The token card doesn't really count as a card per se, so I don't think it counts towards “contents of the deck” for the D/DLP clause in the IPG. The clause about cards having to in other sleeves is for handed out promo cards or DoubleFaced/checklist cards, and that's not the case here. The only other relevant section I can see is a CPV, but he didn't actually say there were 60 cards in the library, so that doesn't fit either.

No infraction means no penalty.

I think we just have them yank the card reshuffle and present again. I'd directly ask them to put the token in a different sleeve if they have one, or play without one if they don't. This isn't something we want happening again.

Edited Chris Nowak (March 26, 2014 10:33:06 PM)

108.2. When a rule or text on a card refers to a “card,” it means only a Magic card. Most Magic games use only traditional Magic cards, which measure approximately 2.5 inches (6.3 cm) by 3.5 inches (8.8 cm). Certain formats also use nontraditional Magic cards, over sized cards that may have different backs. Tokens aren’t considered cards—even a card that represents a token isn't considered a card for rules purposes.

That being said, if tokens are not real cards, they cannot be accounted for being illegal cards and therefore cannot carry a TE-D/DP. Also, since those are unusable, the potential to gain advantage from them is non-existent.

I'd ask that she removes the token and use a different sleeve so that doesn't happen again. She can then restart her shuffling process. No penalties are issued.

I don't think you can just caution the player and issue no infraction here. The deck is obviously illegal. MTR says that only Authorized Game Cards may be in a deck, and specifically states, “The card is not a token card.” However in the IPG for D/DLP:

“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, and allow the play to redraw the hand with one fewer card.”

I would argue that this scenario fits here - although the opening hand has not been drawn, I would say the philosophy of why the downgrade is possible is appropriate. No game actions have been taken, and a judge was called at the earliest possible moment. If we did decide to downgrade based on this, there is the problem of how many cards she should draw, since no opening had was drawn.

This appears to be a an oversight in the IPG. If we rule strictly according to the IPG, it's a Game Loss, but this issue seems to be in the same category as one discovered on drawing an opening hand.

Edited Huw Morris (March 27, 2014 09:10:39 AM)

I struggled with the same feelings Huw, but it represents a deviation. And we're not supposed to deviate unless it's significant or exceptional. And this doesn't feel like either.

And given that this is Knowledge Pool, I don't think we're being intentionally led into a situation where we are expected to deviate from the deviation policy =)

Following the philosophy of the IPG, the more advantage you could get from a situation, the more severe is the penalty. What advantage can you possibly get from a token being shuffled by accident in your deck? None. What should the penalty be? Nothing.

As for the deviation, this isn't an exceptional situation. Something exceptional is VERY exceptional, like a booster with cards from wrong editions or a table collapsing.

Token is not a Magic card, so it's not part of the deck - from the game's point of view, it's like an empty sleeve that somehow got mixed into a deck. He can't play it nor do anything useful with it.

I had a similar situation during a recent GPT, except it was a face-down card instead of token(player explained that he bought it during tournament and sleeved it face-down to avoid mixing it with his deck). In that situation, we ruled TE:D/DLP, but we downgraded penalty to Warning due to minimal potential to abuse. I think the same applies here.

The clear fix is to take out the token, as it is not a legal Magic card, and request that Andrea sleeve her tokens in sleeves that do not match her deck, or play them unsleeved, to ensure this doesn't happen again.

The penalty is for a Deck/Decklist problem. What Andrea handed to her opponent was not a deck consisting exclusively of Magic cards. Owing to the fact that tokens are not Magic cards, we should probably treat it as we might treat, say, a YuGiOh card found in the same deck. Or a three of clubs.
I believe we need to deliver a penalty, if only to show that we take this kind of thing seriously- there was something in Andrea's deck that was not supposed to be in Andrea's deck.
However, I'm very much in favour of a downgrade to a warning.

From the IPG:

If a player commits an offense, realizes it, and calls a judge over immediately and before he or she could potentially benefit from the offense, the Head Judge has the option to downgrade the penalty without it being considered a deviation

Yeah, I'd do that. Well, I'd ask the Head Judge about doing that.
I don't believe there's any point in this where Andrea could have potentially benefited from this offence, and a judge was called as soon as they'd verified that the offence had in fact happened.

I believe a warning (with a mention that this is a downgrade and could well have been a game loss if she had an actual game card in place of a token here) is sufficient as both education and as a deterrent (which the IPG states is the purpose of a penalty).

On the question of whether a token being a non-card means D/DLP doesn't apply - not all the D/DLP criteria refer to just cards-as-defined:

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

“contents of the deck”, not “cards in the deck”

Of course, interpreting it that way might also imply that one needs to write “60 Card Sleeves” on the decklist… But that's probably just me being pedantic.

Thank you to everyone that participated in this week's KP discussion! For quite a simple scenario, the opinion was initally divided between a D/DL error or no infraction.

Looking at the MTG Comprehensive rules:

108.2. When a rule or text on a card refers to a “card,” it means only a Magic card. Most Magic games use only traditional Magic cards, which measure approximately 2.5 inches (6.3 cm) by 3.5 inches (8.8 cm). Certain formats also use nontraditional Magic cards, over sized cards that may have different backs. Tokens aren’t considered cards—even a card that represents a token isn't considered a card for rules purposes.

By this definition, the token card isn't a Magic card and as such the D/DL Problem infraction does not apply in this scenario. The token card is removed and no infraction is issued. (We will suggest that Andrea change to a different color sleeve, or remove the sleeve, to avoid further problems.)

Some judges considered a downgrade to a warning, but to re-iterate, the D/DL penalty does not apply (meaning there is nothing in the first place to downgrade). In addition, the downgrade would have represented a deviation from the IPG.

Andrea could not have gained any sort of advantage having the Elemental token in her deck and whilst it is tempting to try and issue Andrea a warning here, don't! Reverse-engineering a need to issue a warning is very bad form in the judge program.

See you for another KP scenario shortly!

About gaining an advantage:

What if his opponent plays a mill and misscalculates because of the extra card? Let's say no one discovers it, the token ends in the last 10 cards and the oponent conceeds after checking that she has 11 “cards” left in her deck lethal on board, and he has only a Glimpse the Unthinkable. Missrepresenting (in this case, having a no-card as a card in the deck) derived information can always lead to advantages.

In legacy, Solidarity is a real (but unpopular) deck; and in many limited formats milling is a legitimate strategy to win.

Therefore, I could invoke the clause “Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly”, as the number of cards in a deck is derived information. The Token is actually wrongly representing a card while it's in the deck (IPG 3.7 and MTR 4.1). The question would be; is this a Comunication Violation? I think is a pretty grey area (I would say no), but it's still a pretty important ask to do.

Joaquin, one of the (nearly) absolute truths re: Magic and its rules, is that there's a corner case exception that disproves any philosophy, policy, or rule we can write.

The existence of such corner cases - no matter how likely they may appear to any of us - does not obviate the need for general policies, guidelines and even hard rules. Corner cases simply give us a chance to apply our Judge-ment. (Yes, pun intended.)

d:^D

I agree; but the question remains: Can you accidentally missrepresent derived information by other means than expressing yourself?

Nice Pun BTW :)

I like Caution for improper sleeves, with a Stern Talking To about why this is a Bad Thing (C) here. Tokens are not cards, so this is not a DDLP. If I had the Ace of Spades in a card sleeve mixed with my deck, that would not be a DDLP (at least I wouldn't think it would be), and tokens are even less of Magic cards than the Ace of Spades.

Regarding the mill argument, that argument seems very weak to me. A few things have to go right in that case:

1) Mill must be a viable strategy in the format. This is a real "if; WotC has to push it hard enough, which happens very rarely. Solidarity (and the related High Tide Combo), Painter Stone, etc do not count because they tend to mill for infinite or near-infinite anyway.

2) One player must know the other player's deck before the start of the match.

3) The player must be willing to take the odds that he will draw the token 61st card, be willing to be down a card, and assume that no spectator or judge will see the card and intervene. If the player mills the card in-game, obviously a judge will be called and the situation will be fixed at that time.

All of this, so that the player can gain the extremely small (non-zero, yes, but very small) advantage of playing 61 cards in game 1 against a mill deck. The idea that this was intentional in any way, or that any advantage could be gained from it, is so extremely remote that I'm willing to discount it as a factor.

I'm not suppousing intentionallity, or we would be talking about a very bad cheater ;).
I agree Mill was a longshot, and rules need to ignore corner cases, alredy respond Scott that. It was just an example to reflect that “none advantage” was not precise. And I put solidarity as an example because quite often it needs to combo off quite in the limit.


The point of the argument wasn't that, it was to clarify that effectivelly there is a missrepresentation of derived information (a token that looks like a card in the deck, but it's not). And my question was if situations like this could invoke IPG 3.7 or MTR 4.1. Or to put it in a more general way: Can you accidentally missrepresent derived information by other means than expressing yourself?

Thanks,

Joaquin