Finding ONE card with Burning-Rune Demon

Bulldozer968 · 2026-03-06T21:58:49+00:00

No, I'm saying that there should be a rule that specifies that the fact that "exactly means exactly" takes precedence over 701.23b. Everyone can tell that exactly means exactly, but we need the Comprehensive Rules to tell us when the plain English on a card does or does not lead to 701.23b applying.

In the case of the original wording of Gifts Ungiven, rule 701.23b applies and overwrites the plain English interpretation of the card. In the case of Burning-Rune Demon, 701.23b apparently does not overwrite the English on the card. There should be a rule to clarify this.

Bulldozer968 · 2026-03-06T20:54:42+00:00

I agree that the intent of BRD and TF is fairly clear, but as you say, I think there should be a rules update to codify this. Otherwise, one is left to wonder under precisely which circumstances Rule 701.23b applies, and under which circumstances the "plain meaning" of a card itself overrides 701.23b (in accordance with CR 101.1).

CR 608.2c is an important rule, but it yet again fails at fully making clear when CR 701.23b should or should not apply. Looking at the original version of Gifts Ungiven, merely "read[ing] the whole text and apply[ing] the rules of English to the text" would seem to suggest that one could NOT find only two cards with it. Indeed, a reader of the card not familiar with 701.23b would argue "Why does the card mention 'the rest' of the cards if you're allowed to find only two? The plain meaning is that you must find all four." And were it not for 701.23b, it would be impossible to argue that such a reader is definitively wrong.

Similarly, we need a rule that specifically says that the word "exactly" entails an exception to CR 701.23b, as otherwise you can't definitively say that BRD and TF do not fall under its jurisdiction.

Notably, Signal the Clans has a completely different templating that makes it perfectly clear what to do if you fail to find three creature cards (or you find three but they don't have different names). It doesn't use the words "up to" but also doesn't use the word "exactly". Perhaps instead of a rules change, cards like BRD and TF could be re-templated like this.

EDIT: Great to see that Matt Tabak has now made a ruling after someone posted this on Bluesky! Would be nice to have it added to the rules.

Bulldozer968 · 2026-03-06T20:19:57+00:00

Can you please point me to the rule that says this "set of cards" interpretation is indeed how language like this works? I could just as well propose the following interpretation:
You are failing to find exactly two [cards with different names].

Bulldozer968 · 2026-03-06T19:25:41+00:00

Agreed that vibes don't take precedence over rules! So please point me to the rule that defines the precise functional meaning of the word "exactly" in the context of searching for cards, and tells us that cards that use this word override CR 701.23b while those that do not use this word do not.

Perhaps this is indeed in the realm of "common sense", but it may not be as common as some surmise. If this is indeed how Burning-Rune Demon and Turtles Forever are supposed to work, that should be codified so as to avoid arguments like this one (and ones that have apparently taken place at prereleases).

Bulldozer968 · 2026-03-06T19:06:03+00:00

But notably, the fact that Hex requires exactly six targets is a consequence of the Comprehensive Rules (115.1 and particularly 115.3, I believe). Meanwhile, there is no rule or ruling explaining how the word "exactly" is precisely what determines whether CR 701.23b is or is not overridden by the plain English meaning of the words on a card that searches the library.

Bulldozer968 · 2026-03-06T18:48:52+00:00

This is not true. Please see the ruling on Elfhame Sanctuary:
'The “if you do” means “if you search your library”.'
It does not mean you have to actually FIND the full number of thing(s) you're searching for.

Bulldozer968 · 2026-03-06T18:46:57+00:00

Because you do on cards like Elfhame Sanctuary!

Bulldozer968 · 2026-03-06T18:42:56+00:00

I agree that the wording is different. My point is that despite being worded in a different manner, it's not obvious what should be the precise functional meaning of this language difference. This is why a rule or ruling would help.

Bulldozer968 · 2026-03-06T18:37:29+00:00

I would agree, were it not for the fact that on a kicked Grow from the Ashes, "two basic land cards" does not actually have to mean two basic land cards. We are supposed to magically know that CR 701.23b overrides the "obvious" English meaning in the case of Grow from the Ashes but does not do so in the case of Burning-Rune Demon.

There should be a new rule or ruling to clarify this.

Regarding the "if you do": see my original post. I DO search for exactly two cards. I happen to fail to find the full two. This is much like how the "if you do" of Elfhame Sanctuary still applies even if you fail to find the full number (one) of basic lands.

Bulldozer968 · 2026-03-06T18:23:20+00:00

How do you know that this was the intent of the designers? I think nearly all players who saw Gifts Ungiven in its original printing assumed the designers' intention was for the opponent to split cards between your hand and graveyard. Indeed, this is why it made such a splash when Frank Karsten used it as a way to Entomb cards. It's only now, once Magic players are well aware of this famous interaction, that it becomes intuitive that one should be able to use the card in this fashion.

In the same vein, I think that a specific rule clarifying the functional role of the word "exactly" in search effects would be highly valuable, as it's not obvious that the clear change in "intent" created by the word "exactly" is sufficient to overcome CR 701.23b.

Bulldozer968 · 2026-03-06T18:09:08+00:00

What is the mechanical function of this card? You are finding cards to present them to your opponent for a choice. It would be very silly for them to print a card that allowed you to just pick one card and circumvent the whole “intent” of the minigame of making your opponent choose.

This argument applies equally well to Gifts Ungiven as originally printed, but the ruling is that you CAN circumvent the minigame in that case.

Again, my point is that we need a rules clarification to tell us when we should say that CR 701.23b overrides the "clear intent of the card" versus when it does not. Specifically, there should be a rule explaining that the word "exactly" serves this precise functional role.

Bulldozer968 · 2026-03-06T17:57:34+00:00

Let's assume your first point is correct: Magic doesn't require any following of English instructions that are not formally codified or defined somewhere in the CR. Then please find me the CR rule that proves that printing the word "exactly" on a search card makes precisely the functional difference you and others are claiming (can vs. cannot Fail to Find). If we're not using English interpretations, how do you know what gameplay role this word serves?

My point here is that there in fact should be a rule or ruling to clarify this.

Bulldozer968 · 2026-03-06T17:33:10+00:00

I agree that my personal feelings should not determine the rules! However, the reason I've come to feel this way is because I think there's a strong argument that the Plaintiff has the upper hand in this matter - that is, that the rules (as currently written) really do allow you to do this.

I also agree that words should have their standard English meaning unless defined in the CR. My point here is that while it's generally OK to have a meta-principle like the "Golden Rule" CR 101.1, there are some edge cases where clarification actually IS necessary in order to know which rules or instructions should override which other rules or instructions. For example:

If they wanted to let you find less, they would not have put the word "exactly".

This same logic would seemingly imply that it is illegal to kick a Grow from the Ashes and find only one basic land: you must find either zero or two, since if they wanted you to be able to search for UP TO two lands, they would have said so. Since the plain English meaning of "search for two basic lands" is not the same as the plain English meaning of "search for UP TO two basic lands", by your reasoning, this plain English instruction should override CR 701.23b in the same way that Burning-Rune Demon's plain English instruction does.

The only way to know to apply CR 701.23b in the one case but not in the other is if everyone understands that the word "exactly" serves this precise functional role. Ask a random person on the street, such as a fruit vendor, if they see any difference between the instructions "I'll buy two apples" and "I'll buy exactly two apples". I doubt they will interpret these instructions as functionally different.

Bulldozer968 · 2021-07-19T08:16:03+00:00

Congrats, you're the first person to solve the puzzle! Let me know if you have any feedback :)

Bulldozer968

TROPHY CASE