Hello,

I am forking this from this thread, for a more fundamental discussion about the D/DLP downgrade path introduced rather recently. A refresher:

Originally posted by IPG:

If a deck is discovered to be missing cards after the game has begun and the missing cards can be located, the Head Judge may downgrade the penalty to a Warning and shuffle those cards back into the deck.

John Eriksson
The way the first downgrade was explained to me was to use it only when it is unclear where the card has come from and/or if it is unclear if it was in the deck when it was presented. So if the cards was set to the side and it is 100% clear that it was not in the deck when the deck was presented to the opponent to shuffle, I would not use this downgrade.

So in you cases, player A would fix his deck, mulligan and get a downgrade, but player B would receive a Game Loss for presenting a 58 card deck.

Let's have a look at the Annotated IPG:
“Downgrade

If a deck is discovered to be missing cards after the game has begun and the missing cards can be located, the Head Judge may downgrade the penalty to a Warning and shuffle those cards back into the deck.

This covers the times when a player either drops a card and it’s only noticed once a game has started or has set aside some cards to indicate exiled but then forgets to shuffle them back into their library when the game ends. Normally both of these instances would result in a Game Loss because the player has presented a deck that doesn’t match their list. This downgrade allows the Head Judge to have the player shuffle the cards back into the library and only issue a warning instead.”

This does not clearly say to use the downgrade only when it is unclear whether the card was in the deck while presenting or not, but it does leave the decision to the Head Judge. I would also like a more fficial answer but until then I will stick to the advice given to me by Riccardo Tessitori. :)

Dan Collins
John, that used to be true, but is no longer. In the past, when a card was found on the floor or off to the side during the game, we investigated to determine whether we think a legal deck was presented or not. However, a lot of people didn't know that and automatically issued D/DLP and even when we did investigate, oftentimes you simply couldn't be sure.

So now we have this new downgrade that applies regardless of how and when the card became separated from the deck. This new policy takes away the step of investigating and replaces it with a consistent solution in lieu of a penalty. The downgrade is not conditional on when the card became separated from the deck. If it was exiled in game 1, and now it's game 2, and everyone is sure you presented 59, it is still downgraded. This is an easy error to make, which I suspect is a big part of the reason why it is no longer a Game Loss.

In response to your last point - that the IPG says the HJ “may” downgrade - I would expect HJs to apply the downgrade as written unless they have a compelling reason not to do so. The purpose of the IPG is to create consistent policy so that a player receives the same treatment regardless of whether they're at my PPTQ or yours. If you have a compelling reason, then sure, but don't decline to downgrade because you dislike the policy.

So, it seems that there is some more to this story. At Grand Prix Washington DC, the Head Judge gave the directive that whenever a player was found to be missing cards after the game has begun, if an investigation determined that the cards were also missing when the deck was presented, then this was still a Game Loss. In the past, if the presented card was not in the deck when it was presented, then there is a D/DLP and the penalty is a Game Loss. If the card was in the deck when it was presented, then the presented deck was legal, and there is no D/DLP. (Either return the card to the correct zone, or shuffle it into the random part of the library if it was dropped from there. The latter may be LEC.) The instructions given at Grand Prix Washington DC seem to return to that old process.

Now indeed, the new downgrade does state that it is at the discretion of the Head Judge. I accept the authority of the Head Judge to do as they like - the Head Judge is the “final judicial authority”. The thing is, a head judge could hypothetically apply any line that they wanted to, including “I will always apply this downgrade”, and “I will never apply this downgrade”. This is not a constructive way to interpret policy. This allows any judge to effectively decide what policy is at their own events.

Asking around suggests that the HLJs are split on what current policy is, but most floor judges on day 2 of the GP thought that policy is to always apply the downgrade.

In my eternal optimism, I hope that the discrepancy we saw at DC is an omen of future change, rather than a splintering of the policy, or individuals choosing to apply the policy they want rather than the policy that everyone else has to work from.

Nevertheless, the current policy says nothing about any type of investigation to determine when the card became separated from the deck, nor any type of investigation to determine whether the deck was legal or not at the moment it was presented. Until such a change is published I have no choice but to apply the policy as written when I am the Head Judge, and encourage others to do the same. (If we are changing the policy, I have Opinions about that, but this thread is an attempt to get some clarity on current policy.)

So, high level judges, if you want policy to be something different than what is written in the IPG, please tell us all what it is, so that we may apply it consistently. It doesn't seem terribly difficult to add one more sentence to the IPG: “This Downgrade does not apply if the deck was illegal at the time it was presented.”

Agreed.

Official policy is as written. The HJ does have some latitude for application, though that's intended more as a safety valve for handling unusual variants (for example, if the card is found in the opponent's deck, it makes more sense to apply the offsetting game losses option rather than this downgrade).

So for confirmation Toby, there is no official policy regarding this beyond what the IPG states? If there is, could you please direct us to it?

Thanks for your help.

That's correct.

Sorry for resurrecting old topic, but I believe it is good to continue on this thread.

Recent Karadesh policy change made first downgrade for D/DL problem (IPG 3.5) un-conditional. If the downgrade does not ask When/How the card(s) was separated, also How they are located, I agree it takes care for easy/common mistakes about exiled cards which didn't put back into deck and good solution for handling dropped card(s). But I felt “playing with a legal deck” philosophy is somewhat degraded at presenting deck. In other words, I felt player is not responsible to present legal deck to opponent strictly.

Here is actual case:

Player A and B played UW flash mirror at previous round, which has Statis Snare, Spell Queller. At next round, player A did pile counting and found he has 61 cards. Player B already started game 1 after presented 15 cards for side board (typical Japanese style) at that time.

When the card was separated: At previous round
How the card was separated: Due to many exile ability of UW flush and they used same black sleeve
How the card was located: Previous opponent found at pre-game procedure.

All questions had clear answer, so it is sure about player B didn't present legal deck at beginning of the game. But the downgrade does not ask When/How, it shall be a warning and move on - which was reminded by fellow senior judge because I didn't aware the downgrade changed to un-conditional.

On the other hand, if player B found the missing by himself, it would be no more D/DL case, but could be tardiness (IPG 3.1). Then he would not get any warning at all if the missing card is located within 10 min.

So the downgrade does not degrade “playing with a legal deck” philosophy, but allow us to handle problem by more educational way (i.e. instead of immediate GL) even competitive event.

Is my understanding correct ?

Katsuhisa, it sounds like you're on the right track.

If I present 59 cards, then you count my deck and call a judge, there is no downgrade; you have used your opportunity to verify the legality of my deck.

If I present 59 cards, then a judge “swoops” for a deck check, there is no downgrade; the deck check confirms that my deck is not legal.

I still have the obligation to present a legal deck, and have lots of opportunity to verify that - because of that, I can still earn a Game Loss if I fail to meet that obligation.

Beyond that, however, we want players to be able to play the game that they both agreed was OK to begin. We are distributing the burden of verifying the legality of the deck; if that burden is ignored, then let's just play Magic.

Does that make sense?

d:^D