Timeline for Does my opponent need to prove his creature has morph?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:01 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jan 10, 2020 at 16:11 | comment | added | ManoFromBerlin | Imagining that the part concerning the loss of the game also applies to all actual cards with morph, that is very similar to Illusionary Mask ability,I believe this is the right treatment to be reserved for cheaters. | |
| Jan 10, 2020 at 16:10 | comment | added | ManoFromBerlin | I remember that this type of problem arose from what was the first card with a morph-like ability:Illusionary Mask.One of the currentRulings ofIM reads:"If you use the ability to cast aCreatureCardFaceDown,you must keep track of the amount and types ofMana you spent on X.If that creature spell is moved from the stack to anywhere other than the battlefield, the resulting creature leaves the battlefield,orGame ends, the face-down card is revealed.If itsManaCost couldn't be paid by some amount of,or all of,theMana you spent on X,all applicable penalties for casting a card illegally are assessed". | |
| Sep 13, 2019 at 23:56 | comment | added | ruakh | The text that you've quoted doesn't seem to support your initial summary. You write "Failing to reveal a face down creature with Morph at the end of the game is treated as a Game Loss"; but the text that you quote says that this is only a Warning, and only becomes a "Game Loss" if it's discovered that the face-down creature really doesn't have Morph. | |
| Sep 13, 2019 at 17:26 | comment | added | Thom Smith | If they do that accidentally, then they must call a judge, who will give them a Warning and allow them to correct the problem. If they actually did it on purpose, then this is cheating and should result in disqualification, but it's true that they might fool the judge. However, they would still get a Warning for the Hidden Card Error, even though under the circumstances it would not be upgraded to a Game Loss. It seems unlikely that a cheater could get away with such a remarkable “accident” more than once. | |
| Sep 13, 2019 at 15:52 | comment | added | GuilleOjeda | Could a player abuse the section described in Upgrade by having two creatures with Morph in hand which could be useful in different situations, playing a land face down as a creature with Morph, then at the end of the opponent's next turn (i.e. with more information) "realizing" their own "mistake" and replacing the land with the creature that is now most convenient? | |
| Sep 11, 2019 at 17:12 | comment | added | murgatroid99♦ | Right, for regular REL, the document that applies is Judging at Regular REL instead of the IPG. | |
| Sep 11, 2019 at 17:07 | comment | added | TheThirdMan | Also, keep in mind that the question is tagged with "mtg-regular-rel", and Regular REL is a rules enforcement level the IPG doesn't apply to. Even more so, it doesn't apply to kitchen table Magic (which you didn't claim, but I'll add for completeness's sake). | |
| Sep 11, 2019 at 16:56 | comment | added | murgatroid99♦ | It seems a little weird to say that the comprehensive rules "reinforce" the IPG. The comprehensive rules are the core rules, and the IPG is about how to enforce the rules. | |
| Sep 11, 2019 at 16:31 | comment | added | DenisS | @firedraco Fixed | |
| Sep 11, 2019 at 16:31 | history | edited | DenisS | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Add comp rules
|
| Sep 11, 2019 at 16:27 | comment | added | firedraco | That's an old version of the guide, the new version is: media.wpn.wizards.com/attachements/mtg_ipg_12jul19_en.pdf and the section you'd want to reference is 2.3 Game Play Error — Hidden Card Error | |
| Sep 11, 2019 at 16:21 | history | answered | DenisS | CC BY-SA 4.0 |