Please keep the forum protocol in mind when posting.

Knowledge Pool Scenarios » Post: Bitter over Borrowed Burn - SILVER

Bitter over Borrowed Burn - SILVER

April 25, 2018 08:00:52 PM

Joe Klopchic
Forum Moderator
Judge (Level 3)

Seattle, Washington, United States of America

Bitter over Borrowed Burn - SILVER

Welcome back to the Knowledge Pool! This week we have Silver scenario, so L2 judges should wait until Friday before they reply.

You are a floor judge of a Standard PPTQ. During a deck check, you find that Andy has some other cards in his deck box with the sideboard that are not on his decklist. You find 4 Magma Spray in blue sleeves. Arnold is playing a Mono-red deck in green sleeves.

After investigating, you find out those are cards he had lent a friend that has dropped and returned them, and you exclude Cheating. What do you do?

Edited Jeff S Higgins (April 25, 2018 08:03:45 PM)

April 26, 2018 03:23:06 AM

Tyrone Phillips
Judge (Level 1)

Australia and New Zealand

Bitter over Borrowed Burn - SILVER

From the IPG, 3.5; “If there are extra cards stored with the sideboard that could conceivably be played in the player’s deck, they will be considered a part of the sideboard”
And
“Cards in different sleeves, tokens, and double-faced cards for which checklists are being used are ignored when determining deck (not sideboard) legality.”

As far as I can tell, we have to consider these cards as part of the sideboard as they can conceivably be played in Andy's deck. I would tell Andy that I'm giving him a warning for having extra cards with his sideboard and that he has to keep his friend's cards somewhere else.


I'm interested to find out how far “conceivably be played” can go. What if the cards were 4 Opt? What if Andy was running a single Aether Hub?

April 26, 2018 03:00:45 PM

Maxime Emond
Judge (Level 2)

Canada

Bitter over Borrowed Burn - SILVER

Hello Tyrone,

You denoted that this is a deck problem (I'm assuming) and you are giving Andy here a warning.
Do you think this upgrade path should apply?
“Upgrade: If the deck or sideboard is discovered to be incorrect while presented to the opponent for pre-game shuffling, and the missing cards are not in the opponent’s deck, the penalty is a Game Loss.”

Edit : I had the wrong version of the IPG on this computer, but the question still stand :)

Edited Maxime Emond (April 26, 2018 03:03:07 PM)

April 27, 2018 05:22:03 AM

Tyrone Phillips
Judge (Level 1)

Australia and New Zealand

Bitter over Borrowed Burn - SILVER

Maxime,

I should have been more clear, yes, I believe this falls under deck problem.

That upgrade path is interesting but I don't think it applies here. I feel like the philosophy behind it is that if Andy was cheating, the easiest time for his opponent to discover it is once Andy declares his deck is legal and ready to be shuffled, because in most games that's the only time you handle an opponent's deck. The opponen't didn't find the problem, the judges did. The deck check may have been within the timeframe the upgrade applies but I don't think it's there for that reason.

A judge will find this problem whenever they do the deck check, an opponent will (probably) only find it when they cut the deck.

April 27, 2018 01:43:49 PM

Milan Majerčík
Judge (Level 2), Scorekeeper

Europe - Central

Bitter over Borrowed Burn - SILVER

Hi guys,

I do not want to interrupt your discussion, I would just like to let you know that the latest version of IPG is available (Effective April 27, 2018).

https://wpn.wizards.com/sites/wpn/files/attachements/mtg_ipg_27apr18_en.pdf

April 27, 2018 03:41:50 PM

Maxime Emond
Judge (Level 2)

Canada

Bitter over Borrowed Burn - SILVER

Tyrone,

Thank you for explaining your thought process here. I, on the other hand, do believe this do fall under the upgrade path of the IPG, because the sideboard was discovered to be incorrect during the presentation period. A good swoop for a deck check will ideally be performed while the players are randomizing their opponent's deck. So yes, I would consider this and I would enforce a game loss here.

Also, I feel like when we (as judges) read the IPG, we have to assume the player is not cheating. If we suspect at any point while delivering a ruling that a player IS cheating, whatever category we are currently accessing for an infraction is throw out the window and we look at UC-Cheating. So I feel that every infraction was written with the assumption that the player was not cheating.

Also, I want to point something out. You said “ I feel like the philosophy behind it is that if Andy was cheating, the easiest time for his opponent to discover it is once Andy declares his deck is legal and ready to be shuffled, because in most games that's the only time you handle an opponent's deck.” I do not think this applied to the current scenario. Here we are talking about extra cards, which could be played in his deck, and that are extras not on the decklist and stored within the deckbox. It would be relatively easy for our player here to bring in these cards and swap them into the correct colored sleeve without an opponent having any kind of notice. And even if the opponent did have the deck into his hands, he could not find this error out as this relates to the front of cards he is not entitled to see.

Also, the IPG states “A window in which the error is a Game Loss is necessary to discourage intentional abuse. Once that point has passed, the opponent agrees that the deck is valid. Judges should always be mindful of the abuse possibilities when investigating these infractions.” I think this is the very window. The window where the decks are being presented, and therefore deckchecked, is the window we need to discourage intentional abuse.

So for all reasons stated above, I would give the player a game loss as per IPG 3.5 TE- DP. I would also request that he stores his extra cards elsewhere for the reminder of the tournament. If you suspect cheating, you could ask his earlier rounds opponent if they remembered him playing the said magma spay. But for the framework of this scenario, cheating is excluded.

April 28, 2018 09:46:25 AM

Tyrone Phillips
Judge (Level 1)

Australia and New Zealand

Bitter over Borrowed Burn - SILVER

Looking over it, perhaps you're right. It's an interesting upgrade path and I'm still not very confident with comp REL stuff, so these conversations are good. I'll think about it some more.

May 2, 2018 07:09:53 PM

Joe Klopchic
Forum Moderator
Judge (Level 3)

Seattle, Washington, United States of America

Bitter over Borrowed Burn - SILVER

Thanks everyone for joining in this week!

Maxime has gotten to the correct answer.

Andy has other cards in his deck box, and they are considered part of his sideboard. Cards in different colored sleeves are specifically called out in the IPG:

Originally posted by = IPG 3.5 Deck Problem, Definition:

Cards in different sleeves, tokens, and double-faced cards for which checklists are being used are
ignored when determining deck (not sideboard) legality.

In this case, they are considered part of Andy's sideboard.

Andy receives a Game Loss for Deck Problem. Andy has extra cards with his sideboard that aren't on his decklist. Since this was discovered by a judge during a deck check, the penalty is upgraded to a Game Loss.

Note that the wording in the upgrade clause has been updated in the IPG recently. (Emphasis mine)

Originally posted by IPG 3.5 Deck Problem, Upgrade:

If an incorrect card in the deck or hand becomes visible to an opponent (for example due to it being revealed or put into a graveyard) or is discovered by a judge during a deck check, the penalty is a Game Loss.