Hi Everyone,

Want to posit a policy question that has been floating around the Oceanic Judge Slack. 

Anna is playing an Izzet (B/R) deck in a local Regional Championship Qualifier.
During a deck check, you discover a forest in the deckbox which does not appear on the deck list. You note that while all cards in the deck are Blue/Red, they are playing a [[Vibrance]]

What is the penalty?

Some answers to common questions:

• The sideboard and deck had the normal 60/15, the Forest was the 16th card in the sideboard
• The deck has no other way of generating Green mana, or untapping lands. So even with the forest, they cannot generate GG for Vibrancy.
• The Sideboard was not presented prior to the Game or Match
• Anna says that the Forest came from a Draft they played earlier in the day, which they used the same sleeves for

Hi.

You asked for the penalty. That assumes a Rules Violation has happened. So we'll assume it has and 3.5 is the one that fits. (See below for discussion about this).

TE: Deck problem. 
Penalty: Game loss 

(It's upgraded during a deck check and contain more cards than registered / the format maximum)

 

3.5 TE - Deck problem  

Definition:
The contents of a deck or sideboard do not match the decklist registered and the decklist

represents what the player intended to play.

 

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 ... [stuff that doesn't apply here].

 

 

DISCUSSION:

The big thing here is wether or not the forest "could conceivably be played" in the deck.

It's a forest. It can be played.

 

"The deck has no other way of generating Green mana, or untapping lands. So even with the forest, they cannot generate GG for Vibrancy."

Is it conceivable. Yes. (Others might argue it's not)

Is it probable? No.

 

The word conceivable mean: "possible to imagine or think of" or "capable of being imagined or grasped mentally." 

However, there could be room for debate about what is conceivable or not. That's where you as a judge need to make a ruling, preferably concistent with the IPG and other rulings during this event.

Maybe you come to the conclusion that it's not conceivable. If that's the case then there is no Rules Violation, no Deck Problem and no Penalty.

// Jonis

(Also, during investigation, if possible find out if there was a Draft earlier in the day and if Anna was playing in it (and what colors))

Edited Jonis Bader (March 9, 2026 01:29:07 PM)

Thanks for your reply!

My post isn't specifying that there is a penalty, simply asking what your ruling would be. The intent here is to create discussion about what "conceivable" is intended to mean, and how that should be applied in our rulings.

 

If you believe that a Forest is conceivable, that would mean you believe every basic is always conceivable? Do you believe that is in line with the philosophy of this upgrade clause?

 

What advantage are we mitigating in this situation? 

Edited Tom Wood (March 9, 2026 05:19:11 PM)

I'd be inclined to give the Game Loss here, as with any basic in any deck. Much stranger things have happened than players wanting an extra ~Wastes in some games. I'm much more lenient with off-color spells - if this were any green spell and the deck had zero ways to generate green mana (including no Treasures) I wouldn't issue the GL, but any basic meets the bar for "conceivably" imo.

This is a judgment call, and like any judgment call, it can reasonably lead to different opinions. That is fine. We trust your judgment; that is exactly why you are in that role. Your understanding of the game and the metagame is what allows you to make the best ruling you can in that moment.

While I understand the reasoning of the judges above, I would personally not consider that card to “conceivably be played in the player’s deck.” Any line in which the player would actually want access to that card is so convoluted, and offers so little realistic advantage, that I would not treat this as an infraction. I would simply educate the player and move on.

Originally posted by Brook Gardner-Durbin:

I'd be inclined to give the Game Loss here, as with any basic in any deck. Much stranger things have happened than players wanting an extra ~Wastes in some games. I'm much more lenient with off-color spells - if this were any green spell and the deck had zero ways to generate green mana (including no Treasures) I wouldn't issue the GL, but any basic meets the bar for "conceivably" imo.

Out of curiosity, what reasons do you see for a player in a competitive setting wanting an extra Wastes when strictly better alternatives are available? Because the only possible advantage I could see at a glance would be that the player hopes to get away with it due to precisely the kind of different interpretations of "conceivable" we see here, in which case we'd have a much more serious infraction on our hands.

Overall, I'd be inclined to interpret "concievably" as "conceivably, considering the player's goals and strategy" rather than "conceivably, considering the list of cards legal in the format". On the other hand, that might open up its own undesirable precedent when "lucky charm" cards are concerned.

I would probably not give any penalty. In particular, the main issue would be if Anna would actually play that Forest during a game. I think most of her opponents would be confused seeing her play a Forest, and raise some questions (if you wanted a green source in your deck in standard, you have numerous choice of dual lands that would allow still to produce your two main colors).

The same way we allow downgrades on decklist errors where there is an ambiguous name, if we can say "this is more than likely card X, not card Y", I think using the knowledge of the format/whether a card is relevant for the deck or not should be used here not to give a GL.