The above statement may seem a little odd, given that, you know, they're literally called the "Comprehensive Rules". Unfortunately, Wizards is mistaken. In fact, the very first line in the CR is false. It says:
"This document is the ultimate authority for Magic: The Gathering® competitive game play."
but that's wrong; the ultimate authority for any tournament is the head judge, and they have the explicit permission to overrule the CR if an error or omission comes up.
What happens if you cast Council's Judgement with no nonland permanents on the battlefield? It says to exile all permanents with the most votes, which is 0, so all lands would be exiled. However if you ask Wizards they'd probably say that nothing is supposed to get exiled in that scenario.
This is an example of what I'll call an unintended answer; the rules say one thing, but Wizards says another. The other category would be undefined answers- where the rules simply say nothing at all. One of those would be:
Consider three continuous effects, A, B, and C. (In timestamp order.) Effect A is dependent on both B and C, and C is also dependent on A. A and C form a dependency loop, so 613.8b tells us to apply them in timestamp order. But do we still consider that A is dependent on B, and therefore apply B first? Or do we simply ignore all dependencies involving those effects and apply A first? The rules do not specify either way.
In many cases yes. Karmic Justice exactly as worded should never trigger, since spells never destroy permanents, they just instruct players to do so. But it's pretty obvious what Karmic Justice is supposed to do, so we can safely gloss over the exact text and rule "it just works" without fear of Wizards telling us we're wrong. But for other interactions, not so much. The two above without an obvious answer could both come up in a game of commander fairly easily, and there are hundreds of other examples as well.
An additional complication is that there are times when the unintuitive answer is the one Wizards intends. A player with no intimate knowledge of the rules would say that obviously your lands stop being Mountains when Magus of the Moon is targeted by Turn to Frog, yet the rules say otherwise and Wizards backs up that answer as the intended one.
Wizards will sometimes go even further and overrule the CR in order to get an unintuitive answer. If you have 4 devotion to white and cast Heliod while your opponent controls Imposing Sovereign, the intuitive answer is that Heliod enters tapped, since it'll be a creature as soon as it's on the battlefield and would trigger "whenever a creature enters the battlefield" triggers. And indeed, this is what the rules (somewhat ambiguously) say happens. Yet Wizards has made official rulings on this and similar situations that say it enters untapped because it doesn't take into account that your devotion will be higher with it on the battlefield.
Ruling the "obvious" way is certainly an acceptable workaround in some cases, but it does not suffice for many of them.
On an individual basis, that will often work fine. However there are a number of problems with this approach, and the more we have to rely on rulings, the more evident these problems become.
Wizards does not have a single place where they put official rulings. I know of rulings posted by authorized Wizards representatives on:
And there are probably more places that I'm not aware of. Many of these require an account, and some don't even exist anymore. This makes it practically impossible for anyone to be aware of every ruling that's posted or to efficiently search for a specific ruling when needed. (And even if they all were in one place, the sheer quantity of them would make reading them all and remembering which ones exist a challenging task for even the most devoted judges.)
The rules document is regularly updated with every new set release. Rulings are not. It's therefore not possible to tell, when looking at a ruling, whether that ruling is supposed to still be in force or is outdated. We just have to take our best guess.
The rules themselves are written to be comprehensive (regardless of whether they succeeded) and they make general statements that can be applied to a wide variety of situations. Official rulings on the other hand are usually targeted at a single question and only address the answer to that exact question, often simply saying "yes" or "no" or "it works this way" without explaining any of the reasoning behind that answer. This makes it very difficult to apply them to similar but non-identical situations, as we can't tell how far we're supposed to extrapolate. Wizards has not made a ruling on ever possibly situation.
The people making official rulings don't always double check with each other, and Wizards is not good about providing consistent guidance on how to resolve discrepancies. For example, a Wizards NetRep made the following statement last year:
"Gatherer rulings are intended to always be accurate rulings. Judges should accept them as an official clarification of how cards work. Rulings may not account for edge cases (in which case, determine why the edge case makes it not applicable), but if a ruling appears to be factually inaccurate, inform us and we'll fix it. Telling a player or another judge to simply not trust Gatherer rulings is not correct."
I have no idea how to interpret that. If Gatherer rulings are official, they can't be wrong. But if one is wrong, report it? Huh? How are we supposed to know if it's wrong? (Gatherer rulings contradict the CR fairly often, more so than official rulings in other locations. For example after the rules were changed to allow bestow to work intuitively with Prophet of Kruphix, the gatherer rulings on every bestow card said that it worked differently for almost a year.)
Another example: here is an official ruling that states 616.1f can override the order of replacement effect application and cause an effect in a later step to apply in an earlier one. And here is another ruling stating that it can't do that. (The actual rules don't specify either way.) The two rulings are about slightly different situations but use contradictory reasoning, so while I can know how to rule if presented with one of those two exact scenarios, I'll have no idea which logic to follow if presented with a similar but different interaction.
Please note that this article is only about the game rules, not tournament policy. While these issues do somewhat apply to policy rulings, they are much less of a problem there. Tournament policy is non-comprehensive by design and replies on a lot of subjective judgement. A lack of access to every ruling is much less problematic because a small amount of inconsistency is expected of the system, and there are also far fewer official rulings being made overall.
Back in the 1990s, there were no "comprehensive rules". People were expected to read the cards and the simple introductory rulebook and just take their best guess. The first rulebook included the guideline of "If you can't decide on how something works, flip a coin." Wizards would sometimes make official rulings to clarify, but given how new the internet was back then it was even harder for that information to spread than it is now.
This all changed in Sixth Edition. Tournament play was rapidly increasing in popularity and inconsistent rulings across events was becoming a big problem. Wizards realized the current system was a bad one, and they released the Sixth Edition rule change. This change dramatically simplified a lot of things (the pre Sixth Edition rules for responding to spells and abilities took up a three page flowchart), along with introducing the concept of a single rules document that covered everything. No more would people have to email Wizards in order to get an answer to any question. This was a brilliant move by Wizards of the Coast, and helped cement Magic as a game that people could play competitively with money on the line.
"Our main motivation behind the Sixth Edition rules changes was that the rules were needlessly complicated and growing more so each month. I realize that this is a judgment call, but I ask you: How many rules experts are there, really? Twenty-five, maybe. And I have questions that will stump all of them because there are Fifth Edition rules questions with no answer. Having overly complex rules is detrimental for Magic play. The skill of play and of deckbuilding should be the challenge of Magic, the thing that separates good players from great players. Memorizing a complex rules system should not."
-Bill Rose, 1999
More recently in 2009, WOTC made a similar change with similar goals. From the article explaining the M10 rules changes:
"The Sixth Edition changes were meant to bring order to a disordered system. Our goal this time was much more subtle—to change the most unintuitive parts of game play such that players' first instincts were more often correct. Because Magic is a game most often played without access to a rulebook, players without contact with our fine network of judges often have to make decisions regarding how they think the game operates on the fly, and we want them to get things right more often than they get them wrong.
So why is it important to make sure these players' intuition is most often correct? Aren't they content playing with their own messy version of the rules? They are—up to a point, and that point is when they leave their circles and joins the larger, more rules-compliant crowd. Maybe it happens at Friday Night Magic, or a Prerelease, or a convention. Maybe new players enter the group. However it happens, we want to make sure those players don't find out they've been doing it all wrong, find out the game doesn't make as much sense as they thought, find out that they don't like the way the rules really work."
In the past few years R&D has gotten more and more lax with these issues. (You'll notice most of the examples of errors that I've used in this article are fairly recent cards. ) I've never worked for Wizards and can't speak to the decision-making processes of R&D, and I don't know why errors are cropping up with greater frequency. All I know is that these mistakes exist, and whenever one of them pointed out nowadays, it's usually ignored or dismissed.
For example, here, a judge pointed out a legitimate omission in the rules- the CR defines Trinisphere as an additional cost, which it's not supposed to. That rules manager has since deleted his Twitter account, but the reply was "No. You need to read the new rules, not just the update bulletin's short description." This condescending reply doesn't help in any way, given that the original asker had already read the rules and was trying to discuss the omission therein.
Well, not that much. Despite these problems, the Magic rules are quite good and do cover most common situations with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Tournaments are not going to grind to a halt because of it.
However there are times when one of these gaps has a noticeable impact on tournament play. Back in Guilds of Ravnica Standard, a common question was what happens when you surveil 2 and choose to choose to put Nexus of Fate into your graveyard but not the other card. 400.6 clearly states that the controller can choose whether the other card in the surveil ends up on top or shuffled away, but Wizards decided to make a ruling that it had to end up on top with no choice to shuffle. While not a large tactical issue since any player who didn't want the card could simply put it into their graveyard, players would get inconsistent answers depending on whether judges were aware of the official ruling or not. As another example, Urza's Bauble sees legacy play, and while the rules say that the other player does not get to know which card was looked at, Wizards made a ruling that they do.
More relevant than tournament situations is the impact on judge education. If someone believes the rules have an answer for any question but can't find one in the rules, they're likely to become frustrated with themselves for a perceived failing on their part. Mentors who are asked a question by a mentee may be left without the ability to provide a good answer, leaving both of them confused. Or worse, accidentally twisting a rule to appear to fit the situation and insisting that it says something it doesn't. I've seen it happen more than once that a curious judge finds an omission or inconsistency in the rules and brings it up to Wizards, only to be told that they overlooked something (which they didn't) and not given a satisfactory answer, leaving more confused than before.
The ability to provide detailed explanations of questions is one of the most relevant impacts of these gaps. As a personal example, when I was creating the tests for Judge Academy, I wrote up multiple scenarios with a "right" answer that judges should know, but then couldn't find a rule that backed up that answer. I had to omit them entirely from the test as a result. I've seen many judge resources where the citations provided in the answer either don't explain the answer properly or are completely unrelated to the given interaction, leaving judges confused and frustrated.
A good understanding of the rules does not come from glossing over the mistakes therein and pretending they don't exist, or from twisting the written rules into dubiously supporting a predetermined desired answer. It comes from understanding what errors exist in the rules, why they were made, and remembering that in a tournament the head judge may have to use their power to overrule the CR.
If this state of affairs bothers you, tell Wizards of the Coast. They will sometimes fix issues that get enough mainstream attention (Ixalan's Binding exiling Squee for example), and the more judges and players show they're unsatisfied with the current rules, the more they'll try to live up to their claim of "comprehensive". Most of these are quick and easy fixes, only requiring a slight wording tweak of a single rule to resolve.
The examples in this article are just a few of the hundreds of existing gaps in the rules. If you're curious to see more, there are several here.
And if you'd like to discuss anything presented in this article, please contact me and I'll be happy to chat. :)