Changes the the floor rules announced: outside notes allowed and others

[Frenger]

edit: put this here to go with the rules changes threads, maybe belongs in community?

heres the thread on MTG Salvation http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=3999656#post3999656


I'm pleased to announce that on Monday we'll release major revisions to the main Magic tournament documents. They'll available in the Document Center at http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dci/doccenter/home

Coincidentally, there are seven major changes, which, in terms of impact, parallel quite nicely with the seven changes announced in the M10 Rules Announcement. You've all read that, right? I thought I'd take a few minutes to run down them here for you and give you some insight as to why they've changed. There are other little details - this isn't a substitute for actually looking at the documents - but they can wait for now.


1) Graveyard order - just as with Simultaneous Mulligans, we're adapting a technique that is already used in casual circles to make tournament Magic a little easier to play. The last time Wizards printed a card that cared about the order of your graveyard was over 10 years ago, in the form of Stronghold's Volrath's Shapeshifter, and R&D has been very clear that they don't want to use this as an explorable design space. As a result, as long as they're playing in formats with cards from Urza's Saga and on, we no longer care how the players order their graveyard.

2) Cosmetic changes - Just as "removed from game" has changed into Exile, so has much of our terminology been tweaked. The holy trinity of documents you remember - the Penalty Guide, the Universal Tournament Rules and the Magic Floor Rules - have been merged and reconfigured into two documents: the Magic Tournament Rules and the Magic Infraction Procedure Guide. Both documents are devoted solely to Magic, and have been divided into information that players should generally be expected to know (the MTR) and information more geared towards judges (the PG).

Lots of changes cascade from this. Communication is now part of the MTR. Deck/Warband Errors become Deck Errors. Card-Game Specific Rulings move into the main body (which has an impact on what upgrade path infractions are on). Everything is renumbered. Just as with "cast", "exile" and "Battlefield", the changes are mostly cosmetic - an organizational shift to make the documents easier to read.

The MTR is particularly worth highlighting. Two years in the making, a ton of judges have made substantial contributions to it. Space prevents me from highlighting all the judges who were involved, but special mention must go to George Michelogiannakis, Falko Goerres, Nick Sephton and Jason Ness, all of whom contributed large sections or took a full whack at the document at one time or another. All your tournament policies should be in here, but they're cleaner, easier to read, and polished up from years of questions.

3) Mana burn has confused new players for years. Drawing Extra Cards has been a source of similar pain for judges. If I evoke Mulldrifter without blue mana, it's a Game Rule Violation, but casting Counsel of the Soratami without blue mana is Drawing Extra Cards? If I take the actions on Cruel Ultimatum out of order, which is it? If I activate Jace to have us both draw a card, and it's the second activation this turn, who gets a penalty?

We spent a lot of time debating options on these and similar questions, and eventually produced a much narrower definition for Drawing Extra Cards: If you are told to draw cards, and draw too many, it's Drawing Extra Cards. Otherwise it's a GRV. This is partly to reflect the fact that it can be very hard for an opponent to notice how many cards you've drawn and we were able to do this because we've been reasonably happy with the success of the GRV backup approach to dealing with the extra drawn card and believe it can be applied more widely.

4) In a rule that will only affect a small number of people, but might have a substantial impact on them, we're extending Out-of-order sequencing to also cover Professional REL. Initially some of the philosophy was experimental, and we saw it as an opportunity to differentiate the highest level of play. However, pros use out-of-order sequencing just as everyone else does. It's hard to imagine an Elf mirror at PT Berlin that didn't involved substantial use of the approaches defined in (former) section 52.

There's still a lot of work to be done in explaining the application and use of the section, and I'd suggest it's a good topic for multiple articles (hint, hint), but we believe that the basic philosophies are sound enough to apply at all levels.

5) When I alluded to parallels with the M10 rules changes, I'll bet everyone immediately wondered what our version of Rule 5 would be. And here it is: players may now look at outside notes between games.

The impetus for this change arose out of some painful questions about sideboards. Are sideboard cards with a dot on them considered marked? What if the dots are differently colored? What if it's ordered? If my friend looks through my limited sideboard and shuffles a couple cards I might want to play to the top, is that Outside Assistance? (Remarkably, under some interpretations, the answer to all of the above was 'yes'). In trying to find solutions that worked, the idea of simply not worrying between games came up and turned out to be an elegant solution.

Like the M10 rule 5, I suspect it will turn out to generate a lot more noise than actual impact. The good players realize that sideboarding is a fine art and can't be brute-forced by a set of notes; even more so they may seek to exploit players who are locked into previously determined plans. Most people didn't have that hard a time memorizing the sideboarding for basic matchups, so the incremental advantage is small. Players are, of course, still held to the same between-game time-limits.

Related to this, there are new guidelines on acceptable card modifications, and we're not going to worry as much about minor strategic information. If a player has altered a Tinker to show a Darksteel Colossus emerging, or written "Smash with Me!" on a Goblin Piledriver, odds are fairly high that they didn't need the help in game. Obviously, writing out ste-by-step combo guides on cards is still out, and the Head Judge has ultimate authority over where the line is.

6) A recurring theme that arises with marked or lost cards is what to do if the player can't find a replacement. In the past, this has been a death sentence - they haven't been allowed to continue in the tournament without unmarked versions of the cards. In the interests of enabling them to continue, we're going to allow them to replace those cards on their decklist with basic lands. Once they do so, it locks in - they can't go back to the old list even if they find replacement cards later. This is a tradeoff between a very small potential strategic hole and a huge customer service benefit.

7) Finally, speaking of customer service, we're going to test a new approach to spectators intervening at Regular and Competitive REL. At the moment, a spectator who sees an error should find a judge and let them know, but often they can't do it fast enough for the judge to be able to do anything other than assess a penalty. Now, spectators will be allowed to ask the players to pause while they find a judge, though that is all they are allowed to do - no indicating to the players what the problem is. This is still in the experimental stages, but we are hopeful that the benefits of not allowing the game to get too far ahead will outweigh the occasional match that gets stopped due to a false positive.

There are lots of smaller changes throughout the documents, and I'd encourage people to look through them to find the other tweaks. A big thanks to the Policy Committee, and the L4 judges, who spent a lot of time discussing and improving these changes. I hope everyone will find these changes helpful in their judging, and would love to hear any feedback or suggestions for improvements.

Best,
Toby

[Captain_Morgan]

edit: put this here to go with the rules changes threads, maybe belongs in community?


7) Finally, speaking of customer service, we're going to test a new approach to spectators intervening at Regular and Competitive REL. At the moment, a spectator who sees an error should find a judge and let them know, but often they can't do it fast enough for the judge to be able to do anything other than assess a penalty. Now, spectators will be allowed to ask the players to pause while they find a judge, though that is all they are allowed to do - no indicating to the players what the problem is. This is still in the experimental stages, but we are hopeful that the benefits of not allowing the game to get too far ahead will outweigh the occasional match that gets stopped due to a false positive.


heres the thread on MTG Salvation http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=3999656#post3999656

That is going to suck if you get one of those little know-it-alls that think they know something, but don't actually know it and waste people's time and eat into the playtime.

[John Rohan]

Originally Posted by the announcement itself

3) Mana burn has confused new players for years.

?? This is such a crock. Has any one here been confused by mana burn? Ever?
I was told about it the first time I ever played the game, and I understood it with no problem. If you overpay mana, you take 1 damage for each. Too simple. Who has ever complained about this?


Related to this, there are new guidelines on acceptable card modifications, and we're not going to worry as much about minor strategic information. If a player has altered a Tinker to show a Darksteel Colossus emerging, or written "Smash with Me!" on a Goblin Piledriver, odds are fairly high that they didn't need the help in game. Obviously, writing out ste-by-step combo guides on cards is still out, and the Head Judge has ultimate authority over where the line is.

That's already the case right now; I've seen this question asked several times on WoTC's site. So what is the change?

[mercenarybdu]

Sweet, the order of the graveyard could be shuffled and mangled as we please ^_^

[yankeedave]

Sweet, the order of the graveyard could be shuffled and mangled as we please ^_^


As a result, as long as they're playing in formats with cards from Urza's Saga and on, we no longer care how the players order their graveyard.

Read it again mate, doesnt effect us, only post Urza's Saga, so Extended and Standard, we still have to follow the order.

Dave

[Maveric78f]

?? This is such a crock. Has any one here been confused by mana burn? Ever?
I was told about it the first time I ever played the game, and I understood it with no problem. If you overpay mana, you take 1 damage for each. Too simple. Who has ever complained about this?
The point is that you never understood that manaburn was not damage at all, and that you could not prevent the life loss it occurred.

[Nightmare]

All of these changes make sense.

Don't make this a thread about mana burn.

[Apex]

The modification rule is awesome. I know a couple of my friends that had their cards nicely altered (Captain America on Decree of Justice, the Powerpuff Girls for Brawn, Anger, and Wonder, etc). And it was always up to the discretion of the head judge, as they technically aren't legal. But now, they should be fine (of course, the cards themselves still can't be too thick, etc, as to not to be considered as marked cards). It's a good chance to showcase some of these pimped out cards (I personally think tastefully altered cards are way pimper than some random asian foreign language cards) without getting penalized.

[quicksilver]

Wait wait wait. So say I am playing some obscur deck, but this deck had been posted on the source. After game 1 my opponent has no idea what I am playing, does a quick search of the source on his iphone and gets the list? What if he didn't really get to see how the deck worked game 1 and now knows exactly what to expect? What if he sees something in the board that he needs to prepare for or play around? How is this not absolutly rediculous?

Also a player can talk with his teammates about the best sideboard stratagy? What if that teammate was standing behind is opponent last game, he's allowed to tell him cards in his opponents hand the player never got to see? Absurd.

This reminds me of the time a judge misunderstood a player and told him it was ok to have outside notes. At the end of game 1, he told me he had no idea what I was playing, flipped opened his notebook, found my list and a sideboard stratagy against my deck and proceded to crush me with it. Somehow this seemed less than fair.

So my conclusion is that this post must clearly be a fake post because i cannot fathom that they would possibly make this change.

[Aggro_zombies]

Wait wait wait. So say I am playing some obscur deck, but this deck had been posted on the source. After game 1 my opponent has no idea what I am playing, does a quick search of the source on his iphone and gets the list? What if he didn't really get to see how the deck worked game 1 and now knows exactly what to expect? What if he sees something in the board that he needs to prepare for or play around? How is this not absolutly rediculous?

Also a player can talk with his teammates about the best sideboard stratagy? What if that teammate was standing behind is opponent last game, he's allowed to tell him cards in his opponents hand the player never got to see? Absurd.

This reminds me of the time a judge misunderstood a player and told him it was ok to have outside notes. At the end of game 1, he told me he had no idea what I was playing, flipped opened his notebook, found my list and a sideboard stratagy against my deck and proceded to crush me with it. Somehow this seemed less than fair.

So my conclusion is that this post must clearly be a fake post because i cannot fathom that they would possibly make this change.
There's probably a limit to what constitutes "outside notes." The thing with the teammates sounds suspiciously like coaching, or whatever the legalese term for it is. The other scenario is plausible, but it seems like the obvious response would be simply to say that you can only use notes you had with you at the beginning of the tournament. Of course, that won't stop some retard from writing down a board plan for every list he can find, but hopefully it will stop the worst offenses.

There must also be a time limit on these. How quickly is your opponent going to be able to find your exact list using his iPhone, especially if you don't tell him your forum handle? He'll need to get to the Source, then do a search for the key cards he saw game one, then wade through piles of junk to figure out what you're playing. That doesn't seem very fast.

[Shugyosha]

Wait wait wait. So say I am playing some obscur deck, but this deck had been posted on the source. After game 1 my opponent has no idea what I am playing, does a quick search of the source on his iphone and gets the list? What if he didn't really get to see how the deck worked game 1 and now knows exactly what to expect? What if he sees something in the board that he needs to prepare for or play around? How is this not absolutly rediculous?

I doubt that you can do that within the 3 minutes time limit (including boarding itself and shuffling). But the problem is to enforce the three minute time limit. In the years of tournament magic I played, only one Judge reminded me once that the limit is three minutes because boarding was difficult and that was at a legacy champs tournament (REL competetive I think). Never witnessed it again.



What if that teammate was standing behind is opponent last game, he's allowed to tell him cards in his opponents hand the player never got to see? Absurd.

No, I think this is still outside assistance but clever friends can just silently pick up your oponents board and shuflle the cards in front they think are good.
I also played a fair share of tournaments in foreign countries and its always a problem when a friend talks to your opponent between games in a language you don't understand. So this seems to be allowed now and you have absolutely no way to know if the friend tells your opponent what cards you had in your hand or you already boarded (game 3).

[GreenOne]

Wait, so I'm allowed to take with me the tome DIY: Doomsday stacks, what to use, when to use, how to use and take it from my deckbox right after my doomsday resolved?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[rufus]

This reminds me of the time a judge misunderstood a player and told him it was ok to have outside notes. At the end of game 1, he told me he had no idea what I was playing, flipped opened his notebook, found my list and a sideboard stratagy against my deck and proceded to crush me with it. Somehow this seemed less than fair.

As long as everyone knows the rules in advance, there's nothing unfair about one player being better prepared than another.

[Shugyosha]

Wait, so I'm allowed to take with me the tome DIY: Doomsday stacks, what to use, when to use, how to use and take it from my deckbox right after my doomsday resolved?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Only in between games.

[Finn]

The one that concerns me is #6. I am thinking that if my opponent in the finals is playing plenty of mana denial, I might just lose a couple cards mysteriously before the match.

Apparently, it is now legal to alter your deck during the tournament. How does this make more sense than proxies?

[quicksilver]

I doubt that you can do that within the 3 minutes time limit (including boarding itself and shuffling). But the problem is to enforce the three minute time limit. In the years of tournament magic I played, only one Judge reminded me once that the limit is three minutes because boarding was difficult and that was at a legacy champs tournament (REL competetive I think). Never witnessed it again.


Then you could easily have your friend do it for you during the game and have it ready.

By their example they clearly wanted to make it legal for someone else to help you.

[Anusien]

You're only allowed to consult notes between games and you're limited to one or two sheets of preprinted material. You're still eligible for slow play infractions, and electronic materials have always been disallowable per the Head Judge's discretion.

@quicksilver: I strongly doubt it will be okay for any outsider to write notes and present them to the player. From the MTR:

Between games, players may refer to a brief set of notes made before the match. These notes must be removed from the play area before the beginning of the next game. Excessive quantities of notes – more than a sheet or two - are not allowed and may be penalized as slow play.

The documents are up; I suggest you all read the MTR.

[Deep6er]

Finn actually brought up a point that I was thinking about. You're in Top 8 and you're playing some kind of land light deck against Eva Green/Team America. You "lose" some of the cards that are bad in that matchup (whatever they may be), and tell the judge. You then replace them with basic lands? That seems like it might be almost helpful (I say almost because it still means you're playing basic lands). It's kind of like boarding, but as if your sideboard was terrible.

Still, while probably not huge, it seems kind of odd.

[Wrath_Of_Houlding]

But assuming you win that match, you are stuck with those extra basic lands...they said the new basic land filled deck gets "locked in". So you can't lose your dead cards and find them again after the match.

[quicksilver]

"If my friend looks through my limited sideboard and shuffles a couple cards I might want to play to the top, is that Outside Assistance?"

So they want to change this rule to make this legal. They are clearly validating having someone else help you.

[quicksilver]

But assuming you win that match, you are stuck with those extra basic lands...they said the new basic land filled deck gets "locked in". So you can't lose your dead cards and find them again after the match.

As deep6er pointed out, say you are in the top 2 against a land destruction deck and have dead cards. It would rediculously powerful to "lose" those dead cards and put in basic lands with absolutly no drawback since this is the last possible round. (Or perhaps if you are playing for a top 16 place).

[rufus]

But assuming you win that match, you are stuck with those extra basic lands...they said the new basic land filled deck gets "locked in". So you can't lose your dead cards and find them again after the match.

He did write "in the final".

[Dan Turner]

But the lost cards have to stay lost the whole rest of the tourney, that means if you "find" them after the match they are no longer part of your deck.

[Wrath_Of_Houlding]

"If my friend looks through my limited sideboard and shuffles a couple cards I might want to play to the top, is that Outside Assistance?"

So they want to change this rule to make this legal. They are clearly validating having someone else help you.

That was not the impression I got from that. I think they were comparing that to having a couple of notes jotted down and saying the comparision was silly. I did not interpret this as free for all communication being allowed.

[FoolofaTook]

Communications between spectators and players between games of a match should be sharply limited. Sideboarding properly is as important a skill as anything else in the competition.

You wouldn't let a friend lean in, look at a player's hand, and tell him when to mulligan or not, so why allow them to have input on sideboarding decisions?

Generally speaking the amount of communication that is allowed between spectators and players is much higher than it used to be in the single meta. Judges used to bar players from watching a match to closely if it appeared that they were doing anything at all to influence events - including giving the appearance that they might be to upset one of the competitors.


5) When I alluded to parallels with the M10 rules changes, I'll bet everyone immediately wondered what our version of Rule 5 would be. And here it is: players may now look at outside notes between games.

The impetus for this change arose out of some painful questions about sideboards. Are sideboard cards with a dot on them considered marked? What if the dots are differently colored? What if it's ordered? If my friend looks through my limited sideboard and shuffles a couple cards I might want to play to the top, is that Outside Assistance? (Remarkably, under some interpretations, the answer to all of the above was 'yes').

Do I read this to say that outside coaching in the form of actively assisting in the sideboarding process might be legal?

[hi-val]

I think some folks are reading the sentence differently than the DCI intended. Here are two possible readings:

"My friend looks through my sideboard and in the process, puts some cards I was planning on sideboarding in on the top, maybe doing this unintentionally." For instance, a Naturalize that you were going to bring in against Esper anyway.

and

"My friend looks at my sideboard and then puts cards on top that he thinks I should be bringing in." Obviously, the friend is trying to assist you.

Do these seem like fair interpretations of that sentence? The first one, the DCI is fine with, while the second, they are not, it seems.

[Anusien]

Wishes stop being able to get RFG cards on July 1, not July 11.

[Anusien]

Finn actually brought up a point that I was thinking about. You're in Top 8 and you're playing some kind of land light deck against Eva Green/Team America. You "lose" some of the cards that are bad in that matchup (whatever they may be), and tell the judge. You then replace them with basic lands? That seems like it might be almost helpful (I say almost because it still means you're playing basic lands). It's kind of like boarding, but as if your sideboard was terrible.

Still, while probably not huge, it seems kind of odd.
I would be impressed if you managed to lose cards while moving two feet from Top 4 to Top 2. I'd be more impressed if you managed to convince me it wasn't cheating.

quicksilver: The example you're dealing with doesn't quite mean what you think it means.

[11:56:10] <Anusien> To clarify, because my players are flipping out; spectators are not allowed to, say, write notes between games and give them to a player, right?
[11:56:22] <telliott> of course not
[11:57:12] <Lee|work> if you want outside notes with you for between games, you need to have them (fixed) at the beginning of the match
[11:57:15] <Anusien> "If my friend looks through my limited sideboard and shuffles a couple cards I might want to play to the top, is that Outside Assistance?" <-- let me reask now that the other chat died
[11:57:44] <Lee|work> your friend is not allowed to manipulate your sideboard, anymore than they are allowed to shuffle your library
[11:57:46] <telliott> under certain strict interpretations of notes in the old version, it could have been
[11:57:50] <Lee|work> or graveyad
[11:58:13] <Anusien> The Lee|work statements and the telliott statements don't seem to line up to me
[11:58:34] <telliott> they're temporally different
[11:58:43] <Lee|work> I wouldn't call it "outside notes" necessarily
[11:58:45] <Lokii> if your friend before you go to your match puts your good cards on top
[11:58:47] <telliott> I was referring to a friend doing it after deckbuilding
[11:58:48] <Lokii> that used to be OA
[11:59:09] <Lokii> (under strict interpretations which we know some judges love)
[11:59:29] <Lee|work> *during a match*, a friend can't come up and manipulate your sideboard, just like they can't your graveyard (to put a flashback spell on top or whatever)
[11:59:38] <telliott> right

[Arsenal]

Wishes stop being able to get RFG cards on July 1, not July 11.

I thought M10 rules & terminology didn't take effect until July 11th, 2009 (M10 Pre-release weekend). When did it change to July 1st? Is there a link from Wizards re: this July 1st date?

[Anusien]

I thought M10 rules & terminology didn't take effect until July 11th, 2009 (M10 Pre-release weekend). When did it change to July 1st? Is there a link from Wizards re: this July 1st date?


[11:51:13] <JeremySm> btw, someone pointed out that the MTR/PG and the new CR aren't synched up. how will Wishes work between July 1 and July 11?
[11:51:52] <Anusien> It's defined in the MTR somewhere that on July 1 wishes will only get SB cards
[11:52:32] <Anusien> MTR 3.5: "Certain cards refer to “a card (or cards) you own from outside the game.” In tournament play, "a card you own from outside the game" is a card in that player’s sideboard."
[11:53:26] <JeremySm> right, but the CR still allows it until July 11. which one do we use?
[11:53:41] <Anusien> How does it allow it?
[11:53:57] <JeremySm> because there is no exiled zone until then
[11:54:04] <Anusien> So?
[11:54:17] <JeremySm> so cards that are RFGed during a game are in the RFG zone
[11:54:27] <Anusien> Was it the CR that defined outside the game?
[11:54:36] <telliott> yep
[11:54:47] <telliott> I seriously doubt it's going to impact any tournaments
[11:55:01] <JeremySm> probably not, but someone asked yesterday
[11:55:08] <Anusien> So Wishes still work until July 11?
[11:55:13] <telliott> no
[11:55:18] <JeremySm> I suppose there could conceivably be a Vintage or Legacy event that uses Burning Wish, for example
[11:55:23] <telliott> MTR goes into effect July 1
[11:55:30] <Anusien> Okay, so the MTR wins. Thanks
[11:55:37] <Lee|work> Tournament Rules > CR
[11:55:44] <Lee|work> (for tournament play)

[quicksilver]

LOL, no one cares about legacy tournaments.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I agree with Finn on the Proxy vs. Land argument. It does hurt mana denial strategies.

I think that it's a fairly minor point, however, and otherwise I think the changes are a good thing in this case (the tournament gameplay, as opposed to the game mechanics changes that is).

[Goaswerfraiejen]

Read it again mate, doesnt effect us, only post Urza's Saga, so Extended and Standard, we still have to follow the order.

Dave

Actually, if you re-read that one last time, Legacy is a format that uses cards from Urza's Saga onward--just not exclusively. The way it's currently written, this rule would affect every format.

There's a huge difference between "as long as they're playing in formats with cards from Urza's Saga and on, we no longer care" (what it currently says) and "as long as they're playing in formats that only use cards from Urza's Saga and on, we no longer care".

Obviously that was more of a typographical sort of error than anything, but confusion on that point is understandable.

[frogboy]

I agree with Finn on the Proxy vs. Land argument. It does hurt mana denial strategies.

Pretty sure getting my opponent DQ'd for cheating would be good for mana denial strategies.

[Anusien]

Actually, if you re-read that one last time, Legacy is a format that uses cards from Urza's Saga onward--just not exclusively. The way it's currently written, this rule would affect every format.

There's a huge difference between "as long as they're playing in formats with cards from Urza's Saga and on, we no longer care" (what it currently says) and "as long as they're playing in formats that only use cards from Urza's Saga and on, we no longer care".

Obviously that was more of a typographical sort of error than anything, but confusion on that point is understandable.
Intentionally causing confusion and then complaining that you're confused is about as cool as taking a hot cousin to prom.

[majikal]

Intentionally causing confusion and then complaining that you're confused is about as cool as taking a hot cousin to prom.
Question: First or second cousin?

[Banned!]

Intentionally causing confusion and then complaining that you're confused is about as cool as taking a hot cousin to prom.

Dude, all incest is wincest man...

but seriously, no one is going to be losing cards then replacing them with basics that would be mad sketch if this happened more than like once a year...whats this about Wishes being nerfed though? o.O

[Goaswerfraiejen]

Intentionally causing confusion and then complaining that you're confused is about as cool as taking a hot cousin to prom.

I'm sorry, did I miss something? I wasn't complaining, nor was I confused. I was, however, pointing out that the wording in the article was very clearly wrong.

[pi4meterftw]

Why can't they just let you replace your lost cards with useless cards? No player who lost his stuff would complain; this is much better than before. Or why not proxies of the missing cards? Cause people could actually get their cards lost (like legitly) and have it help them, and it seems unfair to the innocent bystander mana denial player. (Well, okay, mana denial players aren't innocent. Stax, weathered wayfarer I'm looking at you.)

I think a much more equitable fix is the proxy fix, but I can see how players can magically lose their cards at the beginning of the tournament to not have to buy any cards for their deck, so perhaps in light of that, the most appropriate fix is to replace the cards with cards that cannot be used.

[Finn]

I think a much more equitable fix is the proxy fix, but I can see how players can magically lose their cards at the beginning of the tournament to not have to buy any cards for their deck, so perhaps in light of that, the most appropriate fix is to replace the cards with cards that cannot be used.You still have to register with the actual cards. The replacement would happen later.

The proxy fix seems so obviously better. I don't put it past them to get things wrong. But I do expect that they can see something as clear as this. I think there must be an angle we are not seeing.

[Maveric78f]

It happens often in a tourney that a friend from whom you borrowed several cards is at 0-2 and he would like to drop and take his cards back. Replacing them by proxies would completely validate this, and then, this replacement would happen very often. That's why I'm against replacing them with proxies.

Replacing lost cards with useless cards is difficult to judge. What is a useless card? An off-colour card? A Vizzerdrix?

Replacing lost cards with nothing is obviously not possible.

Dropping looks the best way to go imho. The guy who lost his cards should be far more pissed off by the lost cards than by the tourney DQ.

[HdH_Cthulhu]

Turn dead cards into basic lands isnt only good against landdestruction decks. You just make your whole deck better!

But it only matters game 1, and it is cheating, so it would be very silly to do that...

[Malchar]

So if I'm playing 2-land belcher, can I replace my missing cards with... Mountains? Anyway, this is just another example of how Wizards refuses to allow land-destruction to be a legitimate strategy.

[pi4meterftw]

I meant make people replace with faceback cards that quite literally do nothing. There should be a punishment for losing your cards, but I think it can be less severe than a DQ... seems sensible.

Actually, I should say more accurately that losing cards is not inherently punishable to my sense, but just that it is most definitely more equitable to punish it than to do anything that could ever possibly be beneficial to the card-loser.

[Dan Turner]

I think to make it fair it should be a general card along the lines of






Generic Land

Land-Generic

Tap: Add 1 to your mana pool

A Judge may add as Many Generic Lands as Necessary to replace lost cards during a tournament.



make it produce only colorless mana

[John Rohan]

You still have to register with the actual cards. The replacement would happen later.

The proxy fix seems so obviously better. I don't put it past them to get things wrong. But I do expect that they can see something as clear as this. I think there must be an angle we are not seeing.

At every tournament I've been to, no one actually looked to see if I had the cards I claimed when I registered. I just wrote them on a sheet of paper.

So if I don't have any Tarmogoyfs and don't want to pay $100-150 dollars for a set of four, I register my deck for the tournament with 4 goyfs, and then right when the first game is about to start, I claim I lost them or they were stolen or something. That's not good.

But the other solution, replacing with lands, isn't great either since there are ways to angle that to your advantage as well. The "dead card" idea is interesting. Just shuffle in some cards that are blank on one side. If you have to make a rule for them, assume they can't be played and sit dead in your hand. If someone makes you discard them, then they are removed from the game.

[Anusien]

Because basic lands are overpowered?

[Anusien]

In order to do this, you still receive a Deck/Decklist Mismatch Infraction, which is a Warning at REL Regular and a Game Loss at REL Competitive. Also, if game 1 is decided by a Game Loss before it happens (because you lost cards), you don't sideboard for Game 2.

Also, I quote myself:

I would be impressed if you managed to lose cards while moving two feet from Top 4 to Top 2. I'd be more impressed if you managed to convince me it wasn't cheating.
If you're caught doing it, you won't have to worry about your LD matchup.

[Anusien]

This rule raised a few eyebrows from players I know who were concerned about the potential for abuse. What would happen if a player wanted to add a land to a Sealed Deck at a PTQ after realizing he should have played 18 lands? Couldn't they mark a card and get a free chance to alter their deck after the tournament had started?

"Balancing the improved customer service with the potential for abuse is one of the biggest challenges in writing tournament policy," admitted Toby. "In this case, the replacement is at the discretion of the Head Judge, and if they believe you may have done it intentionally they will investigate for Cheating."

Note the use of the capital "C". He also explained that the default would not be to give the player a land: "This is for a situation where the Head Judge believes the player has made a genuine effort to find a replacement, but has been unable to do so."

[Arctic_Slicer]

These rules make sense and are not nearly as controversial as the "other rules" changes. Sure Finn brought up a good point but as others rightly pointed out it could definitely be considered "cheating" and get you into some real trouble if it can be proven that it was intentional or it's a pattern for you.