23

Nathan controls Jeskai Infiltrator. His deck has green sleeves. Anthony controls three Mountains. His deck has blue sleeves. Anthony casts and resolves Act of Treason, gaining control of Infiltrator. He attacks Nathan, deals combat damage, and triggers and resolves Infiltrator's ability. Anthony now controls two manifested permanents: Jeskai Infiltrator and a random card from the top of his deck.

Two questions:

  • Can Anthony desleeve both manifested cards, or otherwise manipulate them so that they cannot be differentiated?
  • Assume the cards are not sleeved to begin with, or Nathan is colorblind, so that Nathan is unable to differentiate between the two face down cards. Is Anthony obligated to tell Nathan which card is the card that he owns?

It seems to me that, depending on the answer, Jeskai Infiltrator's ability might not work the way it was intended. If Nathan knows which card is which, then shuffling them is pointless.

I am looking for a rules based answer if one exists. The Release Notes for Fate Reforged say the following:

A card's owner is public information at all times. If the two cards you exile are owned by different players (perhaps because you gained control of a Jeskai Infiltrator owned by your opponent), which card is which is no longer hidden from your opponent. That player will know which face-down creature he or she owns.

However, it does not provide rules to back this up. I checked the Tournament rules on Free, Derived, and Private information, but I found no mention of this. If the answer depends on what Rules Enforcement Level you are playing at, please describe the rule as it applies to each level.

doppelgreener
  • 24,520
  • 15
  • 96
  • 170
Rainbolt
  • 13,749
  • 2
  • 45
  • 123

6 Answers6

19

I too was unable to find anything in either the CR or MTR defining this, so I asked Matt Tabak, current Rules Manager of Magic and he said:

I just assumed that was self-evident. Like, if you get up from the table, you should know which cards to take with you.

And a Level 2 Judge I asked said:

From a practical standpoint, you’re going to be using different sleeves from your opponent 95% of the time. Even if the sleeves are the same, you have a right to your property, so you have the right to know which cards you own.

diego
  • 20,138
  • 2
  • 54
  • 95
  • 3
    If you get up from the table, then the game must have ended. All manifested permanents should have been revealed when the game ended, and so you should automatically know which cards are yours. It appears as though Matt Tabak chose not to take the question seriously. That said, I have to give you a +1 because what Matt Tabak says is pretty much the rule, whether he chooses to explain it properly or not. – Rainbolt Jan 27 '15 at 17:15
  • @Rainbolt but what if you are in a multiplayer game and an opponent took your Infiltrator? If you left you would have to know what card was your to take with you. I do agree it isn't really the most useful answer though. I also asked a L2 Judge so we can see if she gives us anything more useful. – diego Jan 27 '15 at 17:18
  • 2
    I can see the need to know which card is yours. It does not follow that your opponent must satisfy that need. Anyway, I don't mean to take this out on your answer. I'm mostly just annoyed by Matt Tabak's "Because I said so." response. Hence my upvote. – Rainbolt Jan 27 '15 at 17:45
  • @Rainbolt It would be nice if the MTR could just add "Ownership of a card" to the section on Free Information. – diego Jan 27 '15 at 17:50
  • @diego It does say "Free information is information to which all players are entitled access" - it seems like even without making it explicit, we should probably understand that players are entitled to know which cards are theirs. – Cascabel Jan 27 '15 at 18:55
  • @Jefromi I agree that it makes sense that you know what permanents are yours, but Magic doesn't usually leave things to common sense, it usually explicitly says them. – diego Jan 27 '15 at 19:10
  • I suppose the rules do leave the door open for it to be derived information. But it's a pretty big leap, given that control and zone are free information. And online, cards get the owner clearly marked if they're not controlled by their owner. I guess the rules don't say one way or another, but at least it's pretty easy to see from the rules which way it'd go if they made it explicit. – Cascabel Jan 27 '15 at 19:42
  • 8
    I don't think Tabak truly grasped your plight as it relates to Jeskai Infiltrator. – corsiKa Jan 27 '15 at 21:16
  • @corsiKa Considering that the ruling in question covers precisely the scenario that the question is about, I suspect that Tabak understood the situation perfectly well. – murgatroid99 Jan 28 '15 at 01:25
  • 2
    Considering he only talked about what cards you own when leaving the game as opposed to identifying to your opponent which cards are his during the game, I don't believe he did. He treated the question as though it was obvious when it is not necessarily obvious given the context of the question. – corsiKa Jan 28 '15 at 01:27
  • 4
    I'm talking about the ruling in this question. diego asked him to justify a ruling that covers exactly the scenario this question asked about. The fact that, as he says "To be clear, I totally answer real questions with snark when I feel like it. This tumblr is like a minefield," doesn't mean that he didn't understand the issue. – murgatroid99 Jan 28 '15 at 01:33
  • 1
    "From a practical standpoint, you’re going to be using different sleeves from your opponent 95% of the time." I don't get this... perhaps it's true in the tournament scene... but among casual players, I doubt sleeves are as common. Almost everyone in my playgroup plays with cards unsleeved. And even if multiple players are using sleeves, surely some brand/color combinations are more popular than others? – GendoIkari Jan 28 '15 at 17:23
  • @GendoIkari I think it's a lot more true in tournaments, which is the presumably context that judge was assuming. (Judges are unlikely to show up at your kitchen table!) There are definitely some common brands/colors, but at the same time, the cost of sleeves is relatively small compared to the cost of the cards for a competitive deck, so it's not crazy to spend a bit of money to get ones in your favorite color or with your favorite clan symbol/planeswalker/whatever on the back. If you use plain black, 95% is probably an exaggeration, but if your sleeves are at all unique, probably not! – Cascabel Jan 28 '15 at 20:23
10

You cannot obscure information about face down cards.

707.6. If you control multiple face-down spells or face-down permanents, you must ensure at all times that your face-down spells and permanents can be easily differentiated from each other. This includes, but is not limited to, knowing the order spells were cast, the order that face-down permanents entered the battlefield, which creature attacked last turn, and any other differences between face-down spells or permanents. Common methods for distinguishing between face-down objects include using counters or dice to mark the different objects, or clearly placing those objects in order on the table.

One could probably argue that since the list of differences isn't limiting, ownership of a card would be something that would differentiate the cards from each other.

Rainbolt
  • 13,749
  • 2
  • 45
  • 123
Colin D
  • 5,956
  • 1
  • 28
  • 43
  • This answers one of two questions, and the question it did answer is not the one in the title. Can you expand? – Rainbolt Jan 27 '15 at 17:09
  • @Rainbolt I admit this answer is not complete, but is all I know about the topic and felt it was too much of an answer to post only as a comment. – Colin D Jan 27 '15 at 17:10
  • @Rainbolt One could probably argue that since the list of differences isn't limiting ownership of a cards would be something that would differentiate the cards from each other. – diego Jan 27 '15 at 17:20
  • @diego I added that because it makes the answer complete. And it seems logical. – Rainbolt Jan 27 '15 at 17:48
  • @Rainbolt I'll do some research later to find the exact ruling that applies, but ownership of a card is public knowledge at all times, no matter the status of the card or the zone that it is in. So in answer to the question, yes, you are obligated to identify which facedown card is owned by your opponent. – Waterseas Jan 27 '15 at 18:02
  • While I can't find that the ownership itself is a property you're obligated to notify, the second question is answered by this answer: there must be some sort of way of clearly and effectively conveying which face-down spell or permanent is attached to which event, whether it's the order, or a post-it, or counters/dice. Assuming Nathan isn't limited in his ability to remember or record the actions, rule 707.6 mandates that some system be established to correlate the various actions to their resulting face down spells or permanents. – corsiKa Jan 27 '15 at 20:09
  • 1
    @corsiKa When cards get shuffled, as Jeskai Infiltrator requires you to do, their final order must be random by definition. Sticking a post-it note on the card breaks randomness. – Rainbolt Jan 27 '15 at 20:57
  • Oh. This is what happens when your wife schedules a cruise (a treasure cruise?) for the weekend of a prerelease! I see now the true dilemma - the whole point of the ability is to obscure which one is the infiltrator and which one is the random card off the top. Revealing ownership screws that right up. – corsiKa Jan 27 '15 at 21:14
  • The crux of this question comes from the fact that Jeskai Infiltrator has you shuffle it, and another face down card so that (if they were both owned by the same person), the opponent would know know which one was the infiltrator. This answer does not address that point of confusion. – Sam I am says Reinstate Monica Jan 27 '15 at 22:43
  • @corsiKa Rainbolt said the problem is breaking randomness, but they could be random yet known. The issue is that the rules for shuffling say "no player knows their order". In practice, it seems pretty clear that ownership is supposed to be public and thus shuffling in that sense is impossible, so when the card says to do it you just don't do it. (Kinda like if a card said to shuffle two facedown permanents but one of them had a +1/+1 counter on it.) But that's apparently not actually written in the rules. – Cascabel Jan 28 '15 at 02:22
  • 2
    @Jefromi If what you say is true, then no player could shuffle a 1 or 0 card deck, but clearly we know they can. Regardless, it still works: no player knows their order during the shuffling process - immediately after the shuffling process, however, all public information just as public as it was before. – corsiKa Jan 28 '15 at 15:16
  • @corsiKa Before I deleted it, my answer said exactly that. Nathan loses track of which card he owns momentarily during the shuffling process. After shuffling, because Matt Tabak and the Fate Reforged notes said so, and not because the rules say so, Anthony is obligated to identify which card Nathan owns. I think that if you posted your own conclusions as an answer, it might be better received than mine was. – Rainbolt Jan 28 '15 at 15:34
  • @corsiKa Getting a bit far afield here, but arguably in a 0 or 1 card deck there is no order to know, so it's just vacuously true that you've shuffled. But even if you say it's impossible it doesn't cause problems, I don't think - nothing says "Shuffle your library. If you do, ..." Either way, no one is going to expect you to wave your one card around and say you're shuffling, same as (assuming ownership is public) no one is going to expect you to shuffle two obviously distinct face down creatures. – Cascabel Jan 28 '15 at 16:00
  • 1
    Of course they wouldn't: 716.1: The rules for taking shortcuts are largely unformalized. As long as each player in the game understands the intent of each other player, any shortcut system they use is acceptable. Both players know the outcome of shuffling a 0 or 1 card deck, or a pile of 2 distinguishable cards, and therefore would have no problem "skipping the shuffle". The game doesn't skip the shuffle though, and that's the only thing we care about. – corsiKa Jan 28 '15 at 16:11
  • The game might skip the shuffle if, say, shuffling were deemed impossible by other game rules. – Rainbolt Jan 28 '15 at 17:52
  • @corsiKa Exactly, as Rainbolt says - if cards tell you to do something impossible, you don't. And it's not much of a reach for this to be impossible. The definition of shuffling mentions library and face-down cards, and assumes that it's possible for them to end up with no player knowing the order - essentially it's assuming they're indistinguishable. If that were an explicit prerequisite, it'd be actually impossible to shuffle here, not just a shortcut. – Cascabel Jan 28 '15 at 20:16
  • 1
    @Jefromi Super pedantic counter-argument: I have zero cards left in my library. Every turn, I cast Beacon of Immortality to stay alive. If you play Cosi's Trickster, it will get counters. If you play Psychic Surgery, it will trigger and eat my Beacon. – Alex P Jan 30 '15 at 01:18
9

The ruling in question is an official ruling on the workings of the card on the official Magic website. Like any ruling, it clarifies the rules with regards to a particular interaction. In this particular case, the rule regarding free information says "Free information includes:" followed by a list of information. The ruling quoted in the question says that free information also includes the owner of any object.

In addition, rule 108 defines what a card is, and rule 108.3 says

The owner of a card in the game is the player who started the game with it in his or her deck. If a card is brought into the game from outside the game rather than starting in a player's deck, its owner is the player who brought it into the game. If a card starts the game in the command zone, its owner is the player who put it into the command zone to start the game.

I would argue that this means that "ownership" is a fundamental property of a card, and that each card's owner must be known at all times. That implies that you must make it clear which player owns which card in both situations.

As another data point, the card Conjured Currency says

At the beginning of your upkeep, you may exchange control of Conjured Currency and target permanent you neither own nor control.

This card does not work unless ownership is public information.

murgatroid99
  • 81,939
  • 10
  • 218
  • 317
  • Jeskai Infiltrator moves from the battlefield to exile before he gets shuffled. He's also face up when he leaves the battlefield. Do you still think 707.9 is applicable? – Rainbolt Jan 27 '15 at 17:44
  • If you read the sentence after the rule quote, you will see that I was quoting it not for the direct meaning but for the implication of the bolded text. If the owner reveals any face down card when it leaves the battlefield, then the owner must know that they own it while it is still on the battlefield. – murgatroid99 Jan 27 '15 at 17:48
  • @murgtroid99 The card was already revealed when it left the battlefield. It leaves face up. Then, it gets shuffled. Then, it enters face down. At what point in this sequence does 707.9 apply? – Rainbolt Jan 27 '15 at 17:49
  • 1
    That's not what I'm talking about. After the Infiltrator and the other card are manifested, their owner has to know who owns which because when they next leave the battlefield, the owner has to reveal them. – murgatroid99 Jan 27 '15 at 17:51
  • @murgtroid99 I understand now. That rule serves to establish a need. But it does not follow that where a need exists, that need will be satisfied. You can't say "Because the rules require me to know, you are required to tell me." – Rainbolt Jan 27 '15 at 17:55
  • 1
    I fundamentally disagree with that last sentence. If the rules say that someone is obligated to have information, and you have that information, then you are obligated to share. That's the only way an obligation to have information could possibly make sense. – murgatroid99 Jan 27 '15 at 18:00
  • We can agree to disagree on that point. The first half of the answer has my upvote, because if "ownership" is a fundamental property of a card, then it should behave similarly to "commanderness". It has been established that "commanderness" is public information even if its identity would otherwise be hidden. – Rainbolt Jan 27 '15 at 18:10
  • How about this: the first half of my answer applies to both bullet points in your question (by analogy to commanderness), so I'll delete the other half. – murgatroid99 Jan 27 '15 at 18:14
  • @murgatroid99 re "obligation" - seems pretty reasonable. The rules do say "Free information is information to which all players are entitled access" and that it "includes" a list of things (but not that it's limited to that list). Surely anything else the rules say all players should know would also be free information, which you're required to accurately report if your opponent asks. – Cascabel Jan 27 '15 at 18:31
  • @Rainbolt by that same logic, you could never ask your opponent for number of cards in hand or their life total, because if you were keeping track of all in game decisions, you would never need to ask, right? But we know that isn't the case: you have to give your life total or card count if someone asks. This would be no different. – corsiKa Jan 27 '15 at 23:01
  • However, I'm stuck wondering if, even though ownership of the card is known at all times, you may choose to use the manifest 'tokens' (i know, not actual tokens) instead of the actual card - in this case, would you be forced to reveal the ownership of the card to which the manifest 'token' belongs to. – corsiKa Jan 27 '15 at 23:02
  • @corsiKa Player life total is explicitly listed as free information. The number of cards in your hand is derived information (• The number of any type of objects present in any game zone.). You don't actually have to tell someone how many cards are in your hand, but if you do, you must answer truthfully. I usually answer, unless I have a large number of cards in my hand and I don't want to accidentally miscount, because making my opponent count is a pain. – Rainbolt Jan 27 '15 at 23:05
  • @Rainbolt It is explicitly stated in the Fate Reforged FAQ "A card's owner is public information at all times." It is quoted and sourced in the OP. – corsiKa Jan 28 '15 at 00:02
  • @Rainbolt I added a point about the ruling itself. – murgatroid99 Jan 28 '15 at 00:04
7

Consider the question Is there any point in time at which someone can not identify which cards they own? The problem with words is that they need definitions. So let us be very clear about two different definitions of the same word that are tricking us up.

  • Time: the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole. Typically measured in seconds, minutes, or hours.

Clearly, a "point in time" is therefore defined as the instant in time corresponding to some measurement. For example, January 25, 2015 AD 10:45:12.134 AM or something like that. But I would like to propose an alternative definition of time: instead of measuring it in minutes, we measure it in terms of the game state.

It takes seconds or minutes to shuffle a deck, but in terms of the game state it is an instantaneous action. So if players did not use sleeves, or used the same sleeves, there may indeed be few seconds where it was unknown which card a player owned. I suppose you could Act of Treason another Jeskai Infiltrator, and you both use the same sleeves, and they're both in mint condition. But realistically, a simple inspection of the cards will quickly reveal ownership regardless of what sleeves there are.

Because it is an instantaneous game action, there is no point in the game where a player cannot readily identify what cards are owned by what players.

So let us focus on the questions being asked:

Can Anthony desleeve both manifested cards, or otherwise manipulate them so that they cannot be differentiated?

Answer: cards may be desleeved with the owner's permission, but they must be able to be identified by all players who the owner is. So if you want to desleeve for purposes of obfuscating the owner, that would not be okay. If you desleeve for some other reason (I don't know what) I suppose it's no different than any other time. (Maybe you're alergic to Ultra Pro sleeves or something?) But if you remove that differentiating factor, you must provide some other differentiating factor.

Next question:

Assume the cards are not sleeved to begin with, or Nathan is colorblind, so that Nathan is unable to differentiate between the two face down cards. Is Anthony obligated to tell Nathan which card is the card that he owns?

This is appears to be up in the air, but I assure you it is not. The tournament rules specifically state:

If a player is ever unable or unwilling to provide free information to an opponent that has requested it, he or she should call a judge and explain the situation.

While ownership of the card is not explicitly listed as free information, the definition of free information is

information to which all players are entitled access without contamination or omissions made by their opponents.

Now, I believe it is clear that "public" information means "free" information. I cannot imagine any definition otherwise. And as we know, ownership of a card is "public" information. The only logical conclusion is that it is a form of "free" information that the guide simply has not provided.

Specifically, we know it cannot be private information, because that public is the opposite of private and that would just be absolutely silly, and that would make the only other alternative derived information. This is defined as

Information to which all players are entitled access, but opponents are not obliged to assist in determining and may require some skill or calculation to determine.

Because the shuffling should have randomized the cards, you have no actual way of knowing by simply calculating and inspecting the visible game state which card is yours. (Especially if you do the unsleeving, or you don't play with sleeves, or you play with identical sleeves.) Derived information, by definition, can be calculated without the assistance of your opponent and merely by inspection of the game state. So this information (ownership) does not meet the qualifications of derived information. If it is not derived or private, it must be free. It's the only type of information that meets all the criteria, and is in line with the Fate Reforged FAQ.

Further evidence, which has that "Because Tabak said so", is taken from this question:

Jeskai Infiltrator's release notes state "A card's owner is public information at all times." Is public information in this context the same as "Free Information" as described in MTG-TR 4.1 Player Communication?

With the ever snarky answer:

Sure, why not? If, for some reason, you’re trying to split hairs here, stop. :)

So while we're not trying to split hairs (but rather, trying to make sure that other's don't try to split hairs) it's pretty clear that he means to include card ownership in Free Information and just apparently never bothered to update the TR.

Answer: if you are unwilling to give your opponent the ownership information of the cards exiled by Jeskai Infiltrator, you should immediately call a judge and explain the situation.

Community
  • 1
corsiKa
  • 10,801
  • 3
  • 36
  • 55
  • I find it hard to believe that the tournament rules incompletely list what information is Free. According to this answer, we are considering all phrase synonyms of "free information" to be an extension of that list. This is unusual for Magic rules, as they generally aren't left up to interpretation. – Rainbolt Jan 28 '15 at 16:21
  • Listed under free information is The physical status (tapped/flipped/unattached/phased) and current zone of any object. Compare this to the definition of "Characteristics", An object’s characteristics are name, mana cost, color, color indicator, card type, subtype, supertype, rules text, abilities, power, toughness, loyalty, hand modifier, and life modifier. (...) Any other information about an object isn’t a characteristic. For example, characteristics don’t include whether a permanent is tapped, a spell’s target, an object’s owner* or controller, what an Aura enchants, and so on.* – corsiKa Jan 28 '15 at 16:34
  • You do realize that you just quoted a rule that says that an object's owner is not a characteristic of the card? – Rainbolt Jan 28 '15 at 16:39
  • "a simple inspection of the cards will quickly reveal ownership"... lots of the discussion here seems to assume this as fact, but it's not true at all. What if the top of your own deck was another Jeskai Infiltrator? Then both cards will be a copy of Jeskai Infiltrator, and if both decks are unsleeved, then it will be impossible to tell which card was which. Not only for in-game purposes, but in actual life as well... both players will end up leaving with a card that has a 50/50 chance of not being the same one they came with. – GendoIkari Jan 28 '15 at 17:01
  • @Rainbolt yes, I definitely do: "object owner" falls in the same category as tapped permanent, controller, and attached aura, all of which are explicitly listed as free information. I agree that this is an unusual case, but the evidence is clearly pointing toward the conclusions in the answer. – corsiKa Jan 28 '15 at 17:05
  • @GendoIkari But it is true, because all players have an obligation to maintain that information at all "times". It might get lost to some players in the midst of a a shuffle, but as soon as that shuffle is over, he had better have a way to differentiate them or he is committing a violation exactly the same as if he failed to reveal his life total. – corsiKa Jan 28 '15 at 17:07
  • @corsiKa But the player cannot legally look at both cards before shuffling them, so he can't even know that he's actually shuffling 2 identical cards. – GendoIkari Jan 28 '15 at 17:09
  • He doesn't need to. He knows which card came from the library (and that gets some kind of denotation as being his) and which card came from the battlefield (which he knows is the Infiltrator belonging to his opponent). – corsiKa Jan 28 '15 at 17:10
  • @corsiKa I don't understand what you're saying... are you implying that the player can't legally shuffle the cards, because there's a chance that the 2 cards are identical? – GendoIkari Jan 28 '15 at 17:12
  • No, I'm saying that even though he has to shuffle them, he still must make the ownership of the cards identifyable regardless of the shuffle. If I took ten of your cards and ten of my cards and shuffled them together, I would need to be able to say which ten were mine and which ten were yours at all times. Or rather, at all "times" (individual game states.) In this case it's not ten and ten, it's one and one. They still get "shuffled" (although keen players may agree to skip the useless "shuffle" as a shortcut.) – corsiKa Jan 28 '15 at 18:10
  • @corsiKa I don't see how that's different than not shuffling, or deciding that shuffling is impossible. The very definition of shuffling includes making it unknown which card is which without looking at the front, and in this case, doing so would be illegal as it would involve losing track of ownership. Nothing in the game before this has ever made you try to shuffle 2 cards of different owners together. – GendoIkari Jan 28 '15 at 20:21
  • 1
    Tabak is probably being snarky/unworried because honestly, if anyone ever tries to tell a judge "but ownership isn't free information, see the list?" they're just going to get shot down. Trying to defeat that kind of rules lawyer by rules laywering back even harder here might be a bit of a fool's errand. – Cascabel Jan 29 '15 at 00:26
  • 1
    I don't think that's the reason: I think it's just the persona he uses to answer questions. The name of the blog is even "Snarkham Asylum". – corsiKa Jan 29 '15 at 00:34
  • @corsiKa He's not equally snarky about everything - some questions do get straight-up answers. But yes, he's pretty often snarky, especially about questions he doesn't see a whole lot of value in devoting serious effort to... see above. Anyways, whatever his reasons, the bit about rules lawyering stands: if you're worried about someone telling you "ha ha I stole your card and won't tell you which is which", just plan on calling a judge, don't worry about trying to find a rule to quote at them. Someone who does that kind of thing isn't going to be swayed by "but 8362.72a says..." – Cascabel Jan 29 '15 at 22:11
  • (On that note, I did already upvote your answer, especially because of the "call a judge" part. I wasn't complaining about the answer as a whole, just responding to the "because Tabak said so" sentiment going around, and perhaps the "trying to make sure that other's don't try to split hairs" idea.) – Cascabel Jan 29 '15 at 22:14
2

Answer to the first question is no and two reasons as to why it is no.

In the MAGIC: THE GATHERING® TOURNAMENT RULES

section 3.3 Authorized Cards

Players may use cards from the Alpha printing only if the deck is in opaque sleeves

If the card that was manifested is an Alpha card (or other card with a distinct backing) then it would be in violation of that rule

section 3.9 Card Shuffling

The opponent may then shuffle it additionally. Cards and sleeves must not be in danger of being damaged during this process.

If there is a rule about not damaging opponent's cards during the shuffling processing then it would be no difference about damaging them during play and when removing card from a sleeve the chance of it being damaged is increased and it is possible to break the sleeve when removing the card.

As for the second question there is no question that the color of the card sleeve is public knowledge and while I don't have a rule to back it up I am sure it wouldn't be legal to deny someone public knowledge because of a disability such as color blindness.

Another way to look at the second question is if a player who has no knowledge of what has happened walks up to observe and is able to rapidly determine which card belongs to which player then it is not knowledge that can be hidden.

Joe W
  • 14,098
  • 2
  • 46
  • 71
  • What if neither deck is sleeved? – Rainbolt Jan 28 '15 at 01:45
  • 1
    @Rainbolt If you're also interested in the unsleeved scenario, please mention it in your question. Extending the scope of the question in comments is a form of chameleon question behaviour, i.e. not good: if it wasn't in your question it shouldn't need to be answered, so put it in there. – doppelgreener Jan 28 '15 at 01:49
  • @Rainbolt Not sure what you mean by neither deck being sleeved. If neither deck is sleeved then there should be nothing different about either card to determine the difference in who owns them other then what order they where manifested in. – Joe W Jan 28 '15 at 01:49
  • 1
    @doppelgreener Oh please. I did ask the question but instead of saying the decks were unsleeved, I just made Nathan colorblind. The effect is the same: Nathan is unable to tell the difference. And murgatroid went ahead and edited the question for me. – Rainbolt Jan 28 '15 at 01:59
  • @Rainbolt You are missing the difference still, if the cards are unsleeved there should be no difference in color between the backs of the cards and no reason that being color blind will matter. When the cards are sleeved with different opaque backs that is very public knowledge about who owns them, when they are not sleeved that knowledge is not there and the players memory is more important. – Joe W Jan 28 '15 at 02:04
  • 1
    @Rainbolt I didn't see the color blind bit on account of looking for something about being unsleeved. Anyway, the principle is: don't surprise people with extra questions outside the original question scope, it's unreasonable to expect them to answer, especially if you are directing it at that author and only that author. So, no, you didn't ask the same thing. But now with the edit you are and all is well. Also, mind the courteousness of your responses, as I try to do the same for you. (i.e. Don't respond with a condescending "oh please".) – doppelgreener Jan 28 '15 at 02:26
  • @doppelgreener I apologize. When I explained the intent of the question, I got a lecture in scope creep. I should have ignored it instead of responding negatively. Anyway, if the answer doesn't hold for all scenarios, it doesn't hold at all. It is perfectly reasonable for me to question the validity of an answer by testing it against new test cases. The author is welcome to explain to me how they do not apply. – Rainbolt Jan 28 '15 at 03:15
  • 5
    @Rainbolt No, man, what you need to do is work on your politeness with fellow site members. You got a reminder about scope creep because you engaged in scope creep. You dismissed my concerns condescendingly, then just now suggested the appropriate action would be ignoring me. This isn't cool or helpful! Many of us are generally trying to be courteous and cooperative: you need to do the same with us, but your behaviour is generally unnecessarily aggressive and dismissive of others' concerns, which prevents us from interacting with you constructively. – doppelgreener Jan 28 '15 at 07:00
  • @doppelgreener Let me explain why I was not engaging in scope creep. He answered "Am I obligated to identify ownership of a sleeve?" I asked "Am I obligated to identify ownership of a card?" I edited the question to clarify, not to expand scope. – Rainbolt Jan 28 '15 at 14:15
1

The owner of a permanent is free information, by desleeving a card you are intentionally trying to obscure that fact.

Additionally nothing in the tournament rules allows you to desleeve your opponents cards, which are their property and you are only allowed to manipulate them while following the rules of magic (which don't mention sleeves and therefore do not affect them).

Guvante
  • 1,051
  • 8
  • 15
  • 1
    Why is ownership classified as free information? I am not saying that your answer is wrong. I just want to know if you can qualify that statement. – Rainbolt Jan 27 '15 at 20:38
  • 1
    @Rainbolt: Oddly enough the rules don't call out the owner as free information. However they also don't call out the controller as free information, so I don't believe it is meant to be a completely inclusive list. There is certainly no way that the rules of magic would allow you to conceal the legal owner of the card, which is normally derived from the owner of the card within the game. – Guvante Jan 27 '15 at 21:02