Welcome back to the Knowledge Pool everyone! This week we have another Gold Scenario for you, meaning all judges are welcome to participate from the get-go

The blog post for this scenario can be found here.

At the beginning of round three at a standard Grand Prix Trial, you deck check table 5. Elspeth's decklist says “4 Jace, Vryn's Prodigy”, along with a variety of other blue and black spells and lands. Her deck, however, contains 56 cards and 4 unmarked Magic Origins Checklist Cards. Her box also contains 4 Jace, Vryn's Prodigy in clear sleeves. There are no other cards which can be represented by a checklist card on Elspeth's decklist or in her deck. What do you do?

Unfortunately for Elspeth I would have to issue her a Game Loss for a Deck/Decklist Problem. I would explain to Elspeth that even though the checklist cards were in her deck, and the 4 Jace, Vryn's Prodigy were as well, there is still a standard that needs to be upheld and infractions need to be consistent. I would then allow Elspeth to correct her checklist cards and inform them to go to game 2 without side-boarding.

In this situation, my first reaction is to issue a Game Loss for Deck/Decklist Problem, since the double faced cards are not marked to what they are supposed to be. Because of the check list cards not being marked, it's hard to tell what card it's supposed to be, and would be very unclear without the decklist. With that information I feel that a Game Loss is the most appropriate penalty for this.

However, this seems like a case that could reasonably get downgraded. I would talk with Elspeth, and ask them something along the lines of there are some check list cards in your deck, what are those cards? Considering what has been said, there is reason to believe that Elspeth is using those cards the correct way(just not having marked them). The reason I think this(witch I would confirm by talking with Elspeth), is that there is no mention of anything that makes Jace seem out of place, and everything mentioned seems to make Liliana be out of place(of course this could easily change depending on the full list). With this information, an argument for a downgrade could be made, but I would still lean towards a Game Loss, to keep it consistent with any rulings for other decks where multiple double faced cards are used.

This one looks so simple that I'm stunned it's gold, and figure there must be something I'm missing.

MTR: “Each individual checklist card used must have one (and only one) of the items checked.”

If they're not marked, that's a violation of the rules.

Elspeth receives a game loss for “Tournament Error — Deck/Decklist Problem”, can correct her deck before game two by simply marking the cards, and then we run before she can generate soldier tokens to send after us.

(I am convinced I'm wrong here.)

Edited Sean Riley (Sept. 25, 2015 10:18:19 AM)

To me, this sounds like a fairly simple Deck/Decklist Problem–the appropriate penalty here being a Game Loss, sadly. Elspeth may have written down the names of her cards correctly, but the contents of her deck don't match what was written on her decklist.

Unfortunately, as much as I would like to be able to downgrade this penalty, the potential for abuse is far too high and there's nothing in the literature to support this sort of downgrade. A downgrade can only be considered when a player catches the problem before taking any game actions (IPG 3.5 see: downgrade), and this didn't happen. The fix here is to correct the deck to match the decklist (bubble in Jace's name on the checklist card) and apply the Game Loss. Feels bad, man.

If they were marked with another ‘walker, this would be a snap GL. This makes me think that, unmarked, they’re not valid, and should similarly get a GL.

I see this as no infraction, no penalty. There isn't anything wrong with the decklist, and while the MTR specifies that checklist cards must have exactly one box checked on them, I don't think having them unchecked implies that the contents of the deck and sideboard don't match the decklist.

While there is some potential for abuse, that is mitigated by the fact that there are no other flip planeswalkers in Elspeth's deckbox, so in order to pretend it was a different walker, she would have to pull the cards out of somewhere else (e.g. another box in her backpack or her trade binder). Additionally, if we get the sense that she might be trying to abuse the situation, then we can investigate by asking her previous opponents if they saw her play any planeswalkers and what they were. If she was actually abusing the mistake, then she should be DQ'd for cheating, but otherwise I think this is an opportunity to educate the player about the MTR, instruct them to fix it, and move on.

TE - DDP - Warning at head judges discretion (with appropriate upgrade
again if it is the third warning). I believe this well falls under one
of the paths for a downgrade which is if the head judge believes there
is little to no possibility for abuse.

Methods by which there could be abuse would only be if they grabbed a
flip planeswalker from outside their deckbox which would typically be
quick to trigger warning from the opponent. There are very few other
flip planeswalkers that would make sense. Only one other could be
played in a blue black deck and it isn't on the list.

I would have Elspeth mark to correct box to prevent further
misunderstandings, mark down the warning, and continue on.

Should the head judge decline to downgrade the penalty then it would
be TE - DDP - Game Loss. No side boarding, Elspeth chooses play or
draw.

I completely disagree with those calling for a downgrade.

Downgrade: If a player, before taking any game actions, discovers a deck (not decklist) problem and calls a judge at that point, the Head Judge may issue a Warning, fix the deck, and, if the player has drawn their opening hand, instruct the player to mulligan. The player may continue to take further mulligans if he or she desires.

That's not even remotely this scenario.

It's a game loss.

Ambiguous or unclear names on a decklist may allow a player to manipulate the contents of his or her deck up until the point at which they are discovered. The Head Judge may downgrade the penalty for an ambiguous name or obvious clerical error if they believe that the error could not be used to gain an advantage in the tournament.

Sean, I would argue that this falls under clerical error as they had the card listed on their decklist, had the card in their deckbox with the exact amount of checklist cards and no other cards in their deck/deckbox that the checklist card could apply to, the were merely not marked which might have been as simple as a friend suggested they do this right before the tournament to preserve their cards by not taking them out of the sleeves repeatedly, a common occurrence.

On the same note I also believe it would be difficult to gain an advantage in the tournament from the situation.

As picky as it sounds and as much as I would love to cut Elspeth some slack on this, I feel the mere fact that there could be potential for abuse in enough to issue the game loss for a deck/decklist violation. Clarity needs to be paramount here; Elspeth committed a violation by essentially leaving the checklist card blank. Even if there was no intent at any point for any kind of shenanigans, the mere potential this presents means it needs to be addressed.

I find it hard to explain why this has to be a Deck/Decklist problem.
This is because the card on the decklist is identified by it's full name. So you can't interpret jace as another card and work towards a downgrade from that point.

Not filling in a checklist card is not a penalized infraction in itself.

The closest problem I could find is

'The contents of the presented deck and sideboard do not match the decklist registered.'

The deck contains 4 ‘empty’ checklist cards an no jace.

I'd stick with the IPG and give a deck/decklist problem GL. I'd explain to the player that I consider him to only have 56 cards in his deck and that he needs to fix his deck. This is then done by marking the checklist cards.

The IPG is perhaps a little unclear in this situation because

Additionally, if there are extra cards stored with the sideboard that could conceivably be played in the player’s deck, they will be considered a part of the sideboard unless they are:
• Double-faced cards represented by checklist cards in the deck.

So, these four jace's are not represented by a checklist card. Therefore are they part of the sideboard?

Per the comp rules regarding checklist cards:

711.3a A checklist card has a normal Magic card back. The face of a checklist card is divided into sections. Each section lists the name and mana cost of each double-faced card it could represent and includes a fill-in circle. Before a checklist card can be used, exactly one of the fill-in circles must be marked to denote which double-faced card the checklist card represents.

By not having the checklist card filled out correctly, it is an illegal card. Since this is the error and is clearly a TE-D/DL infraction, we go to the IPG to determine the penalty. The standard penalty for this infraction is game loss. However, let's evaluate the downgrade philosophy:

Downgrade: If a player, before taking any game actions, discovers a deck (not decklist) problem and calls a judge at that point, the Head Judge may issue a Warning, fix the deck, and, if the player has drawn their opening hand, instruct the player to mulligan. The player may continue to take further mulligans if he or she desires.

As we are in round three of the tournament, and a judge is performing the deckcheck, there is no downgrade path available here.

Final ruling would be TE-D/DL-GL and apply a fix to have the player properly fill out their check list card to represent what is on the decklist.

There's certainly ambiguity here. It's easy to draw the conclusion that “we know what card it is” because of the circumstantial evidence of there only being Jace's in the deck box. But that means that if there were 2 different PWs in the box, things would be different? I don't like solutions like that for D/DLP because the root cause here (unmarked checklists) is what is creating the ambiguity.

I also like to expand my thinking in situations like this. What if the player got Thoughtseized and the opponent saw the unmarked checklist card. She calls for a judge, then what? Do we confirm that there are only Jace's in the box and everything is hunky dory, thus giving away some information about the content of the player's deck (no other PWs)?

Reflecting on the IPG about Deck/Deck List Penalty, it gives us three options

• Game Loss
  
• Warning
  
• No Infraction
  

Game loss is the default penalty for this infraction.
Warnings are the downgrade path for this penalty only if the player, before taking a game action, discovers a deck (not a deck list) problem.
No Infraction is applied when the head judge “believe(s) that what the player wrote on their decklist is obvious and unambiguous, even if it is not the full, accurate name of the card.” This is not the case here as the problem isn't what they wrote on their decklist, it's what the contents of their deck are.

Since neither of the two deviations of the infraction occur in this situation, our only option is to default to the standard penalty for this. So:
D/DLP, game loss.

Edited Elliot Garner (Sept. 25, 2015 10:54:07 PM)