Originally posted by Julio Sosa:

Originally posted by Olle Liljefeldt:

Personally, I don't really cope with your logic at all. How do you come to the conclusion “not impact the game” based on when it was discovered? I would say it did impact the game, because at least one copy of the card was drawn in the game. That is also the sole rational for the upgrade.

While the rationale for the upgrade is having more copies in the deck than it was supposed to, we also have to take into account when is the first time the players noticed that there was something wrong. In the situation of the OP, the player noticed that something wasn't right AFTER that game has ended. We apply deck problems to a *presented* deck, and at the point of discovering the error the deck is not presented (although it was at some point, and if it was discovered DURING THAT GAME the Game Loss would have been issued).

Correct. This has already been established as the go-to ruling (although not yet in the rules documentation). :)

We are now in the aftermath section, discussing how, in my opinion, unreasonable and harmful the ruling is. Mark presented a rationale for the ruling. I challenged that rationale because i find it logically faulty.

Edited Olle Liljefeldt (Aug. 29, 2019 03:32:15 PM)