Hello everyone! Today's… Thursday?
Yes, unfortunately this weeks Knowledge Pool scenario is going up a day late. Sorry about that. We make an effort to have scenarios go up on Wednesdays and the solutions go up on Tuesday, but sometimes life gets in the way. We would still like all L2+ judges to wait a day (until Friday) before answering or guiding this scenario. Without any further delay, here's this weeks scenario, posted on behalf of Dennis Xiao.

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/?p=871

You are the only judge for your Modern event. While verifying the legality of the players' deck lists, you come across Andy's deck list that has 61 Mainboard cards and 15 Sideboard cards. On his list, you find these card names written, among other cards:

1 City of
3 Nissa
1 Chandra
1 Huntmaster of the Fells

It is 5 minutes into the new round. You decide to do a mid-round deck check on the player with the problem deck list. You see Andy win game 1, and decide to wait for them to finish sideboarding and present their decks for the 2nd game. Then you pick up the decks and find the following in Andy's box:

60 cards in the presented deck, including:
1 City of Brass
3 Nissa Revane
1 Chandra, Pyromaster
1 Checklist card marked “Huntmaster of the Fells”

Remainder of the cards, separated from the presented deck:
16 cards in the sideboard, and
1 Unsleeved Diaochan, Artful Beauty
1 Transparent sleeved Huntmaster of the Fells

All cards are accounted for. What do you do at this point?

This seems like a straightforward decision for Tournament error - decklist problems resulting in a gameloss

From the IPG- he had multiple problems, but only one gameloss can be applied.
I would issue the gameloss. Have him correct his decklist, and then add at least 1 card from his sideboard to the maindeck to meet the sideboard regulations.

I would also tell him to remove the Diaochan, Artful Beauty from the remainder of his cards.

I would give him a gameloss for the tournament error(having 16 cards in the sideboard) and for the decklist problem.
I got no problem with the Diaochan, because it is not a modern legal card and it's not sleeved up.
It's fine for me that he has the Huntmaster just in the transparent sleeve.

Discovered during decklist verification:
1 City of : This is most likely City of Brass for two reasons. 1) It is the only Modern legal card with the text “City of” at the start of its card name. 2) Players often write their land cards in one group and their nonland cards in another group and if “City of” may likely be written in the group of all the land cards. Since what is written is obvious and can't be interpreted as more than one card this problem can be downgraded to a warning penalty for D/DLP (which won't apply because Andy's about to get GL for a different item on his list).
3 Nissa : Sect. 3.9 of the IPG states that truncated names of storyline characters are acceptable as long as the card listed is the only representation of that character in the format. In this case we're to treat the item “Nissa” as the card “Nissa Revane” because it's the only card that represents that character in Modern. No infraction here.
1 Chandra : There are 4 different cards that represent the Chandra character in Modern and all of them can be played in the deck since they each only require one color of mana to cast. That being said, we can't assume which one it is by just checking the decklist alone so we do really need to speak to Andy about it especially since he can abuse this problem by using different Chandra cards during the tournament. This is a game loss for D/DLP.

Discovered during the deck check:
Presenting a 60/16 card deck : Andy presented his main deck to his opponent while his sidebaord contained 16 cards. This is a game loss for D/DLP.
The unsleeved Diaochan : This card is not sleeved and it's not legal for Modern. No infraction.
The Huntmaster checlist and DFC : The checklist card is in the main deck. The DFC is in a different sleeve than the rest of the deck and is kept separate from the main deck. No infraction.

After investigating the problem with Andy, I would fix the Chandra on his list to match Chandra, Pyromaster; and I would have him place a sideboard card of his choice into his maindeck to return his sidebaord to 15 cards before beginning his next game. I would issue one penalty of a game loss to Andy for the two infractions he committed since they were both dealt with at the same time.

Edited Eric Paré (Oct. 4, 2013 04:53:29 AM)

Yeah, pretty obvious that Andy gets a GL for TE-D/DLP because of Chandra. I'm fine with “City of”, since City of Brass is the only Modern-legal card with that partial name.

I'm probably also okay with “Nissa,” since the only other card with “Nissa” in its name is “Nissa's Chosen.” However, on the off chance that he's playing Nissa and not Nissa's Chosen, I might be less okay with it. I know some players use the character name to refer to cards with names that contain the character's possessive (e.g., Liliana's Reaver is referred to as “Liliana”).

I'm okay with the Huntmaster, assuming that he's not using the same transparent sleeves for the rest of his deck, and that other DFCs also use checklist cards in the deck proper.

I'm okay with the Diaochan, assuming that the rest of his deck is not unsleeved. The card isn't legal in the format, and it's sleeved differently from the rest of the deck. But I might ask Andy, as a courtesy, to find somewhere else to store the card if he can.

The illegal sideboard is grounds for a GL due to TE–D/DLP, and … honestly, I don't remember off the top of my head if this is something that can be rolled in with the other D/DLP, since they're separate issues. So lemme check the IPG.

…

Separate infractions committed or discovered at the same time are treated as separate penalties, though if the root cause is the same, only the more severe one is applied.

Since the root cause isn't the same (one is due to too many cards in the sideboard, and the other is due to an illegal decklist), it should be two Game Losses, resulting in a match win for Andy's opponent.

The IPG also defines a Deck/Decklist Problem as “one or more…errors involving their deck.”

Since we caught all of the errors in the same check, I'm pretty sure we can call the whole incident one D/DL Problem and issue one Game Loss.

Originally posted by Eric Paré:

After investigating the problem with Andy, I would fix the Chandra on his list to match Chandra, Pyromaster; and I would have him place a sideboard card of his choice into his maindeck to return his sidebaord to 15 cards before beginning his next game. I would issue one penalty of a game loss to Andy for the two infractions he committed since they were both dealt with at the same time.

That's actually not correct. Per IPG 3.9 (D/DL problem), in subsection Additional Remedy, if there are too many cards in a sideboard you remove them starting from the bottom section of the list. So Andy loses the last card listed in his sideboard and does not get to add it in his maindeck.

I agree with Michael Sell that it should only be one Game Loss.

Originally posted by Nathanaël François:

That's actually not correct. Per IPG 3.9 (D/DL problem), in subsection Additional Remedy, if there are too many cards in a sideboard you remove them starting from the bottom section of the list.

That's if the deck AND decklist have too many cards. (so you can't fix one to match the other legally)

In this case he registered 61 cards main, and 15 side. He presented 60 cards main, and 16 side.

So you'd just be restoring his deck to his legal registered state. (Well, semi-legal given the other card issues)

Edited Chris Nowak (Oct. 4, 2013 11:55:26 AM)

I believe I'm in agreement with most of the people in the thread, but there are a lot of elements to the question, and I do differ on a few, so just to be complete:

First of all, I'm assuming this is being run at competitive, and not a strange regular event using decklists. Seemed reasonable, but just thought it was worth pointing out. Secondly, I'm going to treat each issue as though I witnessed them independently, since that does a better job getting to the heart of the question, I think.

“City of” – Technically, this should be a D/DLP, Game Loss, but the IPG does mention that the Head Judge can downgrade this to a warning if they feel the card is obvious. I'm inclined to say it is fairly clear here, so I would probably opt for the downgrade, and be sure to talk with Andy about filling out the decklist more clearly in the future.

“Nissa” – No inftaction, since the IPG explicitly permits truncated names of legendary permanents / planeswalkers, so long as the name is unambiguous in the format of the event. I would not issue any infraction, but if I found time to talk with the player at some point, I'd try to tell them that filling out the full name of cards is important and can get you in trouble in other situations.

“Chandra” – There are multiple “Chandra”s in the format, so there is clearly potential for abuse. D/DLP, Game Loss. Again, caution the player about the importance of filling out names fully in the future.

Huntmaster of the Fells – No issues. You're allowed to use checklist cards, Andy labeled it correctly, Huntmaster of the Fells is legal in Modern, and having the flip card in a different sleeve in the box is permitted if you're using a checklist card.

Diaochan – I can't actually find any policy that explicitly states that this is not permitted, but I would still caution the player to remove it from their deck box for the duration of the tournament. At the very least, there is a potential for abuse here, so keeping the contents of their deck box clear is something the player should be conscious of.

EDIT: Found the bit of policy I was looking for, even if a bit too late. ;)

If the sideboard is not kept sufficiently separate from the deck during play, it becomes impossible to determine the legality of the deck. Additionally, 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 ‘night’ side of cards in the deck'

This does a good job summing up both why A) the Huntmaster of the Fells is okay, and B) why Diaochan is not desirable. That said, Diaochan is by no stretch of the imagination legal in modern, so clearly not acceptable in the player's sideboard. I would not issue a D/DLP here, but if I saw it, I would regardless inform the player that they need to find a different place to store the card during the tournament, and that they really should keep their deck box clear of anything other than tokens, extra sleeves, and their main/side boards.

16 card sideboard – D/DLP, Game Loss. I'd confirm with Andy that he knows how the new sideboard rules work, because it seems like a probable source of the error. Regardless, this is pretty cut and dry.


Together – Obviously we're going to be issuing a D/DLP, Game Loss. We don't upgrade or double up the penalty since there were multiple errors, but we probably should note the various errors when we report the infraction in the system. The real tricky issue here is explaining these issues to Andy in a timely fashion. I'd try to sum it up quickly as follows:

“Andy, there were some issues with your decklist, so I have to issue you a Game Loss. First and foremost, your sideboard needs to contain no more than 15 cards at all times, so I'll need you to side one card back into your main. Secondly, it's crucial that you write out the full name of cards on your decklist in the future. Finally, I'll need you to put this Diaochan somewhere else other than your deck box during the tournament.”

If he has any questions about the ruling, I'd tell him to come talk to me after his round is finished.

Edited Talia Parkinson (Oct. 4, 2013 03:08:00 PM)

Originally posted by Aric Parkinson:

This does a good job summing up why Diaochan is not desirable.

How so?

Edited Sebastian Reinfeldt (Oct. 5, 2013 01:17:21 AM)

Maybe I didn't word that very well. I guess I just read that bit of policy as implying that having extra contents in your deck box can lead for potential for abuse, where players have extra cards not on their deck list that they sneak in, or a potential avenue for confusion where the player accidentally shuffles outside cards into his library.

The fact that Diaochan can't conceivably be played in the format, and is unsleeved, basically eliminates the potential for abuse, which is why the policy doesn't penalize you in this case. Regardless, the potential for confusion, and even the potential for abuse, is worth pointing out to Andy. If nothing else, it gives him the heads up that if it were a card legal in the format, he could have gotten a game loss for it, which should avoid the issue in the future.

Originally posted by Chris Nowak:

That's if the deck AND decklist have too many cards. (so you can't fix one to match the other legally)

In this case he registered 61 cards main, and 15 side. He presented 60 cards main, and 16 side.

Reading is tech. I was confused by “a sideboard card of his choice”, thinking Eric was refering to a new decklist, when in fact he just meant to enforce the sideboarding rules for game 2 (assuming there is a game 2). My bad.

So, is this one game loss penalty or two? Why?

I believe it is only one game loss. My read of the “Separate Infractions” clause is indicative of multiple different types of infractions occurring - such as a D/DLP and a USC-Major.

Penalizing someone multiple times for D/DLP errors found during the same deck check seems…excessive, and not ultimately serving any better purpose for the infraction than just circling all of those errors up under that single instance of discovery.

It's time to officially wrap up this week's scenario. We have a lot going on, so let's look at each potential problem individually:

1) 1 City of : City of Brass is the only card legal in Modern for which “City of” is a truncation. From IPG 3.9, “A card listed on a decklist is not identified by its full name, and could be interpreted as more than one card.” So, everything is good here because we can interpret the partial as only a single card.

2) 3 Nissa : Taking the next sentence from the IPG, “Truncated names of storyline characters (legendary permanents and Planeswalkers) are acceptable as long as they are the only representation of that character in the format and should be treated as referring to that card, even if other cards begin with the same name.” As the only Nissa, everything is still fine.

3) 1 Chandra : We have a whole mess of Chandras in Modern. We don't meet “the only representation” provision like we do with Nissa. So, we have our first real problem.

4) 1 Huntmaster of the Fells : When dealing with double faced cards, we want to check out MTR 3.5. “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.” So everything is fine here. The checklist card is the only that counts.

5) 1 Diaochan, Artful Beauty : Jumping back to IPG 3.9, we can see that “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.” It's inconceivable that Diaochan could be played in Modern, so this is not a problem.

6) 16 cards in the Sideboard : From the Comp Rules, “100.4a In constructed play, a sideboard may contain no more than fifteen cards.” This, again, is a problem.

So, we have 1 Chandra and 16 Sideboard cards. As a result, we award a single Game Loss to Andy for a Deck/Decklist Problem. We then update the list to reflect the full name of Chandra, Pyromaster. In addition, we remind Andy that he must make sideboard choices that leave at most 15 cards in his sideboard prior to game 3. There is no need to actually put one card into the main deck or remove anything from the sideboard, as Andy will have the opportunity to sideboard prior to game three.

Thanks to everyone for participating in the Knowledge Pool! Shoutouts to Chris Kuzmin for identifying the infraction and penalty right off the bat, Eric Pare for very a thorough answer, Michael Sell for quoting “one or more,” and Chris Nowak for correctly clarifying that we do not want to alter Andy's decklist, just have him correct his currently illegal deck configuration.

Come back tomorrow for an exciting new scenario!