I was on deckchecks recently at Nationals and naturally there were a few players who were discovered to have some extra cards being stored with their sideboard. In most cases this resulted in a Deck Problem infraction with an upgrade to Game Loss, but some of the situations that arose led me to question the use of the word “conceivably” (used in favour of an alternative such as “legally”) in the IPG section on Deck Problem.

Here is the relevant passage from the IPG:

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 unless they are:
• Promotional cards that have been handed out as part of the tournament.
• Double-faced cards represented by checklist cards in the deck.
• Double-faced cards being used to represent the back side of cards in the deck. These
cards must not be sleeved in the same way as cards in the main deck and/or sideboard.

Here are a few of the situations at Nationals in which extra cards were discovered with the sideboard (note that the last two were for a Modern PPTQ on the Sunday of Nationals and thus the relevant cards were legal in the format):
• A player was storing extra basic lands of their deck's colours, which resulted in a GL penalty that I considered clear-cut.
• I issued a GL penalty for a Wastes stored with the sideboard (intended for tracking floating colourless mana) which I felt a little bad about but I considered justified given that to me Wastes is “conceivably” playable in any deck.
• I opted not to issue a penalty for a checkland outside the deck's colours being stored with the sideboard, as I decided it was not “conceivably” playable in the deck. However in retrospect this constituted a strategic judgement on my part which philosophy discourages, so I probably should have issued a penalty.

So my question is this:
When is a card not considered “conceivably” playable in a deck, even though it is legal for the format?

If there is no such case, it seems to me that the IPG section on Deck Problem would benefit from a slight rewording to replace “conceivably” with “legally”. In any case the word “conceivably” seems to introduce some ambiguity that is undesirable (although given the length of time this wording has persisted in the IPG I figure there must be some reasoning behind it).

Edited Louis Habberfield-Short (Aug. 22, 2018 06:41:55 AM)

Originally posted by Louis Habberfield-Short:

I issued a GL penalty for a Wastes stored with the sideboard (intended for tracking floating colourless mana) which I felt a little bad about but I considered justified given that to me Wastes is “conceivably” playable in any deck.

Just a sidenote: Wastes is not legal in Standard, is it?

Originally posted by Milan Majerčík:

Originally posted by Louis Habberfield-Short:

I issued a GL penalty for a Wastes stored with the sideboard (intended for tracking floating colourless mana) which I felt a little bad about but I considered justified given that to me Wastes is “conceivably” playable in any deck.

Just a sidenote: Wastes is not legal in Standard, is it?

Yes, that particular deckcheck (and the last one) was for the Modern PPTQ on the Sunday of Nationals. I will update the OP to clarify.

This word is used specifically and intentionally to let you exercise your judgement in cases like an off-color check land. This same latitude is applied when determining if a card is sufficiently identified on a deck list even without its “full, accurate” name.

Edited Joshua Feingold (Aug. 22, 2018 06:46:45 AM)

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

This word is used specifically and intentionally to let you exercise your judgement in cases like an off-color check land. This same latitude is applied when determining if a card is sufficiently identified on a deck list even without its “full, accurate” name.

That makes sense to me, although I am a little surprised that there is not much prior discussion of this that I could find. I suppose it might be something worth clarifying in the Annotated IPG.
I would also be interested to hear your thoughts on the Wastes situation and whether you would be likely to consider it conceivably playable in a deck without Eldrazi. I suppose it's not significantly different from the checkland in retrospect.

Originally posted by Louis Habberfield-Short:

So my question is this:
When is a card not considered “conceivably” playable in a deck, even though it is legal for the format?

A simple answer is a black card in a mono-red deck.
Slightly longer answer: If the deck can only produce red mana (only Mountains, for example), then a Nexus of the Fate could not conceivably be cast in that deck. It is legal to play the card in the format, but it is not playable with that deck's construction.

It is specifically calling out something more specific than if the cards are legal for the format. It allows the judge to use some judgement.

Wastes is actually a conceivable emergency sideboard card in Modern,
because Path to Exile, Field of Ruin, and Ghost Quarter exist. If you are
short basics, you might want to bring in an extra basic to find for one of
these cards.

It's also immune to Choke, Boil, and Fulminator Mage, which is a relevant
thing in some post-sideboard games.

It's not a great card to bring in, but there are a handful of cases where
it might matter to have an extra basic, even if that basic is colorless.


—
Rob McKenzie
Magic Judge Level III
Judge Regional Coordinator USA-North
Minnesota

Some good answers already, with emphasis on “use your judgment” - i.e., if it's inconceivable that someone would play that card, in that deck - you can ignore it, just like “promotional cards”, etc.

Some simple things we can teach players:

• present your sideboard before each game (the MTR says you have to!); this way, any other cards in your deck box are clearly not part of your deck or sideboard, and thus “immune” from this penalty
  
• if you're using lands to track floating mana - a common practice in some combo decks - set those aside before you start the game, just like you might with tokens (this goes hand-in-hand with my first point)
  

d:^D

Edited Scott Marshall (Aug. 22, 2018 11:32:19 AM)

Originally posted by Shawn Doherty:

Originally posted by Louis Habberfield-Short:

So my question is this:
When is a card not considered “conceivably” playable in a deck, even though it is legal for the format?

A simple answer is a black card in a mono-red deck.
Slightly longer answer: If the deck can only produce red mana (only Mountains, for example), then a Nexus of the Fate could not conceivably be cast in that deck. It is legal to play the card in the format, but it is not playable with that deck's construction.

It is specifically calling out something more specific than if the cards are legal for the format. It allows the judge to use some judgement.

This is exactly how I understand the word “conceivably”. But my brother builded a mono-black deck that self-mill multicolored creatures to bring them back into play from the graveyard… What I mean is, to stay in the mono-red example, if you play Hazoret's Undying Fury, couldn't you “conceivably” play any non-red card with converted mana cost 5 or less? That doesn't seem realistic, but some rare decks would want to do that. Can we really say "no, your Hazoret's Undying Fury is clearly here to play only red spells, but this other guy's one is in his deck to play multicolored spells"?

Originally posted by guillaume VANEL:

Originally posted by Shawn Doherty:

Originally posted by Louis Habberfield-Short:

So my question is this:
When is a card not considered “conceivably” playable in a deck, even though it is legal for the format?

A simple answer is a black card in a mono-red deck.
Slightly longer answer: If the deck can only produce red mana (only Mountains, for example), then a Nexus of the Fate could not conceivably be cast in that deck. It is legal to play the card in the format, but it is not playable with that deck's construction.

It is specifically calling out something more specific than if the cards are legal for the format. It allows the judge to use some judgement.

This is exactly how I understand the word “conceivably”. But my brother builded a mono-black deck that self-mill multicolored creatures to bring them back into play from the graveyard… What I mean is, to stay in the mono-red example, if you play Hazoret's Undying Fury, couldn't you “conceivably” play any non-red card with converted mana cost 5 or less? That doesn't seem realistic, but some rare decks would want to do that. Can we really say "no, your Hazoret's Undying Fury is clearly here to play only red spells, but this other guy's one is in his deck to play multicolored spells"?

Sorry if my answer caused more confusion. I was not trying to describe *every* case where a card is conceivably playable. Just wanted to explain the concept of “legal vs playable”.

You have to you some judgment in the decision.

Some more examples:

• A Standard deck with 4x Aether Hub could conceivably play almost any card legal for the format (sorry, Giganotosaurus).
  A Legacy deck with Show and Tell and Omniscience could conceivably play any card.
  A reanimator deck could conceivably play any creature it could animate
  

The Hazoret's Undying Fury example seems like the cards could conceivably played in the deck. We aren't looking for if it is likely to happen, just if it is conceivably possible to play the card.

As I said, use your judgment. If a mono-red Legacy deck has 4 Force of Will in their deckbox, I wouldn't say they are playable because the player could discard one of the FoWs to cast one of the others.