Dredging too many cards

[Echelon]

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.

[Dice_Box]

It's counted as seeing extra cards and normally treated as such.

[Sloshthedark]

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?

[cdr]

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.

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.


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.

This is how Alex Bertoncinis are created.

[cdr]

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?

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.)

[Ace/Homebrew]

This is how Alex Bertoncinis are created.
I heard Alex Bertoncinis are created when a mama Bertoncini falls in love with a papa Bertoncini. Then 9 months later a stork drops him off and they never teach him right from wrong. :laugh:

[iamajellydonut]

I heard Alex Bertoncinis are created when a mama Bertoncini falls in love with a papa Bertoncini. Then 9 months later a stork drops him off and they never teach him right from wrong.

A classic case of parents putting too much responsibility on the stork. Everyone knows storks can't be relied on for education.

[Tammit67]

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.)

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/files/attachements/mtg_ipg_02oct15_en.pdf

[jrsthethird]

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.

[Tammit67]

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.

I mean... no? The dig through time example was previously LEC but is not DEC. We aren't flipping over an extra card. We are picking up an extra card. And I'm not inclined to have the players remember the order, since you can dredge in any order.

It's still a warning

[cdr]

I mean... no? The dig through time example was previously LEC but is not DEC. We aren't flipping over an extra card. We are picking up an extra card. And I'm not inclined to have the players remember the order, since you can dredge in any order.

It's still a warning

Toby specifically noted in his blog post (http://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2015/10/14/tweaking-the-new-dec-rules/) about the IPG update that the new DEC rule is not intended to cover milling (dredge).


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.

Rather, DEC covers "unordered cards that the the player can see, but the opponent can not". So dredging too many is LEC.

[Tammit67]

Toby specifically noted in his blog post (http://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2015/10/14/tweaking-the-new-dec-rules/) 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.

Ok, thanks!

[cdr]

Ok, thanks!

Yeah, it's an easy mistake to make with the original wording. And I'm not sure the updated version is on the Document Center yet either.

[Echelon]

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.

The REL was competitive. It may not necessarily have been possible to identify what card he dredged last. He dredged them three at a time and kept his graveyard pretty sloppy. Which was fine by me b/c he buried 2 of his Bridges under all kinds of other stuff.

[jrsthethird]

I mean... no? The dig through time example was previously LEC but is not DEC. We aren't flipping over an extra card. We are picking up an extra card. And I'm not inclined to have the players remember the order, since you can dredge in any order.

It's still a warning


The REL was competitive. It may not necessarily have been possible to identify what card he dredged last. He dredged them three at a time and kept his graveyard pretty sloppy. Which was fine by me b/c he buried 2 of his Bridges under all kinds of other stuff.

Then if it's impossible to discern which was the sixth dredged card, then we would handle it more like DEC and let the opponent choose?

[cdr]

The REL was competitive. It may not necessarily have been possible to identify what card he dredged last. He dredged them three at a time and kept his graveyard pretty sloppy. Which was fine by me b/c he buried 2 of his Bridges under all kinds of other stuff.

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.

[cdr]

Then if it's impossible to discern which was the sixth dredged card, then we would handle it more like DEC and let the opponent choose?

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.

[Parcher]

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.