck was searched with Diabolic Tutor and the missing card was Devil's Play, the card is 100% known to me through legal play. Does that not matter? (I don't mean to sound redundant but nobody has answered that question yet)
Not it does not, whilst you the player know what the card might be, the game is still ignorant of that fact and can't determinw any characteristics of the card in question. The only way you can get it out of exile is if the spell you are using does not define any characteristics of the card to be retreived. Otherwise the game can't determine that the card you are targetting matches.
It is the same as the interaction between library of leng and Chandra ablaze the game can't verify the discarded card is red so does not deal the damage to the target.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
It's likely an oversight which will be corrected in the next rules revision. Until then, we can follow the ruling.
The game was over an hour ago cause we followed the ruling. Is there any forum to write magic to challenge a ruling that doesn't follow the comprehensive rules, or are they set in stone forever?
It is the same as the interaction between library of leng and Chandra ablaze the game can't verify the discarded card is red so does not deal the damage to the target.
This is incorrect. The reason it does not deal damage is not because the game can't verify the discarded card. Rather, it is because the following rule makes its characteristics undefined:
Quote from "Comprehensive Rules" »
701.7c If a card is discarded, but an effect causes it to be put into a hidden zone instead of into its owner's graveyard without being revealed, all values of that card's characteristics are considered to be undefined. If a card is discarded this way to pay a cost that specifies a characteristic about the discarded card, that cost payment is illegal; the game returns to the moment before the cost was paid (see rule 717, "Handling Illegal Actions").
There does not appear to be an similar rule for the situation at hand.
The game was over an hour ago cause we followed the ruling. Is there any forum to write magic to challenge a ruling that doesn't follow the comprehensive rules, or are they set in stone forever?
The ruling indicates that they probably already know, but it wouldn't hurt to let them know. The current Rules Manager is Matt Tabak; you can contact him at @TabakRules on twitter.
My deck was searched with Diabolic Tutor and the missing card was Devil's Play, the card is 100% known to me through legal play. Does that not matter?
No, the card was not known through a legal play. It was "known" through deductions based on a legal play and your knowledge of your deck. That is different.
What if you had misremembered the contents of your deck? You would have believed the exiled card was Devil's Play when, in fact, it would have been Lightning Bolt. Now you try to target it with Runic Repetition, but you can't. How should this play out in your opinion? Should your opponent reveal to you the card he exiled to prove to you you can't target it?
Or consider a slightly different scenario. Your opponent Praetor's Grasped you twice before you get a chance to look through your deck and deduce that one Devil's Play and one Lightning Bolt are missing. Should you now be able to get the Devil's Play back with Runic Repetition? While you can deduce that those two cards must be Devil's Play and Lightning Bolt, you cannot know which is which (barring meta-information that you know that your opponent will always take the cheaper spell first, or something like that). So should the game behave differently in this and your original scenario, just based on one specific, but rules-wise completely unrelated play (in this case the second Praetor's Grasp)?
The point is, the way it's been ruled is really the only sensible way to rule it.
Quote from lvl3 »
Is there any forum to write magic to challenge a ruling that doesn't follow the comprehensive rules, or are they set in stone forever?
Rulings are certainly not "set in stone forever", they are subject to change with the underlying rules or, sometimes, the underlying philosophy of the rules (although such a change is usually accompanied by explicit rules changes as well). As for a forum to voice such concerns, you can always try the Rules Theory and Templating Forum over at the Wizards Community Forums, or you could write to the MTGRULES-L mailing list if you have access to it.
No, the card was not known through a legal play. It was "known" through deductions based on a legal play and your knowledge of your deck. That is different.
What if you had misremembered the contents of your deck? You would have believed the exiled card was Devil's Play when, in fact, it would have been Lightning Bolt. Now you try to target it with Runic Repetition, but you can't. How should this play out in your opinion? Should your opponent reveal to you the card he exiled to prove to you you can't target it?
Or consider a slightly different scenario. Your opponent Praetor's Grasped you twice before you get a chance to look through your deck and deduce that one Devil's Play and one Lightning Bolt are missing. Should you now be able to get the Devil's Play back with Runic Repetition? While you can deduce that those two cards must be Devil's Play and Lightning Bolt, you cannot know which is which (barring meta-information that you know that your opponent will always take the cheaper spell first, or something like that). So should the game behave differently in this and your original scenario, just based on one specific, but rules-wise completely unrelated play (in this case the second Praetor's Grasp)?
For argument's sake, what if I exiled a flashback spell with my Hideaway land (it is face-down but I have access to look at it). Why can't I cast Runic Repitition targeting it? Without a rule telling us that the face-down exiled card has no abilities, the rules should allow such a play.
Simply put, your opponent cannot verify that the play made was legal.
Is there precedent that just because my opponent cannot verify that the play made was legal that it makes my play illegal?
I'm not arguing that it should be allowed (I think it should be disallowed because of the reason you stated), but it seems that the Comp Rules 100% allow this play. Nothing in the comp rules at all stops me from targetting a face-down exiled card with flashback that I can verify has Flashback.
Is there precedent that just because my opponent cannot verify that the play made was legal that it makes my play illegal?
The closest precedent I can think of is the following Copper Gnomes ruling, from before the errata making putting an artifact into play optional:
Quote from "Ruling" »
You can use the ability if you have no artifacts in hand. It just does nothing on resolution. [DeLaney 1998/10/05]
If a player claims they have none, you may call a judge to verify that they don't have any. [bethmo 1998/11/03]
Is there precedent that just because my opponent cannot verify that the play made was legal that it makes my play illegal?
I'm not arguing that it should be allowed (I think it should be disallowed because of the reason you stated), but it seems that the Comp Rules 100% allow this play. Nothing in the comp rules at all stops me from targetting a face-down exiled card with flashback that I can verify has Flashback.
Your looking at it the wrong way, the comp rules are permissive in that they allow you to perform certain actions at certain times. There is not a general permission given to you to reveal a face down card that in any zone not just the battlefield/stack so you may not. As you don't have the permission to reveal it except under certain circumstances playing your hideaway/praetors grasp card, unmorphing your creature, you are not allowed to reveal that you have targetted a legal object so you can't perform the action.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Your looking at it the wrong way, the comp rules are permissive in that they allow you to perform certain actions at certain times. There is not a general permission given to you to reveal a face down card that in any zone not just the battlefield/stack so you may not. As you don't have the permission to reveal it except under certain circumstances playing your hideaway/praetors grasp card, unmorphing your creature, you are not allowed to reveal that you have targetted a legal object so you can't perform the action.
The rules permit me to play a Sorcery pursuant to rules 307 and 601. I'm just following the Comp Rules instructions to play the Sorcery. Similar to the Copper Gnomes pre-errata ruling, it may require a judge to verify, but I'm just following the rules for playing a Sorcery, which the Comp Rules permit me to do.
And a separate, but very related question, if Praetor's Grasp exiles a card with Flash, how am I allowed to play the card using Flash if it doesn't have any characteristics or abilities (including Flash) while exiled face-down?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If someone Praetor's Grasps my deck, and grabs a card out of my flashback deck, can I play Runic Repetition on my turn and attempt to target the face down card?
Scientists have calculated that the chance of anything so patently absurd actually existing are millions to one. But magicians have calculated that million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten.
Are you 100% on that? because I know face down creatures don't have the abilities of the other side, but I was positive that when referring to a "card" and not anything specific (such as target sorcery or instant) that it referred to the entire card, including both sides. That's the basis for the new innistrad 2 sided cards having color identities on both sides of the card, because it doesn't say your creatures need to have the color, it says the card, which refers to both sides. The upside down part of the card doesn't have flashback, but the card itself does, and the text refers to the card.
Runic Repetition does not automatically allow a player to examine it and hence cannot target it.
In this situation, my next move I diabolic tutored, which is how I found the card that was exiled was the flashback card. (Devil's Play) was missing, my opponent exiled it not to use it, but so I couldn't. The identity of the card is known to me through legal play.
I don't really understand your point with double-faced cards. Unless the card is on the battlefield and transformed, you ignore the other side. The front sides of double-faced cards do not have color indicators, only the back side (and the back side has color indicators since they would either be colorless since color is determined by their mana cost (which they have none), or they would have needed a line of text saying "~this~ is a green card"). Commander has a separate rule that tells you to look at the back side of a double-faced card when figuring out a card's color identity.
Scientists have calculated that the chance of anything so patently absurd actually existing are millions to one. But magicians have calculated that million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten.
So, No. Ruinic Rep, Doesn't and will not. Allow you to target the face down "Devils Play" Because devil's play nolonger exists in the course of the game.
The Merciless Lord of Torture, Permanently Bound To: ">[THE PACK] 11/5/63 - 11/25/09 Goodbye mom, i'll always love you...
Tibalt & His Devils vs. Avacyn's Inquisitors
My EDH decklists
Wow... I should have gone to magiccard.info first :/ 9/22/2011: A card that's exiled face down doesn't have any characteristics or abilities, so it can't be the target of Runic Repetition. I feel dumb. Natedogg you were spot on, I play more Commander than any magic so sometimes my commander rules bleed into my normal rules :/
Does anyone know where in the comprehensive rules the "9/22/2011: A card that's exiled face down doesn't have any characteristics or abilities, so it can't be the target of Runic Repetition." ruling is based on? The closest I can find is 707.2, but that applies only to face-down spells and permanents, not exiled cards. 406.3 says they can't be examined by other players, but doesn't say they don't have characteristics/abilities.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
That's where my hope was :/ I've been looking in the comprehensive rules for the last 10 minutes trying to find this very information. It's my understanding that the magic rules need to specifically state what happens in every situation... Which is why "protection" is weird because of how it's written, it's global destroy can kill something with protection from it, yet global damage cannot. This seems to fit in that same "undefined" loophole.
707.2. Face-down spells and face-down permanents have no characteristics other than those listed by the ability or rules that allowed the spell or permanent to be face down. Any listed characteristics are the copiable values of that object's characteristics. (See rule 613, "Interaction of Continuous Effects," and rule 706, "Copying Objects.")
But, since the card was never played, it counts as a card, and not a spell.
111.1. A spell is a card on the stack...
110.1 A permanent is a card or token on the battlefield. (It's not on the battlefield)
110.6d Only permanents have status. Cards not on the battlefield do not. Although an exiled card may be face down, this has no correlation to the face-down status of a permanent. Similarly, cards not on the battlefield are neither tapped nor untapped, regardless of their physical state.
There is no rule in the entire comprehensive rules that states that the face down card does not have the abilities of both sides. Only defined is "face down spells" and "face down permanents" which to my knowledge, this is neither.
In this case, the ruling is derived. The exiled card is face-down, so even though you could know what it is, there is no way for you to confirm it, without cheating and flipping it over.
406.3. Exiled cards are, by default, kept face up and may be examined by any player at any time. Cards "exiled face down" can't be examined by any player except when instructions allow it.
It can't be examined, so you can't check if it's a legal target, so Runic Repetition can't be cast to return it.
*Protection is fairly well defined. Section 702.15 is entirely dedicated to it.
- To my youngest sister when she was 6.
My deck was searched with Diabolic Tutor and the missing card was Devil's Play, the card is 100% known to me through legal play. Does that not matter? (I don't mean to sound redundant but nobody has answered that question yet)
The comprehensive rules are meant to be comprehensive. Hence the name.
If face-down exiled cards have no characteristics, the rules must say so. Otherwise, they would by default have the card's characteristics. This is why 707.2 exists: it overrides the default for face-down spells and permanents. Cards have the characteristics printed on them, unless a rule or effect overrides them.
There's a difference between something not being true and you not having access to the information to confirm whether or not something is true.
You can call over a judge to check. See the old (pre-errata) rulings for Copper Gnomes.
It's likely an oversight which will be corrected in the next rules revision. Until then, we can follow the ruling.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
Not it does not, whilst you the player know what the card might be, the game is still ignorant of that fact and can't determinw any characteristics of the card in question. The only way you can get it out of exile is if the spell you are using does not define any characteristics of the card to be retreived. Otherwise the game can't determine that the card you are targetting matches.
It is the same as the interaction between library of leng and Chandra ablaze the game can't verify the discarded card is red so does not deal the damage to the target.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
The game was over an hour ago cause we followed the ruling. Is there any forum to write magic to challenge a ruling that doesn't follow the comprehensive rules, or are they set in stone forever?
This is incorrect. The reason it does not deal damage is not because the game can't verify the discarded card. Rather, it is because the following rule makes its characteristics undefined:
There does not appear to be an similar rule for the situation at hand.
The ruling indicates that they probably already know, but it wouldn't hurt to let them know. The current Rules Manager is Matt Tabak; you can contact him at @TabakRules on twitter.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
No, the card was not known through a legal play. It was "known" through deductions based on a legal play and your knowledge of your deck. That is different.
What if you had misremembered the contents of your deck? You would have believed the exiled card was Devil's Play when, in fact, it would have been Lightning Bolt. Now you try to target it with Runic Repetition, but you can't. How should this play out in your opinion? Should your opponent reveal to you the card he exiled to prove to you you can't target it?
Or consider a slightly different scenario. Your opponent Praetor's Grasped you twice before you get a chance to look through your deck and deduce that one Devil's Play and one Lightning Bolt are missing. Should you now be able to get the Devil's Play back with Runic Repetition? While you can deduce that those two cards must be Devil's Play and Lightning Bolt, you cannot know which is which (barring meta-information that you know that your opponent will always take the cheaper spell first, or something like that). So should the game behave differently in this and your original scenario, just based on one specific, but rules-wise completely unrelated play (in this case the second Praetor's Grasp)?
The point is, the way it's been ruled is really the only sensible way to rule it.
Rulings are certainly not "set in stone forever", they are subject to change with the underlying rules or, sometimes, the underlying philosophy of the rules (although such a change is usually accompanied by explicit rules changes as well). As for a forum to voice such concerns, you can always try the Rules Theory and Templating Forum over at the Wizards Community Forums, or you could write to the MTGRULES-L mailing list if you have access to it.
For argument's sake, what if I exiled a flashback spell with my Hideaway land (it is face-down but I have access to look at it). Why can't I cast Runic Repitition targeting it? Without a rule telling us that the face-down exiled card has no abilities, the rules should allow such a play.
Ever wanted to know what guidelines Judges use to make rulings? Find out at the DCI Document Center.
You can also find the latest Comprehensive Rules here.
Is there precedent that just because my opponent cannot verify that the play made was legal that it makes my play illegal?
I'm not arguing that it should be allowed (I think it should be disallowed because of the reason you stated), but it seems that the Comp Rules 100% allow this play. Nothing in the comp rules at all stops me from targetting a face-down exiled card with flashback that I can verify has Flashback.
The closest precedent I can think of is the following Copper Gnomes ruling, from before the errata making putting an artifact into play optional:
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
Your looking at it the wrong way, the comp rules are permissive in that they allow you to perform certain actions at certain times. There is not a general permission given to you to reveal a face down card that in any zone not just the battlefield/stack so you may not. As you don't have the permission to reveal it except under certain circumstances playing your hideaway/praetors grasp card, unmorphing your creature, you are not allowed to reveal that you have targetted a legal object so you can't perform the action.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
The rules permit me to play a Sorcery pursuant to rules 307 and 601. I'm just following the Comp Rules instructions to play the Sorcery. Similar to the Copper Gnomes pre-errata ruling, it may require a judge to verify, but I'm just following the rules for playing a Sorcery, which the Comp Rules permit me to do.
And a separate, but very related question, if Praetor's Grasp exiles a card with Flash, how am I allowed to play the card using Flash if it doesn't have any characteristics or abilities (including Flash) while exiled face-down?