Originally posted by Kyle Connelly:

The ipg states this

Ambiguous or unclear names on a decklist may allow a player to manipulate the contents of his or her deck up until the point at which they are discovered. The Head Judge may choose to not issue this penalty if they believe that what the player wrote on their decklist is obvious and unambiguous, even if it is not the full, accurate name of the card

My interpretation of that (which may certainly be wrong) is that the judge in charge of deck lists may decide that writing “U/G painland” is not obvious or is ambiguous and constitutes a TE-D/DP.

The penalty for this is a Game Loss. All such penalties must be reported to the HJ (MIPG 1.3), at which time he/she may choose to not issue the penalty.

Huh. While I did download the new IPG (effective July 18) a few days ago, I didn't read through the whole document, only the changes in Appendix C, which just says “Reworded the ‘obviousness’ clause”. I completely missed that it says “HJ may choose not to issue this penalty” instead of “HJ may downgrade this penalty” now.

So I completely agree with René Oberweger: No penalty in this case, educate the player to use full English card names in the future, and update the decklist.

Originally posted by Robert Brown:

My interpretation of that (which may certainly be wrong) is that the judge in charge of deck lists may decide that writing “U/G painland” is not obvious or is ambiguous and constitutes a TE-D/DP.

The penalty for this is a Game Loss. All such penalties must be reported to the HJ (MIPG 1.3), at which time he/she may choose to not issue the penalty.

I'd assume that this falls into the pre-tournament instructions that the Head Judge gives the Deck Check team. Frequently, the Head Judge gives the Deck Check team lead the authority to hand out Game Losses without having to checking with the Head Judge in cases like failing to desideboard or other obvious cases. It's pretty easy for the Head Judge to include “If there's any obvious cards on a decklist go ahead and don't issue a penalty without asking me” if they don't feel the need to be involved.

Originally posted by Darren Horve:

I agree. In a Standard environment UG Shock/Temple/Pain refer to one card (each, naturally). I would amend the Deck List with the proper name, ensure that the player knows that in the future he should write the actual names of the card instead of a ‘shorthand’ recognizable name.

I'm not a fan of correcting players deck lists for them. I would meet with the player and have him write the correct names. And take a minute to explain the importance to him of not taking short cuts.

I always have the player correct their deck list issues when discovered. It makes it tougher for them to say we did something to their deck list.

Jim

Answer time!!!

Keep in mind that if this were a larger tournament with more than one judge, this decision would fall to the Head Judge. That being said….

Many people stated that there is no penalty. Those people are correct. We understand what the intention of the list is. There is no need to mark the changes on the list or involve the player. If you have time, mention to the player to be more careful in the future, but it’s not required.


Thank you, everyone for your input. Stay tuned for a new scenario coming soon.