So, I had this situation come up recently:
My opponent cracked his Cephalid Coliseum. First, he dredged 6 cards with Golgari Grave-Troll. Then he (I assume accidentally) proceeded to dredge 6 cards with Stinkweed Imp. Before anything else happened, I notified him of what happened and we were both a little puzzled on how to proceed. Since he had another dredge left in Golgari Thug (which was in his GY before the dredge 6 with the Imp) and nothing else happened during all of this we decided we were both fine with him dredging just 3 cards with his Thug and carrying on from there.
Was this the right course of action/would there have been a penalty had we called a judge? I mean, there were no missed triggers, nothing weird happened, and he ended up with the "right" number of cards dredged into his graveyard.
I ask this mostly b/c my opponent looked mortified when he realised what happened and I didn't want to win due to such a tiny slip up.
what if it's unclear which card was dredged last? - like the only dredger is in the last x card dredge and nobody knows whether it was the last for whatever reason... how does the Coliseum resolution continue?
Yes, the right thing is definitely to call a judge.
If it was regular REL, no, there is no penalty and the mistake is remedied. It probably would've been fixed the way you fixed it, since judges are free to use creative fixes at Regular.
If it was competitive REL, there would have been a Looking At Extra Cards penalty, which is a warning. There should obviously be penalties for "mistakes" at Competitive, since it's a higher level of competition and sloppyness negatively affects the legitimacy of the event.
This is how Alex Bertoncinis are created.I ask this mostly b/c my opponent looked mortified when he realised what happened and I didn't want to win due to such a tiny slip up.
“It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.”
-David DeLaney
I've never seen that happen, but if the players really cannot figure it out, select one of the cards from the dredge and shuffle it back into the deck. (The remedy for Looking At Extra Cards is to shuffle the offending card[s] into the randomized portion of the deck, if the card[s] were part of the randomized portion.)
“It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.”
-David DeLaney
To be clear, wouldn't the remedy be the non-offending player choose 1 card to shuffle back in of his choice? And wouldn't it be drawing extra cards as per the new direction DEC has dictating? IPG 2.3 example E leads me to this ruling: http://wpn.wizards.com/sites/wpn/fil...02oct15_en.pdf
Matt Bevenour in real life
It actually feels more like Looking at Extra Cards. Look at IPG 2.2 Example B. "A player flips over an extra card while drawing from his deck." That seems to be the most accurate description of events here.
The difference between Drawing Extra Cards and dredging is that we're looking at the card moving to a hidden zone vs. moving to a public zone. If you draw an extra card, it's impossible for the opponent to determine which card, for sure, was the extra one drawn. Some clever sleight of hand upon the draw can mislead the opponent into thinking the wrong card (i.e. useless land) was the extra card, while you shifted the Delver you needed to mislead them. Dredging, while to the Dredge player is pretty much the same thing as drawing cards, results in an extra card that is known to all players and can be easily fixed as such. I think it's fairly clear to remove the offending card.
If, for example, the player had not noticed there was an extra dredge until after all 3 dredges had resolved (16 cards dredged when only 15 were possible), then the better solution is to handle it like Drawing Extra Cards and let the opponent choose one to shuffle back, since the actual time of the infraction is not possible to pinpoint.
Matt Bevenour in real life
Toby specifically noted in his blog post about the IPG update that the new DEC rule is not intended to cover milling (dredge).
Rather, DEC covers "unordered cards that the the player can see, but the opponent can not". So dredging too many is LEC.In particular, the last line talks about “performing actions on cards on the top of your library”. Unfortunately, that can be reasonably read to cover things like milling and ingesting, which was not the intent when we wrote it. While the remedy “works” on those errors, it distracts from why this paragraph is there in the first place. Those aren’t, philosophically, Drawing Extra Cards.
“It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.”
-David DeLaney
“It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.”
-David DeLaney
But yeah, it's a Warning. Which is essentially no penalty unless they do it a 3rd time in the tournament, at which point they thoroughly deserve the game loss. It's also tracked in the reporting system which is important in case a pattern of long-term behavior emerges. Opponents pulling the "aw shucks" routine and the stigma about calling a judge is what allows people to get away with effectively or actually cheating. You should definitely never feel bad about calling a judge.
“It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.”
-David DeLaney
No, you should follow the LEC remedy - which is shuffling the randomized portion of the deck including the extra card. A judge should almost always be able to figure out with some degree of confidence what the extra card(s) were. If that's not possible, it should be the judge randomly selecting cards to return, not the opponent.
Last edited by cdr; 12-04-2015 at 10:07 PM.
“It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.”
-David DeLaney
A word to any Miracles players reading; Keep track of exactly what your opponent has "bottomed" from Terminus. That way, if they "accidently" dredge too many cards, you can inform the judge that the last X cards in their library are NOT randomized, and should not be shuffled in.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)