Welcome back to the Knowledge Pool! This is a SILVER level scenario, meaning it is designed as a learning opportunity for those L1s who are somewhat familiar with the IPG, but not yet at an L2 level. If you are an L2 or above please wait until Friday to lead discussion or post solutions.

The blog post for this scenario can be found here:
http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/?p=996

It's PTQ time, and Adam casts Slaughter Games targeting Nate, naming Detention Sphere. While searching through Nate’s deck, Adam finds one of his own Desecration Demons. After investigation, you learn that in game 1, Nate used a Detention Sphere on a demon, and accidentally shuffled it into his deck because they are using the same sleeves.

What do you do? What is the appropriate infraction, penalty and fix?

This is a double Deck/Decklist Problem.

The penalty is a game loss to each player. The game is over and the players will begin a new game, as the game losses will not count toward the match results. Players may sideboard and which ever player lost game 1 may choose whether to play or draw.

Remind both players to be more careful.

This seems like double DDLP, not unlike a KP from a few weeks ago. Both players get a game loss. The winner of game 1 wins the match, or if this is game 3, the players begin the game over if there is time left in the round with a game score of 2-2. Players are allowed to sideboard.

Seems like a pretty textbook example of a double TE-D/DLP. Both players
receive a game loss.
As of the newest IPG, these game losses are not marked toward the match
results. Both players play on for as many games as it takes for one player
to receive two wins. They may sideboard at the beginning of the next game.

Thomas Edgar
L1, Sindelfingen, Germany
On Feb 20, 2014 5:26 AM, “Patrick Vorbroker” <

Edits: I reworded this post to sound better and added why there should not be a downgrade.

Despite the setup begging for sympathy, I’d issue both players a Game Loss for a TE-DP. At this point, it has been made clear that the game was completely compromised. This situation is pretty much the same as example D for TE-DP in the IPG, in which “A player has a Pacifism in his deck from a previous opponent“ even though it’s in the same round.

In addition, under additional remedy, the only mention of a penalty downgrade is when this error is noticed in a player's starting hand and reported by the player immediately. This says to me that the only reason to lower the penalty is because the game has not been compromised yet, which is very much not the case here if somebody has managed to play a card costing 4 mana. So there should be no downgrade.

Luckily with the recent policy change, these game losses won't count towards the game score!

Edited Kirstin "Kir" Jarchow (Feb. 20, 2014 12:21:52 AM)

I'm going to make a divergent note here. It may be that only Nate gets the Deck/Decklist here. It is possible that Adam presented a legal 60 card deck and didn't notice the Desecration Demon missing when he went to sideboard. If Adam has a 60 card deck with sideboard cards he doesn't earn himself a Deck/Decklist while Nate does for having the Desecration Demon in his deck.
If there's only 59 cards in Adam's deck then he gets the Deck/Decklist. However, if he knew the Desecration Demon was missing (which it sounds like he didn't) then we have a bigger issue.

Originally posted by Marc DeArmond:

If Adam has a 60 card deck with sideboard cards he doesn't earn himself a Deck/Decklist

In case Adam sided in more cards than were sided out, the problem is that together Adam's sideboard or deck is now missing one card - and that is what IPG is talking about:

"The contents of the presented deck and sideboard do not match the decklist registered.“

But, the IPG also mentions ”Sideboards are considered to be a part of the deck for the purpose of this infraction. If sideboard cards are missing, make a note of this, but issue no penalty“.
This would look like the case here. Then the new note in IPG (”If both players receive Game Losses for Deck/Decklist Mismatch at the same time (commonly, when one has a card from the other player’s deck in theirs), those Game Losses do not count towards the final match score“) mentions just the classic problem of 59 cards in Adam's deck when the amount of sided in cards is the same as sided out cards.

So double DDLP, but Adam receives no penalty in case his deck is still 60 cards and he has a Demon mentioned as a sideboard card in his decklist (and no other issues found).
I am not sure about one thing: in case that Adam's decklist tells us that he has Demons in his maindeck only and he for some reason had decided to side them out, is this considered a Game Loss or ”no penalty“? What is a definition of ”sideboard cards“ after the Game 1? Is a sided-out card considered a ”sideboard card“?


This is a good learning point (at least for me): when the described problem arises, always count the deck of ”Adam" (i.e. the deck which is missing the card) and ask the player about sided cards (away from the table).

Edited Milan Majerčík (Feb. 20, 2014 02:38:30 AM)

As above, it seems a clear D/DLP for both, with the penalty depending on what exactly Adam presented at the start of the game.

My two cents for the discussion is that I would try to avoid a lengthy deck check procedure and get the players going for their next game quickly. Most likely Adam presented a 59 card main deck, so I would do a quick count of all of Adam's cards in all zones. If that comes up under 60, Adam's main deck isn't legal regardless. It's an easy D/DLP GL for both, the cards are put back where they belong, and they move on to the next game with the usual caution to be careful about their decks. The players will want to double check their decks anyway, and a full deck check would just delay the match unnecessarily.

If the main deck turns out to be a proper 60 I'd do a full deck check to make sure what actually happened, and maybe ask a few questions to see if a Cheating investigation is warranted. For all I know, Adam could have deliberately ‘lost’ the demon and sided in an extra card to cover for it, to provoke a GL penalty. I realize this is a stretch but it's worth considering.

Since we've already gone down this road, if Adam DID present a 60 card
deck, and his sideboard contains fewer than 15 cards, then under the new
IPG would this still be a penalty? After all, players can lose sideboard
cards without it being a D/DLP now, and that's essentially what happened.
On Feb 20, 2014 11:07 AM, “Ernst Jan Plugge” <

According to the IPG, missing SB cards are still a D/DLP, but without any penalty. As a formality the discrepancy should be addressed but it doesn't actually affect the game negatively (except when bringing in cards ‘from outside the game’).

Edit: ho hum, my wording is a bit unfortunate. What I mean is that a missing sideboard card will usually not affect the current game negatively, but it *is* necessary to fix the deck problem before the next game, using the usual procedure for normal D/DLP problems. There's just no real need to issue a GL for it.

Edited Ernst Jan Plugge (Feb. 20, 2014 11:21:55 AM)

I see where I had misinterpreted the IPG. I assumed no penalty meant no D/DL infraction. It does say to make a note which I guess means enter the infraction with no penalty.

So, double D/DL. Game loss for Nate. Game loss for Adam if he had 59 in his deck or if he had 60 a thorough questioning leading to either UC-Cheating or no penalty.

Just curions, is there anywhere else in the IPG where we issue an infraction without a penalty?

Before reading other responses -

This is a Deck/Decklist problem for Nate, which carries a game loss.

At this point, I'd want to deck check Adam's deck. If Adam's deck has fewer than 60 cards, he also receives a Deck/Decklist Problem. Otherwise, there's no infraction.

After reading other responses, and reviewing the IPG -

In the case that both players receive a D/DL problem at the same time, those won't count towards the match. The current game will end, players will have a chance to sideboard, and the next game (game 2 or 3, unspecified) will begin.

Adam has a D/DL problem in either case. However, if he presented a 60 card deck with a 14 card sideboard, no penalty is issued, and only Nate gets a game loss.

In this situation, an investigation for cheating is certainly warranted, but it will be hard to prove. One would need to prove that Adam was aware that his Demon was in Nate's deck. If I believed that Adam was aware his Demon was missing, but did not suspect it was in Nate's deck, I would not consider this cheating.

Thanks for your responses this week! As many of you correctly identified, this is not one but two instances of a Deck/Decklist Problem. Both Adam and Nate have presented illegal decks; Nate because he has a Desecration Demon he shouldn't have, and Adam because he only has 59 cards in his deck. Both players receive the prescribed game loss, and we fix the problem by returning the Demon to it's rightful owner and double-checking that each player has only the cards they're supposed to. Importantly, due to the recent update to the IPG, the two simultaneous game losses we just awarded do not count towards the reported match result. However, they should still be recorded as penalties on the match slip and by the scorekeeper.

A few of you mentioned a situation in which Adam presented a legal deck of 60+ cards for game two. This could happen either by Adam attempting to sideboard up to 61+ cards for game 2, or by him accidentally not sideboarding on a one-for-one basis. If that was indeed the case, and your investigation determines that Adam did not notice the missing card, then his D/DLP does not carry a game loss because the missing card was from his sideboard. The IPG says

Sideboards are considered to be a part of the deck for the purpose of this infraction. If sideboard cards are missing, make a note of this, but issue no penalty.

The IPG is telling us to adjust the decklist to reflect lost sideboard cards, but the card in question is not actually lost. We return the Demon to it's owner, and issue Adam no penalty. Nate would then be awarded a game loss, which will affect the reported match results.

Originally posted by Patrick Vorbroker:

A few of you mentioned a situation in which Adam presented a legal deck of 60+ cards for game two. This could happen either by Adam attempting to sideboard up to 61+ cards for game 2, or by him accidentally not sideboarding on a one-for-one basis. If that was indeed the case, and your investigation determines that Adam did not notice the missing card, then his D/DLP does not carry a game loss because the missing card was from his sideboard.

This is confusing. Are you saying the Desecration Demon is “from his sideboard” because he did not present it as a part of his deck for the second game or because you just assume it is listed as a sideboard card on his decklist? Does that make a difference for the purpose of TE - D/DLP?

I was not assuming that the Demon was a card originally in the sideboard. In fact, the answer is the same regardless of whether the Demon is originally from the sideboard or not.

After you've sideboarded for game 2 or 3, the cards which aren't in your main deck make up your sideboard for that game. With rare exceptions, the sideboard isn't interacted with in a game of magic, so while we want to make sure that the sideboard matches up with the decklist, an error that only exists in the sideboard doesn't have much potential for advantage and as such isn't penalized.