Hello!

There is a question that I am afraid many players will be asking us in the near future often. It would be great if you could help me with making a meaningful and reasonable answer.

The question is: Besides morphed cards, the rule 707.9. instructs players to reveal also manifested cards. What is the philosophy behind the need to reveal manifested cards (despite the fact that any Magic card can be manifested so there is no need for this check performed by the opponent)?

Thank you,

Milan Majercik

Originally posted by Milan Majerčík:

The question is: Besides morphed cards, the rule 707.9. instructs players to reveal also manifested cards. What is the philosophy behind the need to reveal manifested cards (despite the fact that any Magic card can be manifested so there is no need for this check performed by the opponent)?

The higher ups can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the reasoning is 1) consistency, and 2) it is a game rule.

Imagine a game where a player has both manifested permanents and morphed creatures. If they fail to reveal one of them, but reveal the rest, you have to ask “did you fail to reveal a manifested card or a morph creature?” and assess a penalty based on that. It is even more complicated if a manifested card is a morph creature. How exactly do you determine if it's a penalty or not if the players are unsure which face-down card didn't get revealed?

But Matt, there are going to be games (a lot, I presume) where the only face down permanents are manifest cards. What’s the benefit of penalizing a player there?

Originally posted by Federico Donner:

But Matt, there are going to be games (a lot, I presume) where the only face down permanents are manifest cards. What’s the benefit of penalizing a player there?

This is a good point, and I do not have a sufficient reason to give you other than the two I stated previously (consistently and game rules). I'm not implying that I necessarily agree that it should be a warning (because I think there is a “feel bad” aspect, which usually points to “this doesn't feel correct”), but why I believe it is the way it is.

Originally posted by Federico Donner:

But Matt, there are going to be games (a lot, I presume) where the only face down permanents are manifest cards. What’s the benefit of penalizing a player there?

I believe there's a point made for consistency that face down permanents are revealed when they leave the battlefield. This goes for any face down permanent. I believe the philosophy is that cards that are on the battlefield are considered played even if it's face down. All played cards are revealed to your opponent when they leave the battlefield (or at the end of the game). This rule exists not only to verify things like morph but also to expose which cards were played with cards like Illusionary Mask which has no “morphlike” cheating issues. This isn't punishing manifests, it is maintaining the rules that are in existence which will suddenly become more common.

First, be pro-active; teach your players that revealing face-down cards is a game rule, and they should make sure they follow all the rules. Also, if you see a player about to scoop, it's fine to say “don't forget to reveal” - esp. this weekend, during the prereleases, and again next weekend during the release events. Educate, early & often!

Second - as I just said, it is a Game Rule, so not doing so is a GRV, which is a Warning. There's no concern about revealing to confirm the legality of an action, so there's no need to upgrade - but we are directed to upgrade a third GRV to a Game Loss, and this is neither Significant nor Exceptional. I recommend being very firm - even stern - whenever you issue a SECOND such GRV Warning, so the player understands ahead of time that a 3rd occurrence merits an upgrade. (Again, pro-active.)

d:^D

Originally posted by Marc DeArmond:

cards like Illusionary Mask which has no “morphlike” cheating issues

Marc, I'm not sure if there's a typo in there, or if I'm just missing your point - but Illusionary Mask definitely presents opportunities for cheating.

Scott, cheating with Illusionary Mask is much more difficult than with morph. I could put down a basic land, but it flips if I try to do anything with it. I'm not about to win after activating mask without turning my obliterator face up.

Dan, did you pay BBBB (at least) for that face-down Obliterator? ARE YOU SURE?

I understand the risk-reward is a disincentive, but that's not my point. The language in GRV about failing to reveal hidden information to verify the legality of a play is quite relevant to Illusionary Mask. Thus, my question … for Marc.

d:^D

Originally posted by Federico Donner:

But Matt, there are going to be games (a lot, I presume) where the only face down permanents are manifest cards. What’s the benefit of penalizing a player there?

Try walking into the opponent's shoes …
He had to show me some cards, but he didn't, I got an unfair disadvantage.
Hope penalties will help players to remember they must reveal.

The other side benefit to penalising morphs and manifests is that it makes the abilities seem more similar. It helps make the mechanics (which are complex) a little easier for players to understand, especially if we treat them the same from a penalty perspective.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Marc DeArmond
cards like Illusionary Mask which has no “morphlike” cheating issues

Marc, I'm not sure if there's a typo in there, or if I'm just missing your point - but Illusionary Mask definitely presents opportunities for cheating.

Whoops. You're right. That “no” certainly doesn't belong there. That's what I get for posting during passing periods and not checking over my writing.

Sorry if this reply is a little late. I learn through examples and I believe a lot of players are in the same boat. The rule of face down creatures having to be revealed when changing zones may become clear with a card like say Banishing Light. If your opponent exiles your manifest creature with it, the game flips it over in exile, and then you know exactly what to do if Banishing Light is destroyed later. It's pretty relevant since the card flipped could be a creature, but could also be an instant or sorcery for example.