The part of 3.5 that mentions cards in different sleeves I think refers to cards from a previous opponents deck ending up in your main board. It happens often enough that they decided to change the policy to avoid double game losses. I believe the remedy in that type of situation is to find the opponent with the missing cards and shuffle it into their deck? I'm not sure on that one.

Game loss. Instruct the player to remove the cards in different sleeves from their deck and store them somewhere else. Explain to them that they're receiving the game loss because the cards could conceivably be played in their deck.

I think if a player would ever intend to take advantage of this rule, they would need actually need to do something to make those cards part of their deck (i.e. change the sleeves). By that point, you would already be able to notice the difference between the deck and the list.

According to the new paragraph in IPG, I would say there is no infraction but I would ask Arnold to move those cards to other places so there wouldn't be any misunderstandings.

And it's very interesting this new paragraph in Definition contradicts with what they say in Philosophy…

Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:

Robert Johnston
"Cards that are obviously not part of the deck (e.g. cards in different sleeves, tokens) are ignored when determining deck legality.

I think this phrase applies to cards *in your deck* (e.g. an Aura your opponent put on your creature, and was shuffled at the end of the game), not to cards *in your deckbox*.

I have no doubt that is the intention, but it's not worded that way and that's why we're having such a great discussion.

Ultimately, this player has extra cards in their box that they could try and finagle into their deck. That is a pretty clear D/DLP to me.

Welcome back everybody! We expected an interesting discussion this week and we got it! Thanks for participating.

Latest IPG includes this phrase at the end of Tournament Error - Deck/Decklist Problem Definition:

Cards that are obviously not part of the deck (e.g. cards in different sleeves, tokens) are ignored when determining deck legality.

As noted by Francesco and Jon, this new phrase was meant to apply to situations where you discover a previous opponent's card in your library, cards that aren't legal in the format, or cards in an unplayable color. This is not what our scenario was about, so that means this situation is still a Tournament Error -Deck/Decklist Problem infraction and the penalty we must asses to Arnold is a Game Loss. We should also ask him to remove those cards from his deckbox for the rest of the tournament.

Thank you for participating on this scenario, your replies will likely help improve that wording in a future IPG version.
See you in our next scenario!

Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:

Robert Johnston
"Cards that are obviously not part of the deck (e.g. cards in different sleeves, tokens) are ignored when determining deck legality.

I think this phrase applies to cards *in your deck* (e.g. an Aura your opponent put on your creature, and was shuffled at the end of the game), not to cards *in your deckbox*.

That's strange…
So if my opponent happens to use the very same sleeve as I do and left an aura in my deck, it will be a DLE?

Originally posted by La Miao:

Francesco Scialpi

Robert Johnston
"Cards that are obviously not part of the deck (e.g. cards in different sleeves, tokens) are ignored when determining deck legality.

I think this phrase applies to cards *in your deck* (e.g. an Aura your opponent put on your creature, and was shuffled at the end of the game), not to cards *in your deckbox*.

That's strange…
So if my opponent happens to use the very same sleeve as I do and left an aura in my deck, it will be a DLE?

I believe the important point here is that the card is obviously not the part of the deck. If you have Sleeping Paralysis from your previous opponent and you are definitely not playing blue, it is obvious. If you do play blue, however, it is not.