From the August L4+ Summary:

An interesting “lesson learned” from Calgary – and something we should pass on to players, since double-faced cards are with us for a long, long time. MTR 3.5 has an interesting phrase:

If a player uses a checklist card to represent a double-faced card in his or her deck, then all of the double-faced cards in the deck must be represented by checklist cards, and double-faced cards in a hidden zone are considered to not exist for purposes of determining deck legality.

A player had 4 Huntmaster of the Fells represented by checklist cards; he also had Mayor of Avabruck, but the actual cards, not the checklist. Whoops. This may become more of an issue, as checklist cards are, essentially, out of print; be sure to educate players about this so they can avoid the mistake.

Technically, that is a Deck/Decklist Problem; at the time, I applied a deviation, as I felt it was simply an error of understanding (ask your local players, how many of them know about that phrase in the MTR?). A discussion with other L4s concludes that I should not have deviated, and should have applied the Game Loss.

Could I hear some additional thoughts about this? I really don't like this being a game loss over what is little more than a technicality if all of the cards in question are properly registered. Registration errors I understand - abuse by omission or obfuscation is very much a thing that we want to avoid. But I don't see this situation as any different from the snow covered basic lands scenario just below it in the same summary, if the cards in question are in properly opaque sleeves.

Why doesn't this warrant deviation? What possible abuses are we concerned about?

Originally posted by Nathaniel Lawrence:

Why doesn't this warrant deviation? What possible abuses are we concerned about?

I'd go one step further … why does this rule exist in the first place? I'm sure there are good reasons, I just cannot think of any.

I believe this is supposed to combat the issue for a single card. It's not
good to have 2 checklist cards in my library representing Huntmaster of the
Fells, and also have 2 Huntmaster of the Fells in my deck. Perhaps
modifying the quote to fit is the best situation here?

“If a player uses a checklist card to represent a *certain* double-faced
card in his or her deck, then all of the double-faced cards in the deck
*with that English name* must be represented by checklist cards, and
double-faced cards *with that name* in a hidden zone are considered to not
exist for purposes of determining deck legality.”



Paul Smith

paul@pollyandpaul.co.uk

Let's say I have 4 Huntmasters but only 2 Checklist cards because I left the other 2 at home accidentally. So, I decide to do the best I can and play 2 and 2.

Now, Game 1 I play a Huntmaster checklist and grab a Huntmaster out of my deck box. At the end of the game, I shuffle it into my deck because I'm not paying attention. Now I have 5 Huntmasters, and unless I play both checklists simultaneously, my opponent will never catch this error. And if I'm the type of player who forgets part of my deck at home, there's a fair chance I won't notice it either. (Think about how often we catch failure to desideboard or shuffle in exiled cards, which are basically the same level of error.)

Now distinguish this exact scenario from one where I have performed any of these steps on purpose. Why not cut off this whole angle for exploitation?

I think potential for abuse is lower when it's 4 Huntmaster checklists vs 4 actual Mayors. (Maybe you could do some “creative sideboarding” to slip in extra Mayors or Huntmasters here as well? Probably, even though I can't exactly come up with how it would work at the moment.) However, it is definitely simpler to just say “all checklists or none” than “for each DFC, all checklists or none,” and it creates less potential for confusion. I don't know exactly what the L4+ discussion included, but my guess is just that the policy was written that way on purpose and that situation was one they had considered when not writing it to be of the form “for each DFC.”

Contrast this with the SC Swamp scenario. How is an SC Swamp functionally different than a regular swamp in Standard? They have the same types and subtypes and the same ability, and nothing cares about the Snow supertype. That means that the player is functionally playing the exact deck he listed, even if it's technically different. (He listed N Swamps and is playing N-2 Swamps and 2 cards that are identical to Swamps within the format.) Potential for abuse is extremely minimal. That seems to put it more in line with the clerical errors we want to downgrade. (I'm also certain LGSs have run countless competitive limited events over the years that have included some sneaky Snow Lands with no harm done, which would bias me toward downgrade.)

The most likely error involving DFCs and checklist cards is when you (accidentally!) shuffle a DFC into your deck, instead of setting it aside where it belongs. This should be (better be) an innocent mistake, and - with policy as written - not very disruptive.

Here's the key point - at least, for my understanding - if an opponent notices both a DFC and a checklist card in the same deck, they know something is amiss.

While I like the spirit of Paul's proposed wording, and really don't like the feel-bad of a GL for someone who mixes DFCs and checklist cards … the opponent's ability to verify that everything is or is not OK, trumps that.

This isn't as severe as rolling a die to decide the winner - another policy “surprise” for some players - but our approach should be the same. Educate your Modern players; either use checklist cards for ALL of your DFCs, or make certain that your sleeves are truly opaque (thus, hiding the DFCs).

With respect, isn't that kind of part of our job - to be able to verify and reassure that things are ok? And how often is a player going to care if he notices both types of cards in play, short of the ones who know this clause and its exceptions and call a judge just to get a free win?

Put another way: Why can we not deviate in this case? The specific angles where this might be abusive are clear (thanks Joshua), and in those cases it seems fine to issue a GL penalty. But for the specific scenario above, where we have clearly marked checklists and a separate DFC that can't be misconstrued in such a way that shenanigans seem likely, what was the reasoning that led to saying we shouldn't deviate?

There's still the potential for abuse. A player playing with this sort of
deck could easily have a (checklisted) Huntmaster out, draw a sleeved
Mayor, and claim to have shuffled the DFC in accidentally. It's much more
open to abuse this way than with the all DFCs or all checklists policy we
have now.

Could we deviate? Sure. There are lots of situations where we could deviate
because a game loss seems harsh, but we don't. A player showing up for his
match 30 seconds after the round starts receives the same game loss penalty
as a player showing up at 9:30 into the round. Is one more “fair” than the
other? Obviously yes, but we don't deviate because a line has to be drawn
somewhere, and the goal is to apply policy consistently across all
tournaments.

Having more room for deviation might feel like it can lead to a more
“correct” penalty, but it certainly doesn't lead to any sort of consistency.

The answer why we can't deviate is simple.

“The Head Judge may not deviate from this guide’s procedures except in significant and exceptional circumstances or a situation that has no applicable philosophy for guidance. ”

However, I'd contend that the rule is poorly implemented. What we have is a corner case with little opportunity for abuse with a severe consequence. This isn't something that's reasonable to task judges with educating their community.

If we're to educate our Modern players on each corner case that comes up for discussion here, we're going to end up with an unending laundry list of niche rules to cover. As time goes on, this part of the announcement will be dropped until someone does it again when they can only find 3 checklist cards or whatnot. Then we end up with more feel bad situations when players are blindsided by an obscure entry in the MTR.

I'd much rather see this ruling smoothed out in one of 3 ways:

1) Add this scenario to the list of examples in the MTR. That's the go-to for infractions and where I'd expect to see this penalty as a player.

2) If the problem is shuffling in the cards, change the wording to say, "double-faced cards in a hidden zone must not use the same sleeves as the registered deck and are considered to not exist for purposes of determining deck legality".

Now it becomes next to impossible to accidentally shuffle in the card. The IPG would then be updated to reflect that double-faced cards may be stored in the deck box, but must be sleeved differently.

3) Add a written deviation for this to allow for educating the player on this error.

If it were up to me I'd use 2. But 1 is definitely the easiest to implement.

Originally posted by Adam Zakreski:

2) If the problem is shuffling in the cards, change the wording to say, “double-faced cards in a hidden zone must not use the same sleeves as the registered deck and are considered to not exist for purposes of determining deck legality”.

Now it becomes next to impossible to accidentally shuffle in the card. The IPG would then be updated to reflect that double-faced cards may be stored in the deck box, but must be sleeved differently.

I like 2 quite a lot (regardless of any other changes) and I'd be surprised to see many players not do that anyway. Who would put the cards in the same sleeves and risk shuffling them in?

Originally posted by Julien de Graat:

Adam Zakreski
2) If the problem is shuffling in the cards, change the wording to say, “double-faced cards in a hidden zone must not use the same sleeves as the registered deck and are considered to not exist for purposes of determining deck legality”.

Now it becomes next to impossible to accidentally shuffle in the card. The IPG would then be updated to reflect that double-faced cards may be stored in the deck box, but must be sleeved differently.

I like 2 quite a lot (regardless of any other changes) and I'd be surprised to see many players not do that anyway. Who would put the cards in the same sleeves and risk shuffling them in?

The most epic feat of inattention I've come across from a Magic player was at my first GP. Two players were both playing without sleeves, and one of them managed to pick up his deck and his opponent's deck, shuffle them together, and present.

Compared to this, using the same sleeves for one's double-faced cards is trivial. Our current policy is designed to forgive what is almost an error of dexterity in shuffling the DFCs into a deck with checklists. This comes at the expense of being less forgiving of deckbuilding mistakes. That's a reasonable trade-off.

Wait, what would be the point of using the same sleeves for your DFCs and your deck in the first place if you're using checklist cards? I don't understand this, unless you're doing something purposefully awry. As I see it, one of the following 3 things must be true:

1) You are using clear sleeves. In this case, when you draw the DFC, it obviously got shuffled in by mistake, because otherwise that's a GL for Marked Cards (the card back looks different), so this is not abusable.

2) You are using opaque sleeves. In this case, why are you playing with checklist cards in the first place? Just put the DFCs in your deck. The purpose of checklist cards is to mask the backing of your DFCs while they're in a hidden zone and/or to make flipping them easier (so you don't have to remove and reinsert them into the sleeve each time), so if you're using opaque sleeves anyway, why are you playing checklists? This doesn't make sense, and the player is likely doing (or planning) something suspicious.

3) You are using semi-opaque sleeves. We already know that maindecking DFCs in semi-opaque sleeves is a GL anyway (marked cards), so there is no problem here either.

It seems very obvious: If you play DFCs in an out-of-game zone (like Exile, for example =P ), use clear sleeves for them. If you put them in your deck, use opaque sleeves. Failure to do this may result in a DDLE game loss at some point in the tournament.

What am I missing?

Edited Lyle Waldman (Sept. 16, 2013 09:29:14 PM)

From what I understand thus far, the rule is predicated on the problem of accidentally/intentionally shuffling your DFC into your deck. If it's not sleeved in the same manner and somehow ends up in your deck, you have a Marked Cards issue, and this rule becomes redundant.

To build off of Uncle Scott's post, in this scenario, if the opponent sees you have a mismatching sleeve he or she knows something is amiss. Similarly, in a deck check, if the sleeves are matched in the deck box, then you would have an existing TE-DDLE which covers it. The end result is it eliminates this feel-bad corner case.

I don't think it's realistic to expect competitive players to have a thorough, not just knowledge, but understanding of the MTR. Given that this scenario had an L5 hemming and hawing over it, the rule might deserve a touch up.

Originally posted by Adam Zakreski:

If it's not sleeved in the same manner and somehow ends up in your deck, you have a Marked Cards issue

Nope, not Marked Cards. Because of that “considered to not exist” clause, it's much the same thing as shuffling a token into your deck.

Also, there's no need to debate the question of different sleeves; the IPG makes it very clear:

IPG 3.9
{DFCs} must not be sleeved in the same way as cards in the main deck and/or sideboard.

Oh geeze, I missed that.

I guess this goes back to the original question then. If it's not possible to shuffle the DFCs into the library and not notice something has gone wrong when it becomes relevant, what is the philosophy behind this rule? What problem is this trying to solve?