Round 5 of a 28 person GPT has just finished, and you, as the head judge have collected the top 8 decks for a quick deck check. While verifying the contents, you notice that once of the players, Anson, has 4 checklist cards marked “Jace, Vryn's Prodigy”, and four copies of the card on his decklist. However, he only has one physical copy of Jace, Vryns's Prodigy with his deck. He has before now not been deck checked.

What is the proper course of action? Game loss for DDLP and find physical copies/replace with basic lands, or because the check is largely a courtesy at this point, downgrade the penalty?

My gut tells me the first option, but I'm not 100% sure.

Edited Hank Wiest (Dec. 5, 2015 12:51:30 PM)

The checklist card here is a distraction. Would you issues any DDLP at this point? If so, then issue this one. If not, why not?

<strike>Even if this is competitive, trying to find infractions when there really is nothing can be dangerous to consistency and customer service.

No infraction, no penalty. I remind the player to not put checklist cards on his decklist in future.</strike>


I misread. I read it as “decklist lists 4 checklist jace and 4 jace, vryn..” while deck consists of “4 jace, vryn”

Edited Philip Böhm (Dec. 6, 2015 03:14:43 AM)

Originally posted by Philip Böhm:

Even if this is competitive, trying to find infractions when there really is nothing can be dangerous to consistency and customer service.

No infraction, no penalty. I remind the player to not put checklist cards on his decklist in future.

Umm… no, this is at the very least a game loss for a deck/decklist problem since the deck doesn't contain what's listed on the decklist, and also now likely has only 57 cards in it unless the player can quickly acquire three more actual Jaces. If not, we'll be replacing those three extra checklist cards with basic lands.

And, of course, this is assuming that a cursory investigation determines that the player doesn't know any better and legitimately thought that they could use checklist cards this way. If not, well, there's going to be a long conversation about cheating…

Pretty much what Charlotte said.

I don't do “courtesy checks” as a courtesy to the one player, but as a courtesy to all players. Game Loss for D/DLP, after an investigation.

d:^D

A complementary question: can the fact that the player is not seated to a match (at this moment) be considered a factor in the situation?

Thank you.

Edited Milan Majerčík (Dec. 6, 2015 05:30:08 AM)

To complement Milan's question even further: If the players aren't seated
to the match, would I hand out a penalty if the player simply hasn't
desideboarded from the previous match and didn't realize when I was
grabbing the decks?

In the original scenario, I'm fairly certain the player would still have
only one Jace when presenting, so I'd still be ready to hand out the DDLP
Game Loss.

2015-12-06 8:30 GMT-05:00 Milan Majerčík <

Given that they aren't seated, you'll have to find them. So they'll know you're taking their decks. It's simple enough to ask them to check they've desideboarded before you take them. The goal is to confirm there are no problems - we're not trying to catch people out

As far as I understand policy, players are not required to have a legal deck between matches, and the lines we draw is the moment a player present his or her deck at the start of the round until the moment the match is over.
I wouldn't give any penalty of any kind, but remind the player he or she has to fix his or her deck before the match.
The only exception would be suspicion of Cheating, for which any element I could get, before or after the match, could be used to determine my opinion about malicious behaviours and intents.

- Emilien

Thank you for expressing this opinion. That was also my experience with the policy: judges should apply DDLP/DEC penalties only after the deck was presented to an opponent in a match.

To answer the OP question: I would investigate and if I am convinced that the player did not know the rules for checklist cards (and I find out how he is handling situations when he has more Jace's on the battlefield which could lead to some interesting lines in the investigation process), I would give no penalty because it is not an infraction at the moment. I would give the player a few moments to acquire the missing cards.

(Cheating is of course a completely different story).

“Courtesy checks” are done to make sure that the top 8 all have decks that match their lists before the top 8 starts. If they are yet to desideboard that is fine, we're simply checking the 75 cards you were handed appear on the decklist somewhere but maybe keep an eye on the player or give a quick “you still need to desideboard” when handing the deck back. If they don't for the match then they have commit a D/DL Error

I have no experience with these courtesy deck ckecks. Is there any official policy regarding this process that I can read on the topic?

Originally posted by Milan Majerčík:

I have no experience with these courtesy deck ckecks. Is there any official policy

No; I'm not a fan of the practice, but that's my personal opinion.

One thing to clarify, re: my previous post: I started to say “I don't do courtesy checks” and then I expanded on why it's a courtesy to all the players, but not a service for just one player. I forgot to finish my thought!

I don't do “courtesy checks” - which, as Emilien observed, would be a check at a time when the deck does not have to be legal. I do deck checks as usual, and if I'm going to check the Top 8, I instruct the players to present their deck to us (Judges), the same as what they'll play in the Top 8. (I still don't worry about it if a Player fails to de-sideboard.)

Milan, the closest I think we come to “policy” might be previous posts from me saying “I don't do these; instead just check their sideboards during game 1 (to ensure no ”pre-boarding“), and do random checks during Top 8.” It is not against policy to do courtesy checks, neither is it defined nor supported by policy.

d:^D

Originally posted by Milan Majerčík:

I have no experience with these courtesy deck ckecks. Is there any official policy

No; I'm not a fan of the practice, but that's my personal opinion.

One thing to clarify, re: my previous post: I started to say “I don't do courtesy checks” and then I expanded on why it's a courtesy to all the players, but not a service for just one player. I forgot to finish my thought!

I don't do “courtesy checks” - which, as Emilien observed, would be a check at a time when the deck does not have to be legal. I do deck checks as usual, and if I'm going to check the Top 8, I instruct the players to present their deck to us (Judges), the same as what they'll play in the Top 8. (I still don't worry about it if a Player fails to de-sideboard.)

Milan, the closest I think we come to “policy” might be previous posts from me saying “I don't do these; instead just check their sideboards during game 1 (to ensure no ”pre-boarding“), and do random checks during Top 8.” It is not against policy to do courtesy checks, neither is it defined nor supported by policy.

d:^D

From my understanding, the idea of a “Courtesy Deck Check” is more the TO's decision, but that phrase carries so much ambiguity with it. It's usually best practice and better customer service to inform those who are submitting decks to you for top 8 that “These are actual deck checks. If there are inconsistencies found you will be receiving the appropriate penalty. The only exception will be insufficient randomization, as I'm going to ask you to sort the decks as a courtesy to me.” That is of course, assuming that you're offering to deck check the top 8 in the first place, which is your choice in the end.

Many players have experience where TO's will encourage a “courtesy deck check” to actually try to PREVENT infractions in the top 8, which I strongly disagree with. If I'm going to do a top 8 deck check, I'd make it very clear to everyone involved that any deck check is for the integrity of the tournament, and any issues that are found will be dealt with exactly as if you had presented this deck to your opponent after sitting for a match. Therefore it's your responsibility to make sure the players expectations are correct before you take their decks as to what they're actually submitting to you and what can come of something that is incorrect. Setting those expectations makes sure that there is no gray area or inconsistencies in how you rule on issues in top 8 vs the rest of the tournament.

</my 2 cents>