I agree with both if you. Still, if I understand it correctly, the excerpt from MTR posted by Shawn is not enough support by itself to disallow such card to be used. Of course, it is very unlikely that such thing will ever happen (and the card would be altered in such precision that it would be acceptable).

(enough spam ;-))

Given this discussion, I think it would be reasonable to suggest to my friends who take issue with the artist that the proper thing to do would be to simply write something in sharpie over the card art without blacking it out. That way the art is still recognizable.

There are a lot of basic landa alterations that shows compleatly different art (but are still extreamly easy to recognise as proper Type of basic). I agree with Milan there. That card art would be clearly recognizable as a FoW, but with different art. This is just reverse approach that we have to “old borders” alterations - where new post 8ED card is altered to have pre 8ED frame.

P. S. I know that this is “corner case scenario” discussion but I believe that kind of discussions have sens by teaching us Philosophy underlaying benith particular rules

Edited Bartłomiej Wieszok (June 27, 2019 12:20:49 PM)

“Old borders” alterations don't change the artwork tho. They change parts we don't care about. (as long as thickness is fine etc)

Originally posted by Johannes Wagner:

It's not the original artwork of that printing so it would not be legal.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Can you provide quotes from policy to support this statement?

Originally posted by Shawn Doherty:

So the quote from MTR 3.3:
“Artistic modifications are acceptable in sanctioned tournaments, provided that the modifications do not make the card art unrecognizable, contain substantial strategic advice, or contain offensive images. ”

In this case, the card art is covered by a completely different image. Therefore, the card cannot be recognize by the card art if it is completely covered.

Originally posted by Johannes Wagner:

Thanks Shawn for posting the relevant policy.

Well, not exactly what I was looking for. First, I wanted to emphasize that unofficial sources shouldn't really be making such absolute statements (“it would not be legal”), without at least attempting to cite the part(s) of policy that lead them to that conclusion.

Next - Johannes, what you stated (or at least strongly implied) is that “not the original artwork” was sufficient to disallow an alteration. While you, as Head Judge, could certainly apply that criteria, it's not an absolute, and really shouldn't be stated as such. Other judges might see your post, and accept it as fact - and that's why I have to be the bad guy, and contradict that post.

What Shawn posted is policy - but what it actually says is different, and the difference is critical: “do not make the card art unrecognizable”. That's the criteria that we should all go by - can most people recognize the card? Shawn also pointed out that, by obscuring most of the image, the card is no longer recognizable.

If we just used Johannes' criteria - “not the original artwork” - then we could easily extend that to mean that any alteration that changes the original art, even in the slightest, couldn't be allowed - and that's not at all what's intended. We could even take that further off the rails by ruling that only the Alliances artwork is legal for play - and I hope we all know that's not true.

However, this thread - like most alteration discussions - is missing one key point from policy:

The Head Judge is the final authority on acceptable cards for a tournament.

Because policy lays out some subjective criteria for acceptable alterations, we have to leave it to the Head Judge of any event to determine what is acceptable, for that event.

By extension, threads like this don't really get us to the preferred destination. That is, many seek an absolute, ‘O’fficial statement on what's allowed or not allowed, re: alterations. That absolute statement simply can't be made, except by each Head Judge for each event. And towards that end, it's reasonable for people to seek opinions from other judges, to help them with their own absolute but individual decisions.

* * *

'O'fficial statements on this topic:
The artwork must be recognizable;
Altering an Alliances Force of Will with Matt James' art (from the Judge Promo) is OK (assuming it's not otherwise marked as a result);
The Head Judge remains the final arbiter of what is allowed.

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

The artwork must be recognizable;
Altering an Alliances Force of Will with Matt James' art (from the Judge Promo) is OK (assuming it's not otherwise marked as a result);
The Head Judge remains the final arbiter of what is allowed.

That's the first time I read this policy quoted like this.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

If we just used Johannes' criteria - “not the original artwork” - then we could easily extend that to mean that any alteration that changes the original art, even in the slightest, couldn't be allowed - and that's not at all what's intended. We could even take that further off the rails by ruling that only the Alliances artwork is legal for play - and I hope we all know that's not true.

Card art must be recognizable. If I change it just by a bit its still recognizable. If I change Alliance FoW to Judge Foil FoW why are language changes (ie english Flusterstorm to german Flusterstorm) not ok? Is the card art really recognizable? Can I be sure that the card is genuine?
Just to link you to an answer you gave to a similar thread https://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/42163/?page=1#post-253344 and that piece of policy didnt change since then.

Oh well, this thread is dead too…

An official answer was already provided. If players are willing to alter card art to the point of destroying it for competitive viability, that's their own imperative.

Yeah, and Scott said after that it's fine to alter the cards to another artwork, one thing I never heard before and I don't agree with. Otherwise language alters and such should also be fine.

Ah well. Just forget it. I'll just don't care anymore and allow everything. That's basically the implementation of this policy anyways

Edited Johannes Wagner (July 4, 2019 09:33:46 AM)

Johannes, perhaps you didn't read all of what I said in that post you linked, up above? Specifically, where I said "for what it's worth, my opinion“ (emphasis added, this time) before explaining why I, personally, objected to some of the examples you shared. I feel like it was quite clear that I was explaining how I would exercise my prerogative, as Head Judge, were those cards to be presented for my approval.

Perhaps my statement re: replacing the artwork seemed too general; what I was imagining, was someone using a Terese Nielsen Force of Will, and painting over the image with the Matt James artwork from a different version, but not changing anything else about the card. You can recognize the art - both pictures are pretty familiar, by now - and the rest of the card would remain unaltered, thus easily verifiable; also, the original name and mana cost would not be obstructed, by what I'm imagining (and thus allowing).

The examples you posted in that other thread, with the exception of Underground Sea and Leovold, had alterations that obscured the original card name. I'll repeat what Mark quoted in that thread, from the MTR: ”Artistic modifications also may not cover or change the mana cost or name of the card." Thus, replacing the original card name with artwork - even though it purports to be the same name - is not allowed by policy. Replacing one familiar picture with another familiar picture for the same card does not make the art unrecognizable, so it complies with policy.

d:^D