When you draw your first one, you are presumably still unaware of the fact that you forgot to de-sideboard, so you wouldn't actually call a judge on yourself at that point anyway.

It wouldn't be until you saw your 3rd one that you'd realise the situation. their proposed fix is just to remove that pyroclasm completely from the game, voiding your draw/scry/etc which brought the card into your view, and presumably issuing a warning rather than a game loss.

Giving people an out to turn their deliberate cheating into a warning if they decide they might not get away with it makes me nervous, but I also don't like giving game losses to people who 99 times out of 100 made a mistake and admitted it freely themselves. But then on the other hand, if they are playing at Comp, it is up to them to make sure they are managing the contents of their deck properly, and if they aren't prepared to take a game loss for the offense, they should either be more careful, or not play at Comp.

I *love* Emilien's example. ‘what do you suggest to be fair and consistent fix and penalty when I draw my first Pyroclasm? When I draw my third?’

The inherent problem here is that the first and second Pyroclasms could have very well been the main board cards that are currently in the sideboard; at the same time, what happens if you finish game one without realizing your mistake, go to your sideboard, discover your other two Pyroclasms are already in your deck (or you go to remove two and find all four)? You are at the point where you can legally sideboard, but the fact is, you just played a game with DDLP problems.

It's so strange because I agree with both sides – the policy has gone from a DQ to a Game Loss, and there is a responsibility to ensure you are presenting a legal deck every time you play at a sanctioned event (I recall the first non regular REL tournament I played at, I was paranoid about this, to the point where I would actually have my sideboard face down in front of me and fanned out (after I confirmed that the cards were correct) while I was shuffling). Sure, we have other responsibilities too, but the importance of maintaining and presenting a legal deck is, in my albeit slightly inexperienced opinion, an important starting point, and I believe the penalties that DDLP carries are indicative of that sentiment.

That being said, the player has a responsibility to call a judge the moment they realize there is an error/issue - even if their opponent may not know about it. And how much would it ‘not feel good’ if you lost your first game, only to attempt to sideboard, discover a DDLP, call a judge and get issued a game loss that leads to a match loss? Sure - you need to do what's right; while it stinks that a mistake was made, it's a lesson you're probably going to learn quite a bit from (no matter how salty it may taste), but the incentive to not say anything - i.e. have a chance to come back and win the match - is, sadly, probably enough to keep the majority of players silent in this scenario, and that is something that I think we need to find ways to curb.

Edited Bernie Hoelschen (Sept. 16, 2016 02:24:20 PM)

Originally posted by Bernie Hoelschen:

what happens if you finish game one without realizing your mistake, go to your sideboard, discover your other two Pyroclasms are already in your deck

This is one that often confuses players, but - there is no current infraction. The fact that we all know there was an infraction is irrelevant, from our perspective. (I have seen players who feel so bad about their mistake that they immediately concede that game… rare, but it's happened.)

d:^D

So, AP just played with a DDLP, but it wasn't caught during the span of a game, so there's no infraction? Not trying to sound crass, but does that mean that if someone were to brag about getting away with it, and then brazenly go as far as to admit they did it on purpose, I would believe that would qualify as USC: Cheating, except that there is no infraction by which to base it off of…?

(Edited to add - asking really for clarification purposes; also, apologies if this teters towards off-topic)

Edited Bernie Hoelschen (Sept. 16, 2016 04:35:01 PM)

Originally posted by Bernie Hoelschen:

and then brazenly go as far as to admit they did it on purpose, I would believe that would qualify as USC: Cheating

Yep, that's still Cheating.

However, if a player calls you to the table and says “hey, I just noticed, my sideboard card FOO was in my deck for game 1”, or “I just noticed that I played the last game with 59 cards, because I forgot this one in Exile”? Well, those are dealt with like this: “I assume you didn't know that at the time? OK, thanks for your honesty, there's currently no infraction; make sure you deck is legal for your next game.”

d:^D

Originally posted by Emilien Wild:

If I am playing two pyroclasm main deck and two in the sideboard, and end
up accidentally with all four in the main deck game one, what do you
suggest to be fair and consistent fix and penalty when I draw my first
pyroclasm? When I draw my third?

As your example shows, simply having the player exile a card they draw that should be in their sideboard is no good, because there's too good a chance the relevant card has already impacted the game, and determining whether a given Pyroclasm was one of the maindeck or sideboard is a monstrous headache.

What if we had a new policy of making players mark their sideboarded cards/sleeves with sharpie on the front of the card? Then, if a player drew a sideboarded card in their main deck, the judge could swap it with a maindeck card that was still in the sideboard, chosen at random.

For
-Easier for judges watching to see sideboard cards
-No possible excuse for a player not noticing they had drawn a sideboard card
-Addresses the 2/2 or 3/1 split, because it's easy to see whether it was a maindeck or SB copy
-A numeral on the front of a sleeve in sharpie would mark the card only from the front, so there would be no worry about Marked Cards

Against
-Players playing without sleeves are in a bind (though this doesn't bother me much - I can't remember the last time I saw a player at any level of constructed tournament playing a deck unsleeved)
-Players would certainly be unhappy about being asked to mark their sleeves if they planned on reusing them in future tournaments. That's why packs of sleeves come with extras. Or they could use Perfect Fits.

This would clearly be a big change, but I think basically anything we do to replace the current system has to be an upgrade. I'd reiterate that I'm much more interested in seeing the current policy changed than I am fighting for any specific fix to replace it.

Originally posted by Brook Gardner-Durbin:

What if we had a new policy of making players mark their sideboarded cards/sleeves with sharpie on the front of the card? Then, if a player drew a sideboarded card in their main deck, the judge could swap it with a maindeck card that was still in the sideboard, chosen at random.

While this is an interesting proposal, I am highly against it for a number of reasons:


* Our policies already make it difficult for players to play without sleeves, but this one would make it nearly impossible unless you are willing to ruin your own cards. Sleeves are generally assumed, but I think it's important that they are not mandatory- We don't want to force new players to get all these extra things before playing in a tournament. Sleeves should remain recommended, but optional.

* Even if you have sleeves, this policy would force players to “ruin” them, which many players would be opposed to.

* It gives away information to the opponent, as they would be able to see which cards were from the sideboard. This is very relevant information in a number of situations, and the opponent should not have access this this information.

* Players just won't do it. We already have a hard enough time getting people to fill out decklists, implementing this policy would be a nightmare logistics-wise.

* And what happens when they do forget to mark the sleeves? Do we give them a penalty for that? Avoiding GLs is good, but we don't want to replace it with 5 times as many warnings.


I like the thought behind the idea, but I don't think it's compatible with the way we want tournament Magic to work.

Originally posted by Isaac King:

It gives away information to the opponent, as they would be able to see which cards were from the sideboard. This is very relevant information in a number of situations, and the opponent should not have access this this information.

I hadn't considered this point, and you're right, that would make this idea completely unworkable. I think the other points could be figured out, but as a competitive player I'd help lead the riots if this became the rule.