This is not really a rules query in the sense that I am aware of the rulings running around it. I just feel that the rule is simply "inelegant", so to speak, and hence, warrants discussion. For those who are not aware of it, the rule goes: -
Your Commander has an intrinsic "property" that makes it identifiable in all zones, regardless of whether or not that information would typically be hidden. That means even a face-down Commander amidst several other Morphed creatures is known to be exactly what it is, and a Commander in your library is also identifiable as such. The best way to accomplish this is to [B]use different sleeves for your Commander than for the rest of your deck[/B]. When required to do so, make sure you sufficiently randomize the deck by using a "blind shuffle."
[B]
(Yeah, I didn't want to hijack d0su's thread)
This rule probably does not matter in more than 90% of the time (though it may matter if Akroma, Angel of Fury is somehow bounced and subsequently morphed amidst more than one face-down creatures). On the other hand, this entire ruling seems inelegant to me in that the general is inherently "marked". Even if there are no disputes on "sufficient randomisation", it seems strange to allow players to know roughly where the general is located when it is somehow tucked in the library. In fact, it seems that there are more to be gained from abolishing this "bench ruling" rather than keeping this ruling that would probably matter in a small subset of corner cases -- for goodness sakes, just oblige the player morphing their generals to declare that the general is being morphed.
Also, the fact that this rule was never "gazetted" on the official rules page since the "bench ruling" at the end of May 2010 makes this ruling a little less credible, at least when it comes to convincing your opponents that this is the case (i.e. it is fine to bring up the dragonhighlander.net rules page but it can be quite a hassle to enter into a rules forum to dig for the information in the middle of a game). Yeah, my playgroup takes our EDH seriously
Thoughts?
(Do refrain from replying "This is a casual format. Do whatever you want", since it doesn't really contribute much to the discussion :-/)
Wait, what? I've never even heard of this type of rule before, let alone thought that it would be "official". It makes absolutely no sense to put your general in a different-color sleeve, for exactly the reasons listed. Or at least if you do (which some people I've played with before have been known to do) have the courtesy to keep a spare sleeve that matches the rest of your deck so you can swap it out should your general get tucked/shuffled/what have you.
Also, the point of declaring when you morph your Akroma general if it isn't inherently obvious is spot-on. These are the types of things that my playgroup has always agreed on, mainly because we figured that's what the rules were, since it made the most logical sense.
Being a General is not a characteristic[MTG CR109.3], it is a property of the card. As such, "Generalness" cannot be copied or overwritten by continuous effects, and does not change with control of the card.
I'm not the greatest store of rules knowledge, but isn't this necessary in order to maintain the property of "Generalness" across all zones? Similar to how Tarmogoyf has P/T while in your library?
I suppose you could change the rule to explicitly state that "Generalness" is lost while in the library, but then you're adding complexity to the rule, which the RC generally views as a negative. Not saying this ruling is good or bad, just that it's necessary given the way the rules are currently written.
I'm not the greatest store of rules knowledge, but isn't this necessary in order to maintain the property of "Generalness" across all zones? Similar to how Tarmogoyf has P/T while in your library?
I suppose you could change the rule to explicitly state that "Generalness" is lost while in the library, but then you're adding complexity to the rule, which the RC generally views as a negative. Not saying this ruling is good or bad, just that it's necessary given the way the rules are currently written.
I think that option makes a lot more sense than using different colored sleeves which is not only obnoxious it can actually affect how the games play out.
So how will this apply with oversized generals (to be released this summer)? And how would one shuffle it into his/her library if it gets tucked? Would a regular-sized version of the card be required for this purpose?
So how will this apply with oversized generals (to be released this summer)? And how would one shuffle it into his/her library if it gets tucked? Would a regular-sized version of the card be required for this purpose?
Yes, but a proxy would probably be accepted by most playgroups.
I don't understand why they can't just say that the "generalness" of a card becomes hidden information when the card's identity becomes hidden. This would seem to fix it easily.
I was made aware of this ruling about a week ago and I think it's ludicrous. For example, this ruling tends to favor multicolor generals because they can run a bunch of fetches, allowing them to shuffle when the general is tucked, and increasing their chances of getting it to the top without tutors. There's also no necessity for the rule (what about the game wouldn't work properly if you didn't always know the identity of generals?).
lol what a lame rule that has been completely ignored in our playgroup. We kind of take it as, your general is always your general and everyone has the right to know what it is, what it costs, and what it does at all times... NOT... where it is. We use the hard plastic sleeves over regular card sleeves to denote our general. but when it gets tucked, bounced or morphed we remove it from that sleeve and put it in the appropriate zone with proper randomization. But just because its tucked doesn't mean we can hide that my general is "so n' so" who costs "XXX" and does "----"
I was made aware of this ruling about a week ago and I think it's ludicrous. For example, this ruling tends to favor multicolor generals because they can run a bunch of fetches, allowing them to shuffle when the general is tucked, and increasing their chances of getting it to the top without tutors.
I'd actually argue that it's a disadvantage to the owner if the general gets tucked. Your opponent is allowed to shuffle after you, so he or she could very easily make the general impossible to draw again without tutors.
I actually love this ruling, as it adds a bit of thinking when it comes to additional information. You can gauge just how bad you want it with a Tunnel Vision. Tucking a general has been one of those lame ways around the exile / gy rule. I would say if this rule is changed, then simply add a replacement effect for tucking as well. From the existing rules, its clear the RC wants you to be able to play your general as often as possible within reason, right now tucking removes that possibility sometimes.
I'd actually argue that it's a disadvantage to the owner if the general gets tucked. Your opponent is allowed to shuffle after you, so he or she could very easily make the general impossible to draw again without tutors.
You are both suppose to blind shuffle. I just stopped letting my opponents shuffle my deck after me. If you are not satisfied with my shuffling, let me know and I will shuffle some more.
They really need to adjust this rule either by cutting it as well as changing tucking to be included in the replacement to the general zone.
Or if they want tucking to be around, I don't see any reason for you to be able to know where a general is in a deck. They just seem counter intuitive to have tucking and know where the general card is in all zones.
So how will this apply with oversized generals (to be released this summer)? And how would one shuffle it into his/her library if it gets tucked? Would a regular-sized version of the card be required for this purpose?
Additionally, the decks all come with normal-sized copies of the cards, so that you can just use that if you buy the actual product and not just the large commander. (Also, so you can use the commander as a regular card in a different deck.)
Off topic, but I'll state right now that my opinion is that tucking generals is a very necessary way to keep a few generals in check and there shouldn't be any changes to the way it currently works.
I believe this rule exists because of the extremely rare possibility that a general could be exiled face down from the library, thus preventing its owner from ever replaying it again in that game. The red Akroma situation occurs with slightly more frequency I imagine. Still, I don't see any reason not to just add a ruling where a general must be identified as such when asked as long as at least one player has access to that knowledge. I think this would cover all the cases where knowing that a card is a general is relevant.
I agree that it's kind of a dumb rule. I'm 90% certain my playgroup will ignore it.
If I understand correctly, this rule was the result of a discussion about Commanders and how they interact with cards that exile things face-down. The intention was to allow you to return your Commander to the Command Zone instead of having it gone forever because of something like, for example, Jester's Scepter.
Seems like a super-clunky solution. If you get your Commander tucked, then you shuffle it up to the top, then someone hits it with Jester's Scepter, I'd just as soon let the Commander get exiled for good.
I agree that it's kind of a dumb rule. I'm 90% certain my playgroup will ignore it.
If I understand correctly, this rule was the result of a discussion about Commanders and how they interact with cards that exile things face-down. The intention was to allow you to return your Commander to the Command Zone instead of having it gone forever because of something like, for example, Jester's Scepter.
Seems like a super-clunky solution. If you get your Commander tucked, then you shuffle it up to the top, then someone hits it with Jester's Scepter, I'd just as soon let the Commander get exiled for good.
For the longest time before this rule, my playgroup and I were under the impression that it was possible to get rid of a general forever by tucking it and then somehow exiling it face down. No one I've played with has ever expressed concern at not knowing which card in their library was their general, and I really liked thinking that if there was a deck that really really relied solely upon their general that I could build a deck that tried to exile it face down if the necessity arises. (the efficiency of such a plan is questionable, but I liked that the option was there).
So you play a format of magic based around generals with the goal of making it so someone can not play their general ... by tucking it ... and you are upset them may still know where there general is?
The best case scenario is to either add a replacement effect to tucking, or just make it official that your opponent has no right to cut / shuffle your deck if your general is tucked.
I say we just keep ignoring the rule until more (or less) people notice it. Most of us didn't even know this rule in the first place. Now that I do, I still don't intend to play the game any differently.
I can see it now, getting kicked out of a playgroup because I don't have a different colored sleeve for my general. Makes me chuckle thinking about it.
By the way, tucking is here to stay. Let's not waste posts about whether or not we should continue tucking generals- there's a bunch of other threads about that.
You are both suppose to blind shuffle. I just stopped letting my opponents shuffle my deck after me. If you are not satisfied with my shuffling, let me know and I will shuffle some more.
Supposed to, sure. And within my playgroup I'm not worried about it. But if I go to a tournament and play a side game with someone I don't know...eh. It's extremely easy to "blind" shuffle and make sure the general ends up on the top or bottom. Illegal, unethical, and probably blatant? Of course. But easy.
So you play a format of magic based around generals with the goal of making it so someone can not play their general ... by tucking it ... and you are upset them may still know where there general is?
The best case scenario is to either add a replacement effect to tucking, or just make it official that your opponent has no right to cut / shuffle your deck if your general is tucked.
So then I can shuffle my general to the top? Clearly your opponent needs to be able to have the second shuffle.
The idea of an intentionally marked card is just so out of kilter for any randomized card game that I'm surprised they would suggest this in the first place. Combine that with the fact that tuck cards are extremely common anti-general tech and I can't see why they would write the rule this way. I'm pretty sure that my playgroup will be ignoring it, and really that's all that matters.
Supposed to, sure. And within my playgroup I'm not worried about it. But if I go to a tournament and play a side game with someone I don't know...eh. It's extremely easy to "blind" shuffle and make sure the general ends up on the top or bottom. Illegal, unethical, and probably blatant? Of course. But easy.
Simply ask them to blind shuffle some more if you are not satisfied ... I am not sure what the issue is.
So then I can shuffle my general to the top? Clearly your opponent needs to be able to have the second shuffle.
The idea of an intentionally marked card is just so out of kilter for any randomized card game that I'm surprised they would suggest this in the first place. Combine that with the fact that tuck cards are extremely common anti-general tech and I can't see why they would write the rule this way. I'm pretty sure that my playgroup will be ignoring it, and really that's all that matters.
How would you do this if you are blind shuffling? If your opponents notice you keep track or that your shuffle always ends up with your general near the top 10 cards, they will simply stop playing with you. An additional cut / shuffle by opponents, unless done blind as well, is pointless.
The idea is to randomize, if you are not satisfied with my randomization, I will do it some more, obviously blindly, since that is whats being discussed.
Also everyone has a right to ignore it, but if you are playing in a tournament, you are technically cheating by not being able to tell me where your general is in your deck.
zer0faults, I don't actually expect it to be an issue. Even outside of my close playgroup, I doubt the people at my card shop will be playing with this rule any time soon. I'm just saying that if your opponent wants to be dishonest, this rules makes it very easy for him to do so. Of course, as you said, that person is going to find himself very short of opponents if he keeps that kind of behavior up, but who knows. There are pathetic people out there.
Not that I'm actually worried about having to play with them, just that I think the idea of intentionally marking a card is inviting nonsense.
By the way, why is it that everyone should know exactly where a general is in a deck? The morph thing I get (sort of...I mean really, isn't the point of a morph that they all look the same?) but why in the deck?
Hey fzian, you should add a poll to this thread. I'm curious how many people like this rule and how many people would implement it in their playgroup.
I find the rule amusing and have shared it with a couple people but we've yet to use it as tucking isn't common in our playgroup. It just seems like this would cause more arguments than anything. I understand the reasoning behind the rule but adding tucking to the replacement rule just seems so much simpler.
And for everyone that hates the rule, look at the brightside: No more digging for your General after accidentally shuffling him in after a game.
I just thought of an easy fix that doesn't involve axeing tucking. Most rules gurus, or players that played during that era, know that it is a game loss to fail to reveal a morphed creature at the end of the game. Simply add this, "When you exile a player's General (Commander) facedown, you must reveal it to that player. At the end of the game, if a General (Commander) was exiled facedown by a player and he or she failed to reveal it, that player loses."
I just thought of an easy fix that doesn't involve axeing tucking. Most rules gurus, or players that played during that era, know that it is a game loss to fail to reveal a morphed creature at the end of the game. Simply add this, "When IF you exile a player's General (Commander) facedown, you must reveal it to that player. At the end of the game, if a General (Commander) was exiled facedown by a player and he or she failed to reveal it, that player loses."
Thoughts?
I think you should cut this bit out. It sets up weird situations, and it should already be implied that breaking a game rule should result in game loss.
Im just a little confused...is this rule saying that you should use a different colored sleeve for your general even when it is shuffled into your deck?
I think you should cut this bit out. It sets up weird situations, and it should already be implied that breaking a game rule should result in game loss.
Fair enough. That was just to clarify the change more than anything. The morph rule isn't actually intrinsic to the ability, it's part of the tournament rules, so I just wanted it to be clear as possible. I wasn't suggesting it to be cut and pasted from my post to the mtgcommander.net homepage.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Recovering EDHer on the path to competitive Magic
Standard GWB Junk Rites GWB
Brewing GWBU 4-Color Rites/Aggro GWBU
Rules Advisor
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
(Yeah, I didn't want to hijack d0su's thread)
This rule probably does not matter in more than 90% of the time (though it may matter if Akroma, Angel of Fury is somehow bounced and subsequently morphed amidst more than one face-down creatures). On the other hand, this entire ruling seems inelegant to me in that the general is inherently "marked". Even if there are no disputes on "sufficient randomisation", it seems strange to allow players to know roughly where the general is located when it is somehow tucked in the library. In fact, it seems that there are more to be gained from abolishing this "bench ruling" rather than keeping this ruling that would probably matter in a small subset of corner cases -- for goodness sakes, just oblige the player morphing their generals to declare that the general is being morphed.
Also, the fact that this rule was never "gazetted" on the official rules page since the "bench ruling" at the end of May 2010 makes this ruling a little less credible, at least when it comes to convincing your opponents that this is the case (i.e. it is fine to bring up the dragonhighlander.net rules page but it can be quite a hassle to enter into a rules forum to dig for the information in the middle of a game). Yeah, my playgroup takes our EDH seriously
Thoughts?
(Do refrain from replying "This is a casual format. Do whatever you want", since it doesn't really contribute much to the discussion :-/)
Also, the point of declaring when you morph your Akroma general if it isn't inherently obvious is spot-on. These are the types of things that my playgroup has always agreed on, mainly because we figured that's what the rules were, since it made the most logical sense.
I'm not the greatest store of rules knowledge, but isn't this necessary in order to maintain the property of "Generalness" across all zones? Similar to how Tarmogoyf has P/T while in your library?
I suppose you could change the rule to explicitly state that "Generalness" is lost while in the library, but then you're adding complexity to the rule, which the RC generally views as a negative. Not saying this ruling is good or bad, just that it's necessary given the way the rules are currently written.
I think that option makes a lot more sense than using different colored sleeves which is not only obnoxious it can actually affect how the games play out.
So how will this apply with oversized generals (to be released this summer)? And how would one shuffle it into his/her library if it gets tucked? Would a regular-sized version of the card be required for this purpose?
G Pumped Elvish Warriors G
GW Infectious Slivers WG
WU Milling Allies UW
Legacy:
UB Hex-Depths BU (combo-control)
G NO/Aggro Elves G
Commander:
WUBRG Sliver Army GRBUW (multiplayer)
WUG Rafiq the Exalted GUW (1-on-1 voltron)
GU Edric's Circus UG (multiplayer tokens)
B Relentless Rats B (multiplayer combo)
UB Sygg, the Punisher (in progress)BU
UBR Nicol Bolas, Elder Dragon Highlander RBU (in progress)
Yes, but a proxy would probably be accepted by most playgroups.
I was made aware of this ruling about a week ago and I think it's ludicrous. For example, this ruling tends to favor multicolor generals because they can run a bunch of fetches, allowing them to shuffle when the general is tucked, and increasing their chances of getting it to the top without tutors. There's also no necessity for the rule (what about the game wouldn't work properly if you didn't always know the identity of generals?).
I'd actually argue that it's a disadvantage to the owner if the general gets tucked. Your opponent is allowed to shuffle after you, so he or she could very easily make the general impossible to draw again without tutors.
You are both suppose to blind shuffle. I just stopped letting my opponents shuffle my deck after me. If you are not satisfied with my shuffling, let me know and I will shuffle some more.
EDH Decks:
B Toshiro Umezawa B
W Mikaeus, the Lunarch W
G Azusa, Lost but Seeking G
UB Grimgrin, Corpse-Born BU
BGU The Mimeoplasm UGB
GUW Rubinia Soulsinger WUG
GRB Sek'Kuar, Deathkeeper BRG
Or if they want tucking to be around, I don't see any reason for you to be able to know where a general is in a deck. They just seem counter intuitive to have tucking and know where the general card is in all zones.
I believe this rule exists because of the extremely rare possibility that a general could be exiled face down from the library, thus preventing its owner from ever replaying it again in that game. The red Akroma situation occurs with slightly more frequency I imagine. Still, I don't see any reason not to just add a ruling where a general must be identified as such when asked as long as at least one player has access to that knowledge. I think this would cover all the cases where knowing that a card is a general is relevant.
If I understand correctly, this rule was the result of a discussion about Commanders and how they interact with cards that exile things face-down. The intention was to allow you to return your Commander to the Command Zone instead of having it gone forever because of something like, for example, Jester's Scepter.
Seems like a super-clunky solution. If you get your Commander tucked, then you shuffle it up to the top, then someone hits it with Jester's Scepter, I'd just as soon let the Commander get exiled for good.
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
For the longest time before this rule, my playgroup and I were under the impression that it was possible to get rid of a general forever by tucking it and then somehow exiling it face down. No one I've played with has ever expressed concern at not knowing which card in their library was their general, and I really liked thinking that if there was a deck that really really relied solely upon their general that I could build a deck that tried to exile it face down if the necessity arises. (the efficiency of such a plan is questionable, but I liked that the option was there).
The best case scenario is to either add a replacement effect to tucking, or just make it official that your opponent has no right to cut / shuffle your deck if your general is tucked.
EDH Decks:
B Toshiro Umezawa B
W Mikaeus, the Lunarch W
G Azusa, Lost but Seeking G
UB Grimgrin, Corpse-Born BU
BGU The Mimeoplasm UGB
GUW Rubinia Soulsinger WUG
GRB Sek'Kuar, Deathkeeper BRG
I can see it now, getting kicked out of a playgroup because I don't have a different colored sleeve for my general. Makes me chuckle thinking about it.
By the way, tucking is here to stay. Let's not waste posts about whether or not we should continue tucking generals- there's a bunch of other threads about that.
:symu::symr: Melek WheelStorm
:symw::symg: Trostani Enchantress (updated 6/5)
:symg::symr::symu: Unexpected Results.dec
Thada Adel Stax WIP
Supposed to, sure. And within my playgroup I'm not worried about it. But if I go to a tournament and play a side game with someone I don't know...eh. It's extremely easy to "blind" shuffle and make sure the general ends up on the top or bottom. Illegal, unethical, and probably blatant? Of course. But easy.
So then I can shuffle my general to the top? Clearly your opponent needs to be able to have the second shuffle.
The idea of an intentionally marked card is just so out of kilter for any randomized card game that I'm surprised they would suggest this in the first place. Combine that with the fact that tuck cards are extremely common anti-general tech and I can't see why they would write the rule this way. I'm pretty sure that my playgroup will be ignoring it, and really that's all that matters.
Simply ask them to blind shuffle some more if you are not satisfied ... I am not sure what the issue is.
How would you do this if you are blind shuffling? If your opponents notice you keep track or that your shuffle always ends up with your general near the top 10 cards, they will simply stop playing with you. An additional cut / shuffle by opponents, unless done blind as well, is pointless.
The idea is to randomize, if you are not satisfied with my randomization, I will do it some more, obviously blindly, since that is whats being discussed.
Also everyone has a right to ignore it, but if you are playing in a tournament, you are technically cheating by not being able to tell me where your general is in your deck.
EDH Decks:
B Toshiro Umezawa B
W Mikaeus, the Lunarch W
G Azusa, Lost but Seeking G
UB Grimgrin, Corpse-Born BU
BGU The Mimeoplasm UGB
GUW Rubinia Soulsinger WUG
GRB Sek'Kuar, Deathkeeper BRG
Not that I'm actually worried about having to play with them, just that I think the idea of intentionally marking a card is inviting nonsense.
By the way, why is it that everyone should know exactly where a general is in a deck? The morph thing I get (sort of...I mean really, isn't the point of a morph that they all look the same?) but why in the deck?
I find the rule amusing and have shared it with a couple people but we've yet to use it as tucking isn't common in our playgroup. It just seems like this would cause more arguments than anything. I understand the reasoning behind the rule but adding tucking to the replacement rule just seems so much simpler.
And for everyone that hates the rule, look at the brightside: No more digging for your General after accidentally shuffling him in after a game.
I just thought of an easy fix that doesn't involve axeing tucking. Most rules gurus, or players that played during that era, know that it is a game loss to fail to reveal a morphed creature at the end of the game. Simply add this, "When you exile a player's General (Commander) facedown, you must reveal it to that player. At the end of the game, if a General (Commander) was exiled facedown by a player and he or she failed to reveal it, that player loses."
Thoughts?
Standard
GWB Junk Rites GWB
Brewing
GWBU 4-Color Rites/Aggro GWBU
Rules Advisor
I think you should cut this bit out. It sets up weird situations, and it should already be implied that breaking a game rule should result in game loss.
Sharuum the Hegemon
Mayael the Anima
Wort, Boggart Auntie
Sliver Overlord
Drana Kalastria Bloodchief
99 mountain Ashling
Fair enough. That was just to clarify the change more than anything. The morph rule isn't actually intrinsic to the ability, it's part of the tournament rules, so I just wanted it to be clear as possible. I wasn't suggesting it to be cut and pasted from my post to the mtgcommander.net homepage.
Standard
GWB Junk Rites GWB
Brewing
GWBU 4-Color Rites/Aggro GWBU
Rules Advisor