After discussing this with a couple of judges at GP Stockholm, most judges' reaction was that rearranging the morphs is indeed a GRV (violation of 707.6). Unfortunately this topic here just died without an actual explanation of why it is not.

Originally posted by CR 707.6:

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.

This rule does not require players to actively ensure that their opponents can differentiate between them. If Adam rearranges the face-down permanents and Norbert loses track of them, then Norbert can just ask Adam which is which and there's no big issue. I cannot imagine a scenario where there is a material difference that can't be sorted out by Adam looking at the cards and answering the question. If he's forgotten, well, he wouldn't have been able to answer anyway if he didn't rearrange them.

Originally posted by Sean Hunt:

This rule does not require players to actively ensure that their opponents can differentiate between them.

Actually that is exactly what it does.
It does not say that you need to be able to differentiate, but that anyone needs to be able to differentiate (passive is a wonderful thing). It even says “easily”.

Originally posted by Sean Hunt:

I cannot imagine a scenario where there is a material difference that can't be sorted out by Adam looking at the cards and answering the question.

I think you are right, but that is not the point. The point is that the way the rule is worded, shuffling up your morphs is a GRV.

Julien, I think you are heading down an unproductive road. The physical arrangement of cards on the battlefield is simply not something that can result in a GRV, no matter what the CR text for morph may imply to you.

If I lay my morphs left to right in chronological order, then I am forced to rearrange that order to move blockers in front of attackers, have I committed a GRV? It should be trivially apparent that taking this perfectly normal game action is not and should not be a GRV. Furthermore if, during declaration of blockers, I rearrange and regroup my morphs several times before I finalize my blocks, I am still taking a perfectly normal game action that should not be and is not any type of infraction, but it is very likely my opponent will lose track of the morphs' identities during the course of this process.

We can see that during the normal course of play face-down cards can get jumbled. So, how do we resolve that problem? Well, opponent just asks me which one is which. Then I tell him. And now, as soon as it would matter, my opponent is able to easily differentiate each morph creature.

Generalizing from this, since I am allowed to rearrange my morphs to declare blocks, I am also allowed to rearrange my morphs for other reasons. However, since my opponent must be able to easily differentiate my morphs, I must answer his question any time he cares about which morph is which.

EDIT: Typo fixes.

Edited Joshua Feingold (Oct. 29, 2014 09:51:00 AM)

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

Generalizing from this, since I am allowed to rearrange my morphs to declare blocks, I am also allowed to rearrange my morphs for other reasons. However, since my opponent must be able to easily differentiate my morphs, I must answer his question any time he cares about which morph is which.

Josh, isn't it true that your opponent has the right to verify the legality of your statements about which morph is which, and that shuffling them in a way that both players cannot keep track of them deprives him of the right to verify that you aren't making a false statement later on?

Originally posted by Julien de Graat:

this topic here just died without an actual explanation of why it is not.

I don't feel that's either accurate or fair; I did provide an ‘O’fficial comment - two of 'em, in fact - and Josh Feingold has again provided an in-depth explanation.

Dan Collins
isn't it true that your opponent has the right to verify the legality of your statements about which morph is which

No, but it could be a Communication Policy Violation if you forget the order in which your Morphs arrived.

Overall, I see a lot of effort that suggests people are over-thinking this, and it worries me. This is one of those situations where - as I said before - this is largely irrelevant, even if it does get all mixed up. The next time (if ever) that a player says to you “Judge, I don't know what order his Morphs were played”, step away from the match and ask him “why do you care?” The answers will probably help you understand why this is not a big deal…

d:^D

So, basically everyone is saying that whatever the CR says, because the order is irrelevant and if it is, the opponent can just ask, we don't care. I mean, I'm fine with this not being a GRV, I just don't think it is supported by the CR. And noone has answered the actual question of how the actual text of the CR supports the policy.

Thanks a lot for the answers, they were somewhat enlightening, but simply don't answer the core question.

Originally posted by Julien de Graat:

So, basically everyone is saying that whatever the CR says, because the order is irrelevant and if it is, the opponent can just ask, we don't care. I mean, I'm fine with this not being a GRV, I just don't think it is supported by the CR. And noone has answered the actual question of how the actual text of the CR supports the policy.

I don't think anyone, especially Joshua or Scott, have said that. Let alone implied that. I think that is very unfair.

I think the point being made is that CR 707.6 is being approached in too technical a fashion, and that it would be wise to take a step back and consider the functional and practical applications of the rule to “real Magic” and what we expect of the players here.

Does the controller need to ensure the face-down creatures can be “differentiated” from each other? Yes. But is re-ordering multiple face-down creatures, on its own, a GRV? No. I'd suggest a higher standard here, especially at ensuring the enforcement of relevant elements of the game.

If the controller can answer questions about the creatures and there is no error (or suspicion of lying), then it's not a GRV. If there is an error (such as which one got pumped) or an outright lie, then there's an infraction.

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

I don't think anyone, especially Joshua or Scott, have said that. Let alone implied that. I think that is very unfair.

I don't see where I was being “unfair” and I certainly didn't mean to be unfair or anything. I was just paraphrasing in a way that would make people stop ignoring the topic. Some people might find this rude or “unfair”, but it certainly wasn't meant to be.

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

I think the point being made is that CR 707.6 is being approached in too technical a fashion, and that it would be wise to take a step back and consider the functional and practical applications of the rule to “real Magic” and what we expect of the players here.

The funny thing is we are always told to read the IPG in a very technical fashion, to take everything literally. And we shouldn't do that with the CR? Honest question.
Regarding the practical application, this past weekend I saw players using the morph tokens from KTK with numbers from 1 to n on them placed on top of the face-down creatures. So, for people who know they might not be able to properly keep their creatures ordered, this seems like a fine solution.
Apart from that, in a competitive game of Magic I would very much care about the order the morphs were played and I wouldn't want to rely on my opponent telling the truth. Actually, I wouldn't want to be in a situation where I needed to ask my opponent. Questions can be very telling.

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

Does the controller need to ensure the face-down creatures can be “differentiated” from each other? Yes. But is re-ordering multiple face-down creatures, on its own, a GRV? No. I'd suggest a higher standard here, especially at ensuring the enforcement of relevant elements of the game.

As I said earlier, I'm fine with the interpretation that shuffling your face-down permanents is not a GRV. I would just like to understand why it is not considered an infraction. In my opinion, calling it irrelevant, while not being a very good argument when discussing rules text, is also not correct.

I don't think anyone is heading down an unpoductive road here.

Originally posted by Julien de Graat:

The funny thing is we are always told to read the IPG in a very technical fashion, to take everything literally. And we shouldn't do that with the CR? Honest question.

Well, I would point out the existence of MTR 4.2 and MTR 4.3 as a very strong suggestion that overly technical application of the Comprehensive Rules is unwarranted.

But there is a difference in making sure to understand the MIPG and what it says, and how we actually apply the MIPG. As has been proven in many conversations on this forum in that past, overly close readings of the MIPG don't work. And it is entirely possible to read too much into the MIPG, and thus apply it incorrectly.

I believe that is the point that Joshua and Scott are making. It isn't a lack of caring here, but rather an earnest suggestion to consider the bigger picture and how we apply rules and policy. There's a lot of caring behind their suggestions. Especially in making sure we don't come down too hard on players via over enforcement of any rule or policy.

Originally posted by Julien de Graat:

As I said earlier, I'm fine with the interpretation that shuffling your face-down permanents is not a GRV. I would just like to understand why it is not considered an infraction. In my opinion, calling it irrelevant, while not being a very good argument when discussing rules text, is also not correct.

CR 707.6 says the following…

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.

…and nothing in that rule suggests that the cards can't be reordered or otherwise adjusted during the course of normal game play. So, why should it ever be an infraction? Yes, the face-down permanents need to be “tracked” and “easily differentiated”, and suggestions are given for how that can be done. But that's not an exhaustive list of options.

I feel like there is a fundamental miscommunication here around the word “Shuffled”–some people are using it to mean “moved into an order other than the order they were played,” while others are using it to mean “randomized in a way that inadvertently or intentionally causes confusion to opponents.” As a result, I feel like some of the responses in this thread are talking past one another.

CR 707.6 spells out a morph controller's responsibilities. Imagine the following boardstates, with morphs A B C (they entered the battlefield in that order):

A B C

B A C

As long as I can tell my opponent which physical object is morph ‘A’, morph ‘B’, and morph ‘C’ at all times, I have fulfilled my obligation under CR 707.6. If I am not breaking a Game Rule, then how can I be issued a GRV?

Lots of players chose to play creatures left to right, but we aren't going to explicitly require that for players because that would be both burdensome and semi-draconian. The CR also can't spell out every possible method players would use to track morphs, or the document would be even larger than it currently is.

Speaking as someone who has written a few rules along the way…

The entire point of the “Common methods include…” sentence is to not dictate how we distinguish our face down permanents. Keeping them in order left to right is one way. Using dice is another way. Using morph “token cards” that you've numbered is yet another way. Putting Pokemon energy cards on them in WUBRG order is a weird way, but works. There is no single way. There are “common methods”, but really any method the 2 players can understand is fine. It doesn't even really matter if the opponent likes your method of distinguishing your morphs, so long as it's easily understandable (and isn't unsporting). If R&D really wanted the rule to be “order them left to right,” they wouldn't using a phrase like “Common methods include…” They'd just tell use the one way, and stick to it.

So, let's say a player does jumble up their face down cards. What is the opponent is supposed to do?? Well, they're supposed to ask which order the creatures appeared in, so they can start tracking them again. The creatures entering play were “past game actions that still affect the game state,” so the order in which they entered is free information. The player jumbling them up must answer the question, and must do so truthfully. So what we have here is the mythical CPV infraction which is not actually some other infraction in disguise.

Or do we? Ask yourself this: why did the player jumble the creatures up? They just have to answer questions about which is which, anyway, so what could they be gaining? If they're jumbling things in vain attempts to hide information, then they're just wasting everyone's time, just as if they sat there shuffling around their face-up lands for no reason. So to me, this is behavior more along the lines of Slow Play, or even Stalling.