Just to clarify (since there seems to be some confusion), the bent card is NOT one of the Snapcasters. There are 4 altered Snapcasters PLUS a 5th card (of irrelevant name) that has become marked/bent during shuffling.

Carry on. :)

The player has told us there are four snapcasters. From the question only one is in play, so the remaining 3 are either in hand or in the library. It is simple enough to ask the player to give you his hand and library and then you can go off to the side and replace the cards with temporary proxies.

I don't like leaving the other ones in the library for a couple of reasons - firstly, if/when the next one gets played, then the altered art we have deemed inappropriate is now again visible to anyone who looks - which is what we're trying to avoid. Secondly, at a PTQ there is a good chance that a different judge gets to the table to handle the next instance, which means both players have to repeat the story again, and the head judge gets called back to the table. It's extra work that can be avoided by fixing it at the start.

You mention potentially only replacing revealed snapcasters (but not ones in hand). I don't like this either, for the same reasons as above. It's not just the opponent we're concerned about, but also neighbouring players and spectators, all of whom could potentially see cards in this player's hand. They too could be exposed. A spectator may also call a judge, which brings us back to more work for the staff.

So I think either (a) we allow him to finish with all four snapcasters and have them changed for the next round, or (b) we change all of them now as best as we can. I don't think it works to only change some.

It's not at all clear to me that anyone necessarily needs protection in
this situation. Alteration is first and foremost disallowed because it
obscures the art. The reason we don't allow obscured art is that it
disrupts the match. Pausing the match and walking away with a player's deck
to avoid disrupting the match is a bit counterproductive.

If you determine that some player or spectator is likely to actually be
offended, then you still need to intervene in the least distruptive way.
That may mean telling a judge to hang out in the general area (one should
be there anyway) with a couple temporary proxies and instructing the player
to call him over to swap out the cards when he plays them. Given that the
player has 2 unaltered Snapcasters on hand, he can do the first couple
swaps without even calling the judge. This whole operation should consume
roughly 10 seconds of judge time and maybe 20 seconds of player time. I
really don't see that as a huge barrier.

Originally posted by Josh Stansfield:

Just to clarify (since there seems to be some confusion), the bent card is NOT one of the Snapcasters. There are 4 altered Snapcasters PLUS a 5th card (of irrelevant name) that has become marked/bent during shuffling.

Carry on. :)

Thanks for this note, I really misunderstood this.


In this case, I will replace the damaged card with a proxy as the MTR instruct us to do. I would most likely not hand out temporary proxies for the two Snapcaster Mages that cannot be replaced with unaltered copies. If the player fails to find the necessary amount of unaltered copies, the remaining Snapcaster Mages will have to be replaced with basic lands. I will try to fix the situation the least disruptive way.

By now, I'm very undecisive on whether to replace the cards immediately or after the match. If there's a Snapcaster Mage in the player's hand, replacing it with a basic land (or an unaltered card OR a temporary proxy) would give the opponent some information he/she shouldn't have. However, saying “Oh, we can't replace this card because it's in his hand” would give the same information. Anyway, depending on how offensive the artwork is, we might want to have the cards gone as soon as possible.

The idea of providing temporary proxies seems to be very popular in this thread. This isn't explicitly mentioned in the MTR. Can I act on the assumption this is somewhat within the spirit of the MTR?

If it is, replacing the cards with temporary proxies as soon as they become visible for the opponent should be the least disruptive way to handle this situation. For the next round, the situation is rather clear: If the player fails to find 4 unaltered copies, the respective number of Snapcaster Mages is replaced with basic lands.

Edited Jasper König (May 2, 2013 02:49:28 PM)

OK, so we replace the creased card immediately with a proxy because it was damaged during the course of the tournament, but the altered art situation does get a little more tricky. Alters are usually up to Head Judge digression, so for me personally I am stickler for this sort of thing. I would assign the proxy for the creased card, ask him if he has any alters left in his deck to see if we need to replace all his alters or just his Tiagos. Then after the game I would tell him to find replacement clean cards to replace his alters, any ones he could not replace or borrow I would put a basic land of his choice in his deck. Then I would tell him in the future to always go to the Head judge in a tournament whenever he plays with alters to get the ok from the HJ to prevent this situation from happening again. Then I would give them a time extension, and a go ahead to continue playing their games.

Edited Joel Bouzaglou (May 3, 2013 09:19:38 AM)

I am very confused…

This issue seems VERY cut and dried. We all agree that the altered art card is illegal IAW Magic Tournament Rules Paragraph 3.3 correct? If the cards are illegal then the player has committed Tournament Error — Deck/Decklist Problem (cards not legal in the format, IAW the previous rule.) The individual is issued a game loss and should have the same amount of time to replace the cards that would be provided for sideboarding. For those of you who think my decision hard consider this; Would your decision be different if the player had photocopied images of the cards instead of the altered real cards? Both are violations of the same rule…

Originally posted by Joshua Collier:

I am very confused…

This issue seems VERY cut and dried. We all agree that the altered art card is illegal IAW Magic Tournament Rules Paragraph 3.3 correct? If the cards are illegal then the player has committed Tournament Error — Deck/Decklist Problem (cards not legal in the format, IAW the previous rule.) The individual is issued a game loss and should have the same amount of time to replace the cards that would be provided for sideboarding. For those of you who think my decision hard consider this; Would your decision be different if the player had photocopied images of the cards instead of the altered real cards? Both are violations of the same rule…

No I couldn't see a decklist error here. The cards were legal, it's just the modifications that were not. Maybe I could see a marked cards violation, but that's stretching it at best.

It is true the player did indeed violate the rules of the MTR, however this violation doesn't really fit any of the infractions listed in the IPG (unless that player knew they were breaking the rules and did so anyways to gain an advantage). So the penalty would be a caution, and having the player replace the cards in question if possible, or replacing them with basic lands if not. Then modify the decklist accordingly.

As to the boardstate fix, if the player is unable to replace all their snapcaster and 2 of them have to be replaced by lands here is what I'd do: For each snapcaster in each zone I'd randomly choose one of the 4 cards to replace it. That means the snapcaster on the battlefield could end up as a basic land instead.

"No I couldn't see a decklist error here. The cards were legal, it's just the modifications that were not. Maybe I could see a marked cards violation, but that's stretching it at best."

Tournament rules - 3May13
3.3 Authorised Cards
The card is genuine and published by Wizards of the Coast
…
Artistic modifications are acceptable in sanctioned tournaments, provided that the modifications do not make the card art unrecognizable, contain substantial strategic advice, or contain offensive images. Artistic modifications also may not obstruct or change the mana cost or name of the card.

Magic IPG - 3May13
3.9. Tournament Error — Deck/Decklist Problem
…
Definition
• The deck and/or decklist contain one or more cards that are illegal for the format.


The terms authorised, acceptable, and legal are used interchangeably throughout the paragraphs. The rule that make it illegal to simply play with photocopied cards is the same rule that applies here. All criteria must be true for the card to be authorised. The original image being unrecognizable is the exact same rule violation as the card being fake, and thus illegal.

If it does not meet any of the violation criteria, and I believe it does, then IAW Magic IPG paragraph 1.3 (last) this would warrant a warning only. While the HJ would then instruct the player to replace the cards (and if you do not call them illegal, what reason would you give for why they have to be replaced), you have created your own paradox. Illegal cards in a deck warrant a game loss; authorised cards do not need to be replaced.

Do these things come with answer keys? Normally I love rules, all you need to do is figure out where the square hole is when you are holding the square peg. The funny thing about these discussions is that I often find I am holding a diamond peg slightly turned and was thinking it was a square peg the whole time; however, I still believe that enforcing the rules, as written and not as I wish they would be, is the best course of action when fairness and equitability must be your end goals. Small side note, anyone else think the art on that card is much better than the standard “one bionic arm” snapcaster mage?

Let's get back on track here: the altered cards are NOT illegal.

The altered art is offensive (reason enough to disallow them), and has rendered them unrecognizable.

Originally posted by Cris Plyler:

As to the boardstate fix, if the player is unable to replace all their snapcaster and 2 of them have to be replaced by lands here is what I'd do: For each snapcaster in each zone I'd randomly choose one of the 4 cards to replace it. That means the snapcaster on the battlefield could end up as a basic land instead.

I'm very curious as to why should the suggested fix be implemented, assuming that a game is in progress. If one of the snappies in any public zones were to be replaced by a basic land, wouldn't that drastically alter the game state? I'd assume that the current game state has no problems with it, so I'm really curious over why there should be a suggestion to damage it.

I do believe that apart from the usual HJ announcements of number of rounds, format, REL, etc., a quick reminder to players on the usage of altered-art cards should be included. As a form of fairness, I'd usually announce that no altered-art cards are to be used for the events I'm HJ'ing for.

For this case, I'd go with the suggestion mentioned previously of positioning a floor judge nearby to swap in temporary proxies for the round whenever a snappy enters any public zone.

I'd also be informing that player that he/she has until the start of the next round to find original unaltered snappies for usage, else he/she will have to “fix” his decklist by replacing snappies he can't find with basic lands, with a very likely D/DLP infraction coming his way.

On another note, as I personally have some full-art altered cards that were manually done with airbrushing, the thickness of the card itself poses a problem - mainly, cheating by marked card. As it's only mentioned that the images on the altered snappies were racy, a quick investigation could reveal more and lead to a marked card situation.

Edited Andrew Teo (May 3, 2013 03:29:24 AM)

Okay, yeah I overlooked on how to do this midgame. But is it necessary to do this midgame?

Either at this very moment 2 or less altered snapcasters are in a public zone, you could replace those, resulting in an awkward situation where you can only presume that these altered snapcasters would be the ones that are technically replaced by unaltered ones.

Or at this very moment more than 2 altered snapcasters are in a public zone, you have a problem, as you can't replace all of them and which one would you replace by land.

Maybe it's better to let Amleth finish the game and let him replace after the game is finished. As a judge it's one of our goals to uphold the integrity of the game. As nobody complained up and untill round 4 about these altered snapcasters, I don't see why we let them being used for a couple of more minutes to finish a game. His current opponent didn't care, else he would have called a judge the moment he saw an altered Snapcaster. In between games he will receive a reasonable amount of time to find replacement snapcasters, maybe it's even the last game of the match which would result in the player receiving even a bit more time maybe.

This way we make sure the player doesn't keep on playing with alters and the integrity of the game is upheld which is after all what we are looking for as a judge.

If he indeed can only find 2 Snapcasters, we adjust his decklist and give him a TE - DDP (because his deck doesn't match his decklist anymore). I would give this gameloss right after he finishes the game with the altered snapcasters (during the time he replaces his snapcasters, adjusts his decklist). This will either result in him loosing a game still in round 4 (that could lead to loosing the match) or it carries over to round 5.



(maybe a bit off topic, but in my community a number of members have very-very scantily clad females on their sleeves as well… I have never received any bad word about them, would we go to lengths to also prevent this or is it purely for altering cards that we need to step in? But maybe the comment of Scott was clear enough on this already)

Edited Niki Lin (May 3, 2013 03:25:38 AM)

@Niki Lin: You would not give a deck list error infraction in this case. The judge has instructed the player that they can not play with those copies of snapcaster and that they must be replaced, if they can only find the 2 then we instruct them to replace the other 2 with basic lands of their choice and we'll update their decklist. This is a fix to problem and should not be penalized, the decklist will match after we modify it.

As to why I would do what I did. Making temporary proxies to me is not a valid option, the TR is very specific on when proxies can be made and this case is not one of them (well the damaged card is, but not the snapcasters). So the snapcasters need to be removed, if the player is unable to find enough replacements then those should be replaced by basic lands.

Now I gave consideration to replacing the snapcasters in public zones with the players good snapcaster and randomly replacing the cards in hidden zones with the other cards. However what happens if there are 3 snapcasters in public zones (I know not part of the question but bear with me)? Can we rightfully state that two of those are snapcaster and the other is a land or will simply be shuffled away? No whatever is ruled should be a solution that can be consistant for future cases, so if each snapcaster is randomly replaced that can remain consistant no matter what the board state is, whether there is only one snapcaster or more in public zones.

Originally posted by Andrew Teo:

For this case, I'd go with the suggestion mentioned previously of positioning a floor judge nearby to swap in temporary proxies for the round whenever a snappy enters any public zone.

But why not create those proxies and leave them at the table, for the player himself to swap as soon as a snappy enters a public zone?
A judge might be called for a lengthy/difficult call at a different table, or needs to get the head judge or needs to go to the bathroom, etc.
If you've established this as the fix, what is the added value of keeping a judge around to implement a fix that the players could implement themselves just as easily with more convenience?

Edited Toby Hazes (May 3, 2013 11:02:50 AM)

Originally posted by Cris Plyler:

As to why I would do what I did. Making temporary proxies to me is not a valid option, the TR is very specific on when proxies can be made and this case is not one of them (well the damaged card is, but not the snapcasters). So the snapcasters need to be removed, if the player is unable to find enough replacements then those should be replaced by basic lands.

My intention of having temporary “proxies” is to just have a simple “cover-up” for the art for the round without touching the current game state at all since there's nothing wrong with it at all.
Giving the player until the start of the next round to find suitable replacements for his snappies seem to be the least disruptive to the event in my point of view. A time extension of 10 minutes just for him/her to get replacements is pretty unfair to the other players.

Now I gave consideration to replacing the snapcasters in public zones with the players good snapcaster and randomly replacing the cards in hidden zones with the other cards. However what happens if there are 3 snapcasters in public zones (I know not part of the question but bear with me)? Can we rightfully state that two of those are snapcaster and the other is a land or will simply be shuffled away? No whatever is ruled should be a solution that can be consistant for future cases, so if each snapcaster is randomly replaced that can remain consistant no matter what the board state is, whether there is only one snapcaster or more in public zones.

I'm really not comfortable with the possibility of altering the board state. If the situation is really bad, ie. kids are running around with their parents and the snappies are…snapping away pretty suggestively, I'm quite inclined to go with a TE - D/DLP infraction. That would minimize the amount of disruption to the event as a whole, and we would not need to delve into the intricacies of game state manipulation, etc. Do correct me here if I seem to be jumping the gun too soon just for a “quick fix”.

Toby Hazes
But why not create those proxies and leave them at the table, for the player himself to swap as soon as a snappy enters a public zone?
A judge might be called for a lengthy/difficult call at a different table, or needs to get the head judge or needs to go to the bathroom, etc.
If you've established this as the fix, what is the added value of keeping a judge around to implement a fix that the players could implement themselves just as easily with more convenience?

You do make a point there, but given the situation as it is, the player might not use the “cover-ups” . As a result, it runs the risk of complaints regarding particular racy cards might pop up from spectators with/without kids.
Also, I don't think it's fair for both players to know the exact number of snappies he/she plays, even if we gave him/her 4 proxies in total regardless of the actual number he/she runs, which, in this case, he runs 4, which coincides with the maximum number possible.

Originally posted by Andrew Teo:

You do make a point there, but given the situation as it is, the player might not use the “cover-ups” . As a result, it runs the risk of complaints regarding particular racy cards might pop up from spectators with/without kids.

That would be failure to follow a direct instruction from a tournament official. I don't think the player would want to risk that just to look at his snappies a few seconds longer (which he can still do in a bathroom stall between rounds anyways).

Also, even if you have a judge around, those snappies will still be in his hand when he draws them, so anyone walking by could still see them. So it's added hastle for not even 100% security.

Originally posted by Andrew Teo:

Also, I don't think it's fair for both players to know the exact number of snappies he/she plays, even if we gave him/her 4 proxies in total regardless of the actual number he/she runs, which, in this case, he runs 4, which coincides with the maximum number possible.

What would be the problem with giving 4 proxies regardless of the actual number?