Welcome back to the Knowledge Pool. This week we have a Silver scenario. L2s should wait a couple of days to jump in.

Amir is playing against Nemo at a large Competitive REL Modern event. On his first turn of the match, Amir plays an Island and puts an unchecked Shadows over Innistrad checklist card onto the table, saying “Delver”, and gets a Delver of Secrets from his box to represent it in play. Nemo calls for a judge and points out the issue with the checklist card. Nemo explains that he doesn't think Amir should be severely penalized, and even offers to give Amir 4 Innistrad checklist cards so they can continue the match from here. What do you do?

Since we're at a large competitive event, it might be tempting to get the Head Judge involved here. For the purposes of the discussion, let's say that the Head Judge is looking for additional input on the situation, so we should discuss all the options on the table, while still assuming Amir isn't cheating.

Are there more doublesided cards in his deck/deckbox then delver?

Since were are looking at this from the point of view of discussion…
First thing I would like to know is what Johannes asked, Is there other double faced cards in the deck.
I would also ask a couple of questions to the player, mainly focusing on how long he has been playing and if he noticed delver of secrets is NOT a card from Shadows over Innistrad, but initial Innistrad.

Assuming there is none other
We then have a deck problem here as unmarked checklist cards are not acceptable. However in this situation, it is clear as to what card it is referring. The player (which might be a newer player based on the answer provided) might have just overlooked the fact of the similar set names. In any case with only Delvers as flip cards in the deck, we can rule out any abuse from Amir. I would give him a warning under TE - Deck problem. I would then require him to find sutable checklist cards, which is going to be easy since they have been given to him. I would then inquire as to if he scried in any shape or form this game (probably due to mulligan) and replace the unmarked checklist with the now correct marked checklist and ask them to shuffle the library, protecting the position of any scried cards (if any).

Assuming there is other double faced cards
Removed this section following the presenter's precision.

Edited Maxime Emond (Jan. 25, 2018 02:25:41 PM)

There aren't any other DFCs.

Long time reader, first time responder.

So, I want to give a warning here, as its clear this was an unintentional, and fairly understandable, mistake.
But my reading of the IPG says that this has to be a game loss. The 2nd upgrade of IPG 3.5, TE- Deck Problem, says “If an incorrect card becomes or is about to become visible to an opponent (for example due to it being revealed or put into a graveyard) or is discovered by a judge, the penalty is a Game Loss.”

Nemo, the opponent, was the one to catch, and point out, the problem. I don't think that gives much wiggle room so I think this has to be a game loss.

Hi Matthew,

I will straight off the bat, My train of thoughts might be a stretch, but here's why.

This clause from the IPG is there to punish players trying to abuse the system. To make them think twice before attempting to hide these mistakes/error or god forbid their intentional doings. If we stick to the literal definition of what's written… Yes, the penalty should be a Game Loss.
The reason why I Opted for a warning (and therefore not upgrade the penalty) is that there is no possibility of abuse here. There are four unmarked checklist cards, and all four of them point to a single card. In this case, Delver of secrets. I feel like this upgrade path is there first and foremost to dissuade people from trying to hide their mistakes. In this case… while still being technically incorrect (a unmarked checked card is never ok) it is still not meeting the reason why this upgrade path exists. This is why I opted for the warning.

Understand me, If this was a PPTQ or a smaller competitive event where I would be the head judge, I would go with the upgraded path and not even wonder about the above. But since the scenario was brought with a discussion angle to the table. This was inspired by this sentence :

Originally posted by Joe Klopchic:

let's say that the Head Judge is looking for additional input on the situation, so we should discuss all the options on the table

(emphasis mine).
I thought this might be a reasonable train of thought to explore at the very least.

By looking at the IPG, I think it's a TE - Deck Problem, because the player is playing an illegal card. (Wrong and unmarked checklist).

It falls under the upgrade clause

Upgrade: If an incorrect card becomes or is about to become visible to an opponent (for example due to it being revealed or put into a graveyard) or is discovered by a judge, the penalty is a Game Loss.

So I will (after consulting with the HJ) hand out the Game Loss.

First, why:
At competitive events, consistency is important. In my opinion the situation is a textbook example for the upgrade. It's very likely that this is an unexperienced player at his first bigger competitive event. But that is no reason to deviate:

The Rules Enforcement Level, round of the tournament, age or experience-level of the player, desire to educate the player, and certification level of the judge are NOT exceptional circumstances.

But given that situation it is important not just to hand out the gameloss, but also to explain the players the philosphy a bit. I would explain them that we treat all players the same. Given out only a warning may upset other players who got a game loss for the same thing. And that a game loss doesn't mean he has something bad, but means he had made a honest mistake but the impact of that mistake is so high, that we give out a game loss.

Hi !

Since there's not much conversation going for this really great KP situation ( which is a shame :( ) I'll ask a follow up question :

What if, instead of a plain unmarked shadows of innistrad checklist card, he used the same checklist card but with “Delver of Secrets” written on it in black pen ink. Does your ruling change ?

Thanks for all the great answers this week.

Maxime and Martin are correct, this falls under the upgrade clause of Deck Problem. Nemo has discovered that Amir is playing with a card in his deck which doesn't match his decklist, so this is a Deck Problem, and is upgraded since an opponent discovered it.

Let's talk about a couple of other options here.

First, Maxime points out that there isn't much room for advantage here. While this is true, not being able to gain much advantage in this specific situation is certainly outside of the Signifigant and Exceptional requirements for deviation.

I also want to discuss the opponent's great sportsmanship. Its possible the question didn't emphasize this enough. This situation actually happened at a large tournament a few weeks ago, and in that case Nemo really didn't want Amir to get a Game Loss. Nemo helped Amir find replacement cards, and even initiated the appeal of the initial Game Loss. Its tempting to say that this level of willingness to not have an opponent penalized warrants not giving the penalty. That considered, very generous sportsmanship still does not meet the requirements for deviation. We have even seen this at the highest levels, on Pro Tour video coverage, where very sporting players have attempted to decline penalties for their opponents and not succeeded.

Amir receives a Game Loss for Deck Problem, as his deck contained a card that wasn't listed on his deck list. The penalty is a Game Loss because it was discovered by an opponent.

Edited Joe Klopchic (Feb. 1, 2018 10:47:29 AM)