Hello everybody! We've got a brand new Silver scenario this week. Silver scenarios are designed for L1s who are actively working on attaining an L2-level understanding of policy. We request that anybody who is L2 or higher refrain from leading discussion or posting opinions until Friday. Silver scenarios serve as sources of knowledge and growth for prospective L2s. Give them an opportunity to discuss before joining the party.

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/2014/03/26/judge-i-dont-think-i-can-ever-cast-this/

It is PTQ time. Andrea and Norman have presented their decks to each other for Game 1. Norman does a pile shuffle of Andrea’s deck and asks afterwards, ‘So you are playing with 61 cards?’ Andrea replies, ‘What?! No…’ and quickly checks her sideboard: There are 15 cards. They call you over as a judge to help resolve the situation.

While checking Andrea’s deck, you find an Elemental token in the same colour sleeve as the deck.

How do you resolve the situation?

Edited Patrick Vorbroker (March 26, 2014 09:02:15 AM)

It's an unusual form for it to take, but this is otherwise a textbook Deck/Decklist Problem.

It meets both the “Deck/Decklist do not match” and the “Deck/Decklist contain one or more cards that are illegal for the format” criteria. MTR 3.3 (Authorized Cards) requires that “The card is not a token card”; as such, the Elemental token (as a component of the deck) is “Prohibited in all sanctioned tournaments”.

Clearly we're not going to change the Decklist to match the Deck, so:

• Game Loss to Andrea for the D/DLP
  
• Fix the deck by removing the token
  
• (Advise Andrea to sleeve the token in a different type of sleeve)
  
• Go on to game 2 of the match
  

Since Andrea “lost” game one, she has the choice on whether to play or draw in this game.
Since game one had not actually begun (pregame procedures not having been completed), the match has actually not begun, and therefore neither player can sideboard for game “two”

The above sideboarding point is the potentially contentious element I can see here - the MTR makes it clear that a game has not begun until players have completed mulligans, but it doesn't (anywhere I can find) define when the Match has begun. It could perhaps be argued that the match has begun even though the game hasn't, and that as such the “if a game Loss is issued before a match begins, players can't sideboard” clause doesn't apply and they actually can sideboard for game “two”. But that's not what I would argue.

Markers that are sleeved like the actual Magic cards themselves may not be used as tokens. So there's a simple GPE-GRV / Warning for that. If Andrea wants to sleeve her tokens she must use sleeves that look clearly different from the ones she used to sleeve her main deck.

One could argue that Andrea didn't actually present an illegal deck since a token is not a card even if it's represented by a piece of cardboard that looks like a card. But with identical sleeves, there is no way that Norman can verify this without looking at the card faces, which he is not allowed to do. So from Norman's point of view, Andrea presented a 61 card deck which (presumably) doesn't match her decklist.

So I would rule D/DLP based on this, plus a GRV for using improper tokens. Penalty: game loss plus a warning. Andrea needs to unsleeve or resleeve her tokens and remove the Elemental token from her deck. No sideboarding before game 2.

I don't see any infraction being committed here. Tokens are not cards, so she had a deck of sixty cards, presumably matching her decklist.

With regard to the sleeves, It's a bad idea to keep tokens in the same color sleeves as your cards, because this can happen (and it's time-consuming when you “draw” one mid-game), but not strictly illegal. The note in the IPG about using different sleeve colors refers to double-faced cards or promo cards you receive at the event, not things that aren't cards.

I'd remove the token from the deck, have Norman finish shuffle and cutting, while suggesting to Andrea that she can avoid these problems in the future by sleeving her tokens differently.

While face-down, a sleeve that looks the same as a card sleeve is not clearly distinguishable from a real card, so 3.8 in the MTR forbids their use as tokens.

Huh, I'm going to go against the crowd? That's interesting. Let's see how this goes.

So I agree with this case being a textbook case of D/DLP (IPG 3.9). A Token Card is not legal for any sanctioned format as outlined by MTR 3.3. But what I feel that everyone else is missing here is the additional remedy listed in the related section of the IPG (again, 3.9).

“If the player, upon drawing an opening hand, discovers a deck problem and calls a judge at that point, the Head Judge may downgrade the penalty, fix the deck…”

Unfortunately, while the game has not started, this is the point where a judge doing deck checks would swoop in and take the decks, so it is too late for poor Andrea. However, because she has yet to draw her opening hand, you as a judge can and I believe should contact the Head Judge for a downgrade. The game has not started yet, no hands were drawn, so nothing about this game has been compromised.

Head Judge issues a warning, and removes the token card. Judges explain to the players that Token Cards cannot be sleeved the same as the rest of the deck for this very reason.

Originally posted by Kirstin Jarchow:

“If the player, upon drawing an opening hand, discovers a deck problem and calls a judge at that point,”

I don't think this applies here since Andrea didn't discover the problem. Norman did.

Originally posted by Ernst Jan Plugge:

Kirstin Jarchow
“If the player, upon drawing an opening hand, discovers a deck problem and calls a judge at that point,”

I don't think this applies here since Andrea didn't discover the problem. Norman did.

It doesn't matter who discovers the problem, it matters who calls the judge over. Because this scenario was presented as “They call you over” I will assume that they both called you over, meaning that Andrea called you over.

Norman didn't even necessarily discover the problem, he just made an observation that led Andrea to investigate her deck. She discovered the token prior to any game actions being taken and immediately called a judge. The downgrade certainly applies.

Also - tokens aren't cards. (CR 108.2) A token cannot be conceivably played in the deck, if it was discovered at any point it would be immediately obvious that it was a mistake. I'm not just trying to be pedantic here - I feel like I've heard this situation come up before, except the player drew from their library and discovered it was a token. In that situation (searched for the reference but cannot find it) there was no infraction, because under a strict reading of the rules there was not an illegal card in the library. Deck/decklist problems are a Game Loss because they have a high potential for abuse, but that potential for abuse doesn't exist here.

After strongly suggesting that Andrea sleeve her tokens differently and use greater care when scooping up her cards at the end of the game, I would advise the player to remove all tokens from their deck, I would ensure that their deck is legal in its present state, and then have the player shuffle up. No infraction, no penalty.

What we have here is a violation of the MTR.

MTR 3.8
Sleeves or card backs that appear similar to any player’s sleeves or card backs may not be used as markers.

However, a violation of the MTR is not a GRV as the CR is not the MTR. Technically there is no specific infraction for breaking the MTR.

This could be labeled as a Deck/Decklist problem but the before mentioned CR makes this somewhat of a problem as tokens aren't cards. There's also very little potential for abuse here (fighting mill maybe?).

I wouldn't fault someone for calling a deck/decklist on this situation but I'm pretty sure I'd want to downgrade it. Personally I'd go with no infraction, no penalty.

Originally posted by Ernst Jan Plugge:

Markers that are sleeved like the actual Magic cards themselves may not be used as tokens. So there's a simple GPE-GRV / Warning for that.

GRV applies to Comp. Rule violations, whereas this is an MTR violation - so it can't be a GRV.

Originally posted by Ernst Jan Plugge:

Kirstin Jarchow
Originally posted by Kirstin Jarchow:
“If the player, upon drawing an opening hand, discovers a deck problem and calls a judge at that point,”

I don't think this applies here since Andrea didn't discover the problem. Norman did.

Also, this didn't happen “upon drawing an opening hand”; the exception doesn't say “or before”.


Regarding the “tokens aren't cards so this is fine” argument - the definition of deck in CR100 states that a Deck is composed of Magic cards. So if a deck is partially composed of tokens, then it is in fact an illegal deck as it's breaking that rule (in addition to the relevant MTR deck construction sections).
108.2 is more about definition of terms within the game rather than for deck construction purposes; the main rule that bars putting tokens into decks is MTR 3.3, the same rule that bars use of gold-bordered cards, forgeries, home-made proxies, etc. It seems dangerous to say that we can give a pass to non-card elements in decks, given the kinds of things those non-card elements can be. Granted that there's clearly not the potential for abuse with an elemental token as with a sharpied gold-border card or whatever, but this isn't an area where the documents specifically give us discretion to downgrade, and as a PTQ this is Comp, not Regular (if it was Regular, this would all be no harm, no foul).

I will certainly agree that applying CR 108.2 to the IPG is tenuous at best, but I think we can agree that there's a big difference between a token that accidentally ends up in a deck and a forgery. The forgery or your copy of “Richard Garfield, Ph.D.” could conceivably be played, a player can have it in their hand and play it without it being readily apparent that something is wrong, it is clearly (meant to be) an Authorized Magic Card. The story is somewhat different if you have your 20/20 Marit Lage token in your hand - there's just no conceivable way that could be thought to be a Magic Card, so D/DLP doesn't fit. They player is certainly going to be cautioned, and asked to sleeve their tokens differently, but I don't think we need to resort to an infraction in this situation.

Yeah, the GRV was a mistake on my part since it's a violation of the MTR, not the CR. (I think considering this a violation of 108.2 is a stretch…) So I guess that should become just an untracked caution, with an explanation why this is a bad thing. I'd still tell her to make sure her tokens can't be mistaken for her cards while face-down.

MTR 3.8
Sleeves or card backs that appear similar to any player’s sleeves or card backs may not be used as markers.

I read that as saying that you can't use a _face down_ sleeve from the same set as a token, not that you can't have a face-up token in the same sleeves

Before reading other responses:

This sounds like a deck/decklist problem. Andrea's deck has items in it that are not registered on the decklist. On the other hand, this item is not a Magic card. In the IPG, every example of D/DL references illegal cards.

Policy & Philosophy-wise : Catching and discouraging Deck/Decklist problems is important for maintaining the integrity of the tournament. Illegal decklists are often just honest mistakes, but ambiguities, or discrepancies, can allow a player to gain an advantage.

I don't think there's much potential for abuse or advantage here, it appears to be an honest mistake, and it was found before the game began. Also, no existing infraction in the IPG seems to match. I'd issue no penalty to either player, and caution Andrea to be more careful about clearly delineating what items are and are not in her deck or sideboard.

The rule that seems to be broken here is MTR 3.3 - Authorized cards.


After reading other responses:

There seems to be a split here, and no strong consensus so far on whether this is a Deck/Decklist problem or not.

On the subject of 3.8 - I agree with Matthew Johnson, the point of that rule is to avoid confusion between a token and a face-down card.


For the moment, I'm sticking with my original ruling - this doesn't neatly fall into any infraction, and the potential for abuse is very low, so I'd fix the situation and instruct the players to continue the match, no penalty. Given the time it probably took to find and remove the token, along with judging and re-shuffling the deck, an appropriate time extension would likely be given.