Let's say a player shows up to Standard FNM with a Gruul deck and 4 copies of Elvish Mystic in his main deck. During round 1 he cast an Elvish Mystic and his opponent calls for a judge. After asking a few questions we have determined no cheating and that he hasn't playing standard for a while and honestly didn't know Elvish Mystic wasn't legal and he has Llanowar Elves on their person(not already in their deck). What would you do?

From what i know we wanna educate more then punish at this type of level. So we shoupd have him replace them with basic lands of their choice. That is what i think would be correct. Others might let it slide more and replace them with the Llanowar elves. But I believe the basic lands is correct and fair way to go.

Let's have a look at what the JAR tells us to do!

A player has illegal, insufficient, or another player’s cards in their deck
Remove any cards that shouldn’t be in the deck, put back any cards that should, then add basic lands of the player’s choice if the deck is below the format's minimum size limit.

That first part refers to putting back cards that should be in the deck but currently aren't perhaps because they were left in exile during a previous game or were put into a previous opponent's deck after some Mind Control or Oblivion Ring type of effect. It doesn't refer to cards that “obviously” should be in the deck, such as Llanowar Elves instead of Elvish Mystics… because those cards never should have been in the deck to begin with.

So, we're left with exactly what Christopher already said: remove the Mystics, add basic lands of the player's choice, educate them, and game on. Replacing the Mystics with anything but basic lands would be a deviation and is not supported by the documents… so please don't :)

The JAR also tells us this:
“If a player accidentally breaks a rule, use the remedies described below and your common sense as guidance to
make the best ruling you can. If you feel that the suggested remedy is not suitable to your particular situation
you may suggest a more appropriate fix which is applied if both players accept it. Player education is a
priority; remind the players to play more carefully, but avoid being heavy-handed in order to keep your
events fun and relaxed.”
Depending on the “tone” you want to set for your event this could be considered heavy-handed, and letting the player exchange their Elvish Mystics for Llanowar Elves could be more appropriate.

Originally posted by Alexander Csanady:

If you feel that the suggested remedy is not suitable to your particular situation
you may suggest a more appropriate fix which is applied if both players accept it.

First of all, I don't see why the general remedy wouldn't be suitable for this situation. Honestly, it feels quite like a textbook example: a player has illegal cards in their deck. Secondly, you may deviate if both players accept it, as after all, it's their match. Now, if you alter the player's deck, you don't only affect their match, but you affect all future matches of that player as well, and you can't ask permission in advance to all possible future opponents of that player.

The line in the JAR regarding if you want to set a heavy-handed tone or not refers to handling missed triggers, not to applying this part of the JAR. Yes, player education is a priority, so explain why the Mystics aren't legal in Standard, hwo to avoid this in the future, and offer the player some basic lands, and do all of this in a friendly manner. But do apply the JAR and its fixes consistently, do not deviate unless in rare and exceptional circumstances, and please do not replace the Mystics with Llanowar Elves.

A devil's advocate question: was the intent of the player to include 4 Elvish Mystics in their deck or was their intent to include 4 mana dorks available in the format at the moment?

The JAR never talks about rare or exceptional circumstances. Rather, the only thing it says about deviations is indeed that both players accept it. I take this to mean that policy would allow for a player to entirely swap decks at the end of a round provided the Judge suggests the fix and both players agree. I don't expect anyone to suggest that fix for any problem really, but we can do pretty crazy things at Regular given Judges' common sense.

In this case, we have a suggested solution from the JAR that tells us that the Mystics should be basics. This will significantly affect the player's tournament negatively. We are lucky in that there exists a functionally identical version of the card legal in the format, which lets us do a relatively painless deviation fix that wouldn't otherwise be possible. I read the JAR as telling us to avoid being heavy-handed in all our remedies, and by comparison the original suggested fix certainly feels that way.

On the flip side: assume a Judge wasn't called. The players decided that because there is a functional reprint in Standard, that they are perfectly fine with fixing it by swapping. Assume AP knows that the fix is supposed to be basic lands. AP doesn't tell a Judge but simply exchanges their Mystics for Llanowar Elves before the next round. AP has an incentive to cheat because of something that doesn't really affect the course or integrity of the tournament.

Assuming the opponent can't agree to a deviation, the opponent can have a purely compassionate incentive to cheat (“you should swap them for basics but that's stupid, let's just do Llanowar Elves and not tell the Judge” is letting your opponent break a rule in order to gain an advantage). This feels like a Bad Thing.

Maybe the JAR should read “if you feel that there is a more suitable remedy than the suggested alternative” instead. I'm sure there are reasons why it doesn't, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Originally posted by Jonathan Johansen:

Maybe the JAR should read “if you feel that there is a more suitable remedy than the suggested alternative” instead. I'm sure there are reasons why it doesn't, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Even at Regular REL there needs to be some level of consistency. The JAR does provide a reasonable amount of flexibility as appropriate at Regular REL but players shouldn't have to worry that playing at a different store is going to be a hugely different experience because the judges there are more creative with their fixes.

Originally posted by Dustin De Leeuw:

you can't ask permission in advance to all possible future opponents of that player.

Actually, you can. You can arrange an anonymous voting asking everyone in the tournament (and TO as well probably) if they allow the swap.

It all depends on your willingness and an analysis whether the benefit is worth the logistical effort. If it is just a small FNM, it will take only a few minutes of round time.

Originally posted by Milan Majerčík:

Actually, you can. You can arrange an anonymous voting asking everyone in the tournament (and TO as well probably) if they allow the swap.

I wouldn't suggest that anyone do this at an FNM. Regardless of whether it takes a few minutes of time, taking a vote from the floor is not how we fix problems at events - we fix them based on policy, judgement, and by taking into account how our fix will affect the event.

In this situation, we have two options: Either replace the Elvish Mystics with basic lands, or replace them with Llanowar Elves. It's correct that the fix prescribed in the JAR is to replace these with basic lands, but I can't say that I agree with applying that fix to this situation.

The intent of the JAR is to educate players, keep the game going, and to fix problems fairly. Most of the time, if someone is playing an illegal card the fairest way to fix that is per policy - if you allow them to replace the card with something else halfway through an event they have an unfair advantage, and it's not at all reasonable to do this.

In this case, the player is playing an illegal card that has an identical reprint. Is there a disadvantage to the opponent if we replace the Elvish Mystic with an identical, legal card? I don't think that there is. I think that applying the spirit of the JAR is important, to keep the events fun and fair at the same time, and it's fairly obvious to me that in this case we can achieve that by replacing the Mystic with a Llanowar Elves.

Originally posted by Dustin De Leeuw:

The line in the JAR regarding if you want to set a heavy-handed tone or not refers to handling missed triggers, not to applying this part of the JAR.

Actually, in the JAR it refers to not being Heavy Handed in a general sense, not just in reference to Missed Trigger policy.

Originally posted by JAR Introduction:

The fixes found in other documents (such as the Infraction Procedure Guide) are designed for a stricter environment and don't apply at Regular REL. In addition to fixing the error, it is important to remind the players to play more carefully. Avoid being heavy-handed as you want to keep your events fun and relaxed.

Edited Tom Wood (July 5, 2019 03:41:06 PM)

Most of the time I am pretty happy to put forth the llanowar elves fix. In fact at many FNMs I have been a judge at I might even go out of my way and provide the Llanowar elves for a new or returning player.

The key here, however, is most. Some events at regular are more serious than others. I have been to FNMs with no entry fee and 1st prize is 3 packs, and I have been to FNMs where you play 4 rounds of swiss and then a playoff for a sealed box. If we are playing the latter tournament it is pretty likely I will be sticking to basic lands, and knowing the environment/community your regular REL tournament exists in should really lead you to the right answer.

One note I will make is that any time I choose to deviate (at any REL), I make a point of explaining to the players that I am deviating, what the normal fix is, and why I am choosing to do it. This really helps both educate the players and prevent future confusion/frustration.

Originally posted by Milan Majerčík:

A devil's advocate question: was the intent of the player to include 4 Elvish Mystics in their deck or was their intent to include 4 mana dorks available in the format at the moment?

4x mana dorks that are legal

Please refrain from playing the devil's advocate. The devil is already well off its own, it doesn't need us to help it.
Feel free to ask any question about things you don't understand, feel the need to be educated on, and believe is generic enough that it will benefit the thousands of judges who have access to this board. Refrain from trying to poke holes in our documents for the pleasure of poking hole: a 2 pages document will never cover all possible scenarios, it's not an achievement to manage to find a situation where it doesn't apply neatly.

The JAR provides you generic fixes that are fair, sensible, and should be used. It also gives you latitude to adapt your fixes to your community. They should be reserved to special scenarios in which applying them would do more harm than good. You are judges, use your judgement: we're happy to provide guidance, but these scenarios should be rare and significant enough that it's impossible for us to create more than generic guidelines about them.

- Emilien