It's singleton on MTGArena which brings this issue back up.
100.2a In constructed play (a way of playing in which each player creates their own deck ahead of time), each deck must contain at least sixty cards. A constructed deck may contain any number of basic land cards and no more than four of any card with a particular English name other than basic land cards.
101.1. Whenever a card’s text directly contradicts these rules, the card takes precedence. The card overrides only the rule that applies to that specific situation. The only exception is that a player can concede the game at any time (see rule 104.3a).
"These rules" refers to The Comprehensive Rules
FORMAT legality isn't covered in the Comprehensive Rules. So rule 101.1 doesn't apply.
INB4 Hans. Card text does not overrule tournament rules when it directly contradicts the tournament rules see this ruling on Platinum Angel
"Other circumstances can still cause you to lose the game, however. You will lose a game if you concede, if you’re penalized with a Game Loss or a Match Loss during a sanctioned tournament due to a DCI rules infraction, or if your _Magic Online_(R) game clock runs out of time."
Relentless Rats overrides the "4 of rule" found in 100.2a because it DIRECTLY contradicts the comprehensive rules.
There is no one of rule in "Singleton" because Singleton doesn't exist in the Comprehensive rulebook. Singleton is a non-sanctioned tournament/casual format. The "one of" rule for Singleton is a format legality.
From Rat Colony's gatherer
"Rat Colony’s last ability lets you ignore only the “four-of” rule. It doesn’t let you ignore format legality."
Singleton formats are supposed to modify the normal rules such that every card is restricted.
However it seems Wizards treats it more like commander where there is a deck building restriction.
The closets I can find to official rules is from a 2008 article. Which back up it being a deck build restriction rather than a format legality issue.
In the Singleton format, no two cards in a player's deck can share a name unless they're basic lands (Plains, Islands, Swamps, Mountains, and Forests). Players can use Standard, Extended, Legacy, or Vintage deckbuilding rules.
Again Rule 101.1 specifically states it only applies to the comprehensive rules. Rule 101.1 Doesn't apply to rules not found in the comprehensive rules. It's in plain English.
My question isn't really why "can" Rats be played as more then a one of. My question is why can't WoTC read their own rules correctly and either change the rules in the comprehensive rulebook or make the correct ruling for MTGArena
112.6m. An ability that modifies the rules for deck construction functions before the game begins. Such an ability modifies not just the Comprehensive Rules, but also the Magic: The Gathering Tournament Rules and any other documents that set the deck construction rules for a specific format. However, such an ability can't affect the format legality of a card, including whether it's banned or restricted. The current Magic: The Gathering Tournament Rules can be found at WPN.Wizards.com/en/resources/rules-documents.
Wizards must see the "one-of" rule as a deck construction rule rather than a matter of card legality. Though the tournament rules don't apply here, they show how Wizards seperates these:
6.1 Deck Construction Restrictions
Constructed decks must contain a minimum of sixty cards. There is no maximum deck size. If a player chooses to
use a sideboard, it may not contain more than fifteen cards.
Except for cards with the basic supertype or cards with text that specifies otherwise, a player’s combined deck and
sideboard may not contain more than four of any individual card, based on its English card title.
6.2 Card Legality
A card may only be used in a particular format if the card is from a set that is legal in that format or has the same
name as a card from a set that is legal in that format. Zendikar Expeditions and Masterpiece Series cards may only
be played in formats where the card is already legal.
Cards banned in a specific format may not be used in decks for that format. Cards restricted in a specific format
may only have one copy in a deck, including sideboard.
Rat Colony is legal in MTGA's Singleton event, so its ability modifies the deck construction rules to allow multiple copies of itself. The MTGA Singleton event has no stated restricted list, so that doesn't come into play.
Yeah I personnally don't understand, I get that some card may break the "base" rules, like trample break the rule of a creature not being able to deal damage pass through a blocker. But a card that break deck building? I dont know. What is going to be next? a card that has "this can can be played in all format"?
Rat colony is somewhat only good in singleton event just because it not that easy to deal with when you only have one of each (and you havent really thought of it).
I think allowing this kind of effect is weird and just seem to break the essence of magic in a whole rather than breaking the "base" rule of magic
This is not a new issue, it's been around since 2004 with the printing of Relentless Rats. WOTC has stated many times that this is a deck construction related ruling. I cannot find the source yet, but if you search up Relentless Rats you might find their/a response.
But ultimately it is WOTC's game and they have the authority to rule how they choose. Arena even more so.
Singleton is just a format with its own deck construction rules. Both Relentless Rats and Rat Colony have wording that ignores construction limits, it's really just that simple. The number of cards allowed in a deck is a construction issue, not a format legality issue.
In the end it works that way because they say it does, and within the framework of the Comp Rules they feel confident that this issue is covered.
For clarity it would be nice if they just made a rule that states something to the effect of "if a card says you can have any number of that card in your deck this overrides card limit rules for singleton formats", just because of the hyper-literal rules nit-pickers.
This is not a new issue, it's been around since 2004 with the printing of Relentless Rats. WOTC has stated many times that this is a deck construction related ruling. I cannot find the source yet, but if you search up Relentless Rats you might find their/a response.
But ultimately it is WOTC's game and they have the authority to rule how they choose. Arena even more so.
Singleton is just a format with its own deck construction rules. Both Relentless Rats and Rat Colony have wording that ignores construction limits, it's really just that simple. The number of cards allowed in a deck is a construction issue, not a format legality issue.
In the end it works that way because they say it does, and within the framework of the Comp Rules they feel confident that this issue is covered.
For clarity it would be nice if they just made a rule that states something to the effect of "if a card says you can have any number of that card in your deck this overrides card limit rules for singleton formats", just because of the hyper-literal rules nit-pickers.
Even as recently as January, they have reiterated this same ruling: Persistent Petitioners. It's the same with Shadowborn Apostle. Format legal means the card is both legal (rotation-wise) and unbanned. If the Rats (or Petitioners) are not banned in the format, being able to play 1 means you can play any number of them. The entire point of their text is that they get around the rules of how many can be in your deck. Singleton changes the four-of rule to be a one-of rule. This doesn't change how the Rats rules text works. It basically says for any n-of rule, where n is a number, n becomes any number less than m, where m is the maximum number of cards allowed in a deck. In most formats m is equal to as many as you can practically shuffle in a respectable amount of time. In commander its 99. Whether a 1-of or a 4-of rule applies to the format, the Rats can be any number.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
100.2a In constructed play (a way of playing in which each player creates their own deck ahead of time), each deck must contain at least sixty cards. A constructed deck may contain any number of basic land cards and no more than four of any card with a particular English name other than basic land cards.
101.1. Whenever a card’s text directly contradicts these rules, the card takes precedence. The card overrides only the rule that applies to that specific situation. The only exception is that a player can concede the game at any time (see rule 104.3a).
"These rules" refers to The Comprehensive Rules
FORMAT legality isn't covered in the Comprehensive Rules. So rule 101.1 doesn't apply.
INB4 Hans. Card text does not overrule tournament rules when it directly contradicts the tournament rules see this ruling on Platinum Angel
"Other circumstances can still cause you to lose the game, however. You will lose a game if you concede, if you’re penalized with a Game Loss or a Match Loss during a sanctioned tournament due to a DCI rules infraction, or if your _Magic Online_(R) game clock runs out of time."
Relentless Rats overrides the "4 of rule" found in 100.2a because it DIRECTLY contradicts the comprehensive rules.
There is no one of rule in "Singleton" because Singleton doesn't exist in the Comprehensive rulebook. Singleton is a non-sanctioned tournament/casual format. The "one of" rule for Singleton is a format legality.
From Rat Colony's gatherer
"Rat Colony’s last ability lets you ignore only the “four-of” rule. It doesn’t let you ignore format legality."
However it seems Wizards treats it more like commander where there is a deck building restriction.
The closets I can find to official rules is from a 2008 article. Which back up it being a deck build restriction rather than a format legality issue.
My question isn't really why "can" Rats be played as more then a one of. My question is why can't WoTC read their own rules correctly and either change the rules in the comprehensive rulebook or make the correct ruling for MTGArena
Wizards must see the "one-of" rule as a deck construction rule rather than a matter of card legality. Though the tournament rules don't apply here, they show how Wizards seperates these:
6.1 Deck Construction Restrictions
Constructed decks must contain a minimum of sixty cards. There is no maximum deck size. If a player chooses to
use a sideboard, it may not contain more than fifteen cards.
Except for cards with the basic supertype or cards with text that specifies otherwise, a player’s combined deck and
sideboard may not contain more than four of any individual card, based on its English card title.
6.2 Card Legality
A card may only be used in a particular format if the card is from a set that is legal in that format or has the same
name as a card from a set that is legal in that format. Zendikar Expeditions and Masterpiece Series cards may only
be played in formats where the card is already legal.
Cards banned in a specific format may not be used in decks for that format. Cards restricted in a specific format
may only have one copy in a deck, including sideboard.
Rat Colony is legal in MTGA's Singleton event, so its ability modifies the deck construction rules to allow multiple copies of itself. The MTGA Singleton event has no stated restricted list, so that doesn't come into play.
Rat colony is somewhat only good in singleton event just because it not that easy to deal with when you only have one of each (and you havent really thought of it).
I think allowing this kind of effect is weird and just seem to break the essence of magic in a whole rather than breaking the "base" rule of magic
But ultimately it is WOTC's game and they have the authority to rule how they choose. Arena even more so.
Singleton is just a format with its own deck construction rules. Both Relentless Rats and Rat Colony have wording that ignores construction limits, it's really just that simple. The number of cards allowed in a deck is a construction issue, not a format legality issue.
In the end it works that way because they say it does, and within the framework of the Comp Rules they feel confident that this issue is covered.
For clarity it would be nice if they just made a rule that states something to the effect of "if a card says you can have any number of that card in your deck this overrides card limit rules for singleton formats", just because of the hyper-literal rules nit-pickers.
Even as recently as January, they have reiterated this same ruling: Persistent Petitioners. It's the same with Shadowborn Apostle. Format legal means the card is both legal (rotation-wise) and unbanned. If the Rats (or Petitioners) are not banned in the format, being able to play 1 means you can play any number of them. The entire point of their text is that they get around the rules of how many can be in your deck. Singleton changes the four-of rule to be a one-of rule. This doesn't change how the Rats rules text works. It basically says for any n-of rule, where n is a number, n becomes any number less than m, where m is the maximum number of cards allowed in a deck. In most formats m is equal to as many as you can practically shuffle in a respectable amount of time. In commander its 99. Whether a 1-of or a 4-of rule applies to the format, the Rats can be any number.