Companion mechanic & paper magic

[Fox]

So submitting an illegal deck (say 5 copies of a card) would get a game loss, and probably ejected from a tournament. What exactly happens when someone breaks deck construction rules they introduced with companion? Game loss, match loss, ejected from event?

We start out events in good faith [and with decklists] and assume everyone has no banned cards and no more than 4x of a card, just as we would assume that in game 1 a companion-user has a legal deck - and this is all well and good. This is where the comparison ends, because only a companion-user can have a legal game 1 deck and then SB into illegal.

Now most companion cheating isn’t going to be intentional; as all that it takes are a few net-deckers and an unintentional sideboarding mistake with someone else’s list. This is going to happen, so what is the fix?

Assuming the companion-user is going to declare a companion in game 2 and 3, are they supposed to:
-reveal every card they’re going to SB in?
-reveal their deck at the end of every sideboard game [with different SB cards]?

This seems like we’re opening the door to wasting tournament time with this mechanic (either with judge calls or deck reveals), but I also don’t see how we get around it. The companion stuff in a postboard game seems a lot like morph - a mechanic you need to reveal at the end of the game. Morphs at least correspond to 1x face-down card, but companion is 60 face down cards, so...???

[FTW]

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/ikoria-lair-behemoths-mechanics-2020-04-02



Your companion's deckbuilding rule applies only to your starting deck, which is the deck you begin play with each game. It won't consider any cards in your sideboard, so those cards don't have to follow the deck-building rule.


My understanding is this means that G2/G3 your deck can violate the companion requirement. They probably did that to avoid the time-wasting. Checking deck legality at each step is too much work.

If not, then you could still check the 14 "face down" non-Companion sideboard cards than the 60 cards in the deck. However that would reveal a lot of information about their sideboard strategy for Game 3.

[H]

My understanding is this means that G2/G3 your deck can violate the companion requirement. They probably did that to avoid the time-wasting. Checking deck legality at each step is too much work.

If not, then you could still check the 14 "face down" non-Companion sideboard cards than the 60 cards in the deck. However that would reveal a lot of information about their sideboard strategy for Game 3.

I don't really agree with that reading, because "starting deck" is explicitly stated to apply to "each game."

I think the answer is that if you use it as a Companion in any game, your maindeck of that given game needs to conform, or it will be a rules violation. How easy will it be to catch? Hard to say, how easy is it to catch if someone is running 5 Brainstorms?

[FTW]

It's not even that easy to catch if someone casts 2 or 3 Explores

I guess cheating is inevitable. You have to hope they don't. Most players don't maliciously cheat.

The risk here is it could be accidental. You could board in a Karn, the Great Creator target like Ensnaring Bridge or Grafdigger's Cage by accident even though they don't have activated abilities (Zirda deck). But doing so doesn't confer any competitive advantage. If you cast it, it's revealed and you get a violation. If you don't cast it, you just put a dead card in your deck and the effect is harmless.

[H]

It's not even that easy to catch if someone casts 2 or 3 Explores

I guess cheating is inevitable. You have to hope they don't. Most players don't maliciously cheat.

The risk here is it could be accidental. You could board in a Karn, the Great Creator target like Ensnaring Bridge or Grafdigger's Cage by accident even though they don't have activated abilities (Zirda deck). But doing so doesn't confer any competitive advantage. If you cast it, it's revealed and you get a violation. If you don't cast it, you just put a dead card in your deck and the effect is harmless.

Yeah, I agree. If you are cheating, you aren't really getting any advantage, because if you actually use the card that is violating the Companion clause, you are just going to lose on the spot. I guess you can take advantage of a completely ignorant opponent, but there are a million ways to do that already so this seems like real small potatoes.

I mean, I think this mechanic is gimmicky and stupid, but I don't really see much of a rules enforcement problem. In paper, there is already things you are going to have to rely on the honor system for, this just happens to be one more. The advantage here is that it is actually relatively easy to catch, where a 5th copy of something is much harder.

Now, it might add a few games where someone might bumbilingly get themselves a game loss, but I really doubt it will be any sort of widespread or serious issue. If my opponent wants to put bricks in their deck that if they every reveal they lose on the spot, just to get a free durtle creature, well, sure, you got me. They literally get no advantage though, since the violating cards can't ever be revealed or played. Sure, if it doesn't get caught they still violated the rules, but only to their own disadvantage, really.

[FTW]

Sure, if it doesn't get caught they still violated the rules, but only to their own disadvantage, really.

This is the big one. Technically any player could replace the sleeved Force of Wills in their deck with the Jack of Spades. No one would know if the card never gets revealed. It's a rules violation, but it's to their own disadvantage and has no relevant impact on the game state, so who cares?

[Fox]

This is the big one. Technically any player could replace the sleeved Force of Wills in their deck with the Jack of Spades. No one would know if the card never gets revealed. It's a rules violation, but it's to their own disadvantage and has no relevant impact on the game state, so who cares?
It‘s one thing to have the rules of the game and the idea that everyone follows the rules, but there are cards which can be played which allow one player to operate “in the dark“ until the conclusion of the game, at which point they must reveal hidden mechanics to verify their legitimacy. The best example of this is the morph mechanic: the opponent is told to trust that the card can be cast face-down, and at the end of the game the face-down card is revealed.

Decklists provide proof of maindeck companion legitimacy, but does not extend to cover games 2/3‘s sideboarding. The opponent is still owed proof of hidden rules compliance at the conclusion of these games, just as with morph.

This companion stuff can‘t be compared to playing 5 copies of a card, nor can it be compared to playing with an illegal proxy. There is no check on an illegal postboard companion deck, as only the companion-user can recognize illegality (unless the card leaves a hidden zone). More importantly, the opponent is completely reliant on the companion-user to call the judge on themselves as long as the rule break stays in a hidden zone (hand/library).

Seems like a bad idea if player A draws a companion-illegal card, and can go through an entire postboard game, while player B has no way to know that player A is sitting on a game loss-level infraction.

It‘s also not the most healthy use of tournament time when you cast a Surgical against companion-user, exiling some cards and checking their SB-ing strategy and then asking opponent for their companion and then really scrutinizing their deck and hand for a game loss.

[H]

It‘s one thing to have the rules of the game and the idea that everyone follows the rules, but there are cards which can be played which allow one player to operate “in the dark“ until the conclusion of the game, at which point they must reveal hidden mechanics to verify their legitimacy. The best example of this is the morph mechanic: the opponent is told to trust that the card can be cast face-down, and at the end of the game the face-down card is revealed.

You want to compare Morph and the state of a deck upon presentation? In the case of a Morph, the card is no longer in a hidden zone, in the case of the deck list, it is. That is a fairly big difference. So, of course, if you play something as a Morph outside it being something with that ability, that is a clear rules violation, because the card is in a public zone.

So, while your deck might harbor any sort of rules violations in the hidden zone, you might be playing 5-of's, you might have Black Lotus in your Legacy deck, and so on, rules enforcement only happens either on a random deck check, or when that information moves to the public zone. Nothing new here at all, really.


Decklists provide proof of maindeck companion legitimacy, but does not extend to cover games 2/3‘s sideboarding. The opponent is still owed proof of hidden rules compliance at the conclusion of these games, just as with morph.

This companion stuff can‘t be compared to playing 5 copies of a card, nor can it be compared to playing with an illegal proxy. There is no check on an illegal postboard companion deck, as only the companion-user can recognize illegality (unless the card leaves a hidden zone). More importantly, the opponent is completely reliant on the companion-user to call the judge on themselves as long as the rule break stays in a hidden zone (hand/library).

Seems like a bad idea if player A draws a companion-illegal card, and can go through an entire postboard game, while player B has no way to know that player A is sitting on a game loss-level infraction.

It‘s also not the most healthy use of tournament time when you cast a Surgical against companion-user, exiling some cards and checking their SB-ing strategy and then asking opponent for their companion and then really scrutinizing their deck and hand for a game loss.

So you get a decklist every time you play someone? No, the decklist is not proof of game 1 Companion rules compliance, nor game 2 or 3. It is very difficult for me to follow your line of argumentation here, because nothing you state really follows from anything else. I can put anything on a decklist and submit it, that doesn't mean it is in my actual deck when I play. So, you say that 5 copes of a card can't be compared with Companion, but nothing you say actually is evidence of this being the case.

Meanwhile, a decklist does nothing to prove I don't have 5 copies of any card in my deck. In the same way a decklist will do nothing to prove that my deck is Companion compliant. The thing is though, as I pointed out, in the case of Companion, is it vastly easier to tell when someone is in violation of Companion than when they might have extra copies of a card in their deck. This is because, once the opponent knows of the Companion restriction, the player in violation is at pains to not reveal the violating status, or lose immediately. So, what advantage do they have for breaking the rules? Every card in violation basically says "reveal this card and any time to lose the game." Meanwhile, copy 5 of Brainstorm only says "as long as you haven't reveal 4 of these already, you are in business."

So, I take it back, you are right, there is little comparison between running 5 of a card and Companion. Running 5 of a card is vastly worse, requires far more "trust" and is ripe for people to cheat with because it provides benefit at relative little risk of being caught. What should we do about that? Companion on the other hand, is much easier to police, much easier to enforce and confers no benefit whatsoever on the violator. So, which is really a problem?

Honestly, Companion is stupid and uninspired mechanic. However, it isn't a rules problem at all as far as I can see.

[FTW]

This companion stuff can‘t be compared to ... playing with an illegal proxy. There is no check on an illegal postboard companion deck, as only the companion-user can recognize illegality (unless the card leaves a hidden zone). More importantly, the opponent is completely reliant on the companion-user to call the judge on themselves as long as the rule break stays in a hidden zone (hand/library).

It can completely be compared to an illegal proxy. Both are in hidden zones. There is no check on the postboard deck to see if I boarded in the Jack of Spades using sleight of hand. If I never cast or reveal the Jack, it could stay in my hand or library forever unrevealed and the opponent would never know.

Under this situation:
1) My deck is illegal
2) The illegality remains in hidden information
3) There is currently no check for it (i.e. opponent doesn't look through deck to see if I have the Jack of Spades, or Pokemon cards)

The same as with the postboard companion deck.

However in both cases the illegal deck never results in any competitive advantage. I can't ever cast or use the Jack of Spades. I've inserted a dead card into my deck that I can never use, making my deck worse. There's also a risk this illegal card accidentally enters a revealed zone (Thoughtseize, Surgical Extraction), leading to a loss.

So.. who really cares if I have the Jack of Spades? It could already happen and isn't a problem. Is it necessary to police this type of cheating?

The same applies for the postboard companion deck. The cards that make the deck illegal can never be used, and there's a risk they enter a revealed zone leading to a loss. Boarding in the illegal card is equivalent to board in the Jack. It's technically "illegal", but it's a dead slot that can't be used or revealed.

[Fox]

The comparison we should be making exists somewhere between hidden information and deck registration errors. There‘s no check on this [in a hidden zone] except for the player who errs to notice it and call themselves out on it.

How is it okay that we‘re handing out deck registration error losses, but meanwhile companion-users get up to two extra opportunities per round to make deck reg errors and no apparatus in place to punish that? Neither of these errors are done to any benefit, they seem pretty equivalent, and thus they seem like they‘re both punishable by game loss.

You‘ll never get to a top8 with an unpenalized deck reg error; but you apparently get ample freebees on companion SB games since the closest you‘ll come to getting policed is by Surgical or discard??? Like, are we gonna start doing deck checks at random intervals (during matches, between game 1 and 2 or 2 and 3)?

Doesn‘t make much sense to have game loss violations without any realistic way to police them. This is where you have to start comparing this to morph for enforcement purposes. After that game 1 there‘s no tournament apparatus to diagnose a postboard companion deck reg loss; so like morph you should be proving you did not commit a game-losing infraction by reveal to opponent.

[H]

I don't understand your incredulity here.

The fact of the matter is that in committing the Companion deckbuilding violation, you have pretty much only kneecapped yourself. Since the offending card(s) can only be used at the penalty of a game loss, what have you gained? Now, you could try to make the case that you get an "advantage" of having the Companion when the deck is illegal, but that really is no help, since you just run the risk of "accidentally" getting yourself a game loss if an offending card gets revealed.

Sure, it does mean you can have more "potential options" and selectively reveal the Companion only in games where you figure you won't need those other options, but does that really make for a usable advantage? Hard to believe it is.

What FTW and I are trying to say is that the comparison between playing 5-of and Companion violation are about the same. No one reveals their deck to show they are 4-of compliant and that is far more advantageous to break than the Companion rule. The analogy to Morph isn't really apt, because a Morph card enters the public zone. So, while the game might end, the card is still in the public zone and so is revealed.

Sure, there is some weird edge cases where you could reveal a Companion, having an illegal deck, then win having never drawn or revealed an illegal card. In that case though, what advantage have you gained? You risked a game loss, drawing dead cards and possible disqualification, all for what exactly? Potentially having more options if you guess which matchup you might need them in?

This is corner-case, edge-lord territory that, while it might be possible to do, hardly seems like an real rules, or rule enforcement problem. Could you gain a minor advantage at the cost of fairly large risk? Sure. Again, there is no systematic way to enforce the 4-of rule and there is no systematic way to enforce the Companion rule, besides what is already "on the books." Hardly seems like a big deal, or any deal at all, to me.

In the end, there are so many ways to cheat in paper Magic, this hardly seems like a noteworthy one, even if it is a "new" one.

[FTW]

How is it okay that we‘re handing out deck registration error losses, but meanwhile companion-users get up to two extra opportunities per round to make deck reg errors and no apparatus in place to punish that?

How is OK that people sneakily boarding in the Jack of Spades get up to 2 opportunities per round to make deck reg errors and no apparatus in place to punish that?

I don't mean using the Jack as a proxy. I mean using non-Magic cards, with text "if you control an Ace, you can proclaim Blackjack". You could also have Yu-gi-oh cards or Pokemon cards. There's no apparatus in place to punish those forms of cheating either, even though you are playing with an illegal deck. If the cards are never revealed no one ever knows. This form of deck registration error is already possible, with no apparatus to check for it!

But the question is... who cares? Like H said, these are Edgelord cases that have no benefit. There's also a random risk of game loss if the illegal card is ever revealed. So why do we need to add a new apparatus to check for this form for cheating? Not all things that technically constitute cheating are worth policing.

Other, less Edgelordy examples that already happen in real games: someone shuffles in a sleeved up 1/1 Goblin token G2 after winning with Empty the Warrens. This is an illegal deck to present, but if the token is never revealed no one will ever know. Or you could forget to de-sideboard before the next round. Or you draw 3/3 Elk in your opening hand and hope they don't Thoughtseize you.

[BirdsOfParadise]

I only have a burden to prove to you I'm not playing in an illegal manner using method XYZ if it is possible for me to gain an advantage over you by doing XYZ. If doing XYZ is illegal but it can only ever hurt me, you can punish me for the illegality if you notice me doing XYZ, but you don't need to heighten security against XYZ.

If I secretly board in Ensnaring Bridge for G2 and then, before G2 begins, declare that Zirda will be my companion, I have behaved illegally, but it is impossible for me to gain an advantage over you in this way.

Either Ensnaring Bridge will be irrelevant (neither of us ever sees it or I see it but it never enters a zone you can see) or it will be relevant (it enters a zone you can see) and I lose. I'm liable to be punished for the very illegality of my behavior if by chance it's detected, but you don't need to worry about being cheated by me. To me the Jack of Spades comparison makes sense. Why worry about the person who boards in a Jack of Spades? You'd be lucky to play against them. Why worry about the person who boards in Ensnaring Bridge and then declares Zirda as their companion? You'd be equally lucky to play against them. No heightening of security needed.

As H pointed out, you should be more worried about the person who maindecks 5 Brainstorms, or maindecks 4 and keeps another up their sleeve.

Edit: Deck registration errors CAN be used to gain an unfair advantage. I could have a friend scouting the tournament and I could be tuning my deck as I go. It's absolutely more important to actively police whether people are playing their registered lists.

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

So submitting an illegal deck (say 5 copies of a card) would get a game loss, and probably ejected from a tournament. What exactly happens when someone breaks deck construction rules they introduced with companion? Game loss, match loss, ejected from event?
It's actually quite simple because the rules on this already exist and we don't need to complicate it.
IPG 2.5 Game Play Error -- Game Rule Violation: The penalty is a warning.
If you reveal a companion, and then several turns later also reveal you didn't meet the requirements for that companion the only rule you broke was the companion rule. It's not like you registered an illegal deck (Because we know you can "turn off" companions), or the deck you shuffled up with wasn't the one you registered (because there isn't going to be a slot on a deck reg form for the companion), you had a card with printed text on it and what you did violated that text.

[Megadeus]

It's actually quite simple because the rules on this already exist and we don't need to complicate it.
IPG 2.5 Game Play Error -- Game Rule Violation: The penalty is a warning.
If you reveal a companion, and then several turns later also reveal you didn't meet the requirements for that companion the only rule you broke was the companion rule. It's not like you registered an illegal deck (Because we know you can "turn off" companions), or the deck you shuffled up with wasn't the one you registered (because there isn't going to be a slot on a deck reg form for the companion), you had a card with printed text on it and what you did violated that text.

What if a player has cast and used their companion multiple times that game and then after that plays a card to show that their deck is illegal? Is that then a game loss?

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

What if a player has cast and used their companion multiple times that game and then after that plays a card to show that their deck is illegal? Is that then a game loss?
But only the initial casting is illegal. For example, if you cast bedlam reveller for 3 when it should have been 5 and then 5 turns later after attacking and blocking a bunch of times you didn't illegally block or attack, what you did was cast a spell you shouldn't have.
That's not a game loss that's a warning, read the ipg.
Now you can argue that they broke it intentionally, but we already have rules for intentionally breaking the rules and that's covered under "unsportsmanlike conduct, cheating"which is a dq

[kombatkiwi]

It's actually quite simple because the rules on this already exist and we don't need to complicate it.
IPG 2.5 Game Play Error -- Game Rule Violation: The penalty is a warning.
If you reveal a companion, and then several turns later also reveal you didn't meet the requirements for that companion the only rule you broke was the companion rule. It's not like you registered an illegal deck (Because we know you can "turn off" companions), or the deck you shuffled up with wasn't the one you registered (because there isn't going to be a slot on a deck reg form for the companion), you had a card with printed text on it and what you did violated that text.

Based on the philosophy of the penalty document I expect this will still be considered a Deck Problem rather than a GRV, otherwise it seems too abuseable

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

Based on the philosophy of the penalty document I expect this will still be considered a Deck Problem rather than a GRV, otherwise it seems too abuseable

But it's not a deck problem. The deck is legal.

[Megadeus]

If someone gets to cast a free companion and then later on in the game their deck proves to be illegal it should absolutely be a game loss. That's akin to drawing extra cards or something. I'm not sure what the ruling would be, but anything less than a game loss is a slap in the face to the opponent

[FTW]

Yeah this seems like clear Game Loss territory if you ever cast the illegal card.

If they do board it in by accident (e.g. because they netdecked and don't understand the deck, or they just forgot), the deck is illegal but they can never use the card anyway so it has no benefit. If they draw it and realize their mistake, they have to hide it and never cast it. They've boarded in something functionally equivalent to a Pokemon Card that reads "if this card is revealed, you lose the game". Do we really need any extra tournament procedures to police this violation?

If you see your opponent cast an illegal card after they cast the companion, just call a judge and report it. If it never came out in the game, who cares. It made their deck worse anyway.

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

If someone gets to cast a free companion and then later on in the game their deck proves to be illegal it should absolutely be a game loss. That's akin to drawing extra cards or something. I'm not sure what the ruling would be, but anything less than a game loss is a slap in the face to the opponent
Drawing extra cards isn't a game loss tho. This is covered under IPG 2.3 Game Play Error -- Hidden Card Error, and the penalty is a warning.

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

Yeah this seems like clear Game Loss territory if you ever cast the illegal card. But it's not. If you cast any other card illegally it's not a game loss.


If they do board it in by accident (e.g. because they netdecked and don't understand the deck, or they just forgot), the deck is illegal but they can never use the card anyway so it has no benefit. If they draw it and realize their mistake, they have to hide it and never cast it. They've boarded in something functionally equivalent to a Pokemon Card that reads "if this card is revealed, you lose the game". Do we really need any extra tournament procedures to police this violation?
The deck is legal tho. A deck with Obosh (odds only companion) in the sideboard can have even CMC cards in it. What it can't do is use the companion ability. What you're suggesting is that people hide the fact that they've broken game rules and we don't want that. We should instead encourage players to do the right thing and call the judge, get their warning, and move on with the game. Like lets say you accidentally board something in that should preclude your companion, and you never use it, but you still win the game because of your companion. That's not "who cares" territory, that's very clear "You should be DQ'd for being a cheat" territory.

[Megadeus]

If my opponent casts a lurrus in game 2 and I kill it and then they later delve for a gurmag or something that they boarded in and I die to it I absolutely am expecting my opponent to get a game loss.

[PirateKing]

The deck is legal tho. A deck with Obosh (odds only companion) in the sideboard can have even CMC cards in it. What it can't do is use the companion ability.

702.138a Companion is a keyword ability that functions outside the game. It’s written as “Companion—[Condition].” Before the game begins, you may reveal one card you own from outside the game with a companion ability whose condition is fulfilled by your starting deck. (See rule 103.1b.) If you do, once during that game, you may play that card from outside the game.

I agree with your sentiment, but unfortunately you "use" the Companion ability as you start the game. If you announce you have Obosh at the beginning of the game, you are also announcing your deck has only odd CMCs.
Announcing Lurrus and then oopsie drawing Gurmag is an equal GRV if you cast it or not, or cast Lurrus or not. There's no room to "gotcha" your opponent by feigning a companion and playing something else. It's potential for messy plays, but I agree with others that it serves to only be a negative to those misusing the ability, I can no incentive to misleading your opponent. There is no next-level to this line of thinking.

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

702.138a Companion is a keyword ability that functions outside the game. It’s written as “Companion—[Condition].” Before the game begins, you may reveal one card you own from outside the game with a companion ability whose condition is fulfilled by your starting deck. (See rule 103.1b.) If you do, once during that game, you may play that card from outside the game.

I agree with your sentiment, but unfortunately you "use" the Companion ability as you start the game. If you announce you have Obosh at the beginning of the game, you are also announcing your deck has only odd CMCs.
Announcing Lurrus and then oopsie drawing Gurmag is an equal GRV if you cast it or not, or cast Lurrus or not. There's no room to "gotcha" your opponent by feigning a companion and playing something else. It's potential for messy plays, but I agree with others that it serves to only be a negative to those misusing the ability, I can no incentive to misleading your opponent. There is no next-level to this line of thinking.

What are you trying to say because I agree with the bolded part? I even cited it, IPG 2.5.

[PirateKing]

What are you trying to say because I agree with the bolded part? I even cited it, IPG 2.5.

I guess two points

1) There is no way to use the companion ability incorrectly that is not in violation of the IPG. Some people have implied it's only a problem if you cast a companion first, then demonstrate deck building violations after, but some how if you cast Gurmag first then say "Oops, I forgot I sided him in, guess I can't cast Lurrus now" that that is somehow less a violation. Both are violations. The companion ability starts at the beginning of the game, not when you decide to cast the creature.

2) There is nothing to gain from cheating this. Other deck building restrictions are much more beneficial. Playing 5 Force of Wills will give you a noticeable advantage unless you're caught. But since you have to announce your companion on Turn 0, 100% of the cards you play are able to be checked against the companion. Showing up with Pokemon cards sleeved up is much risk/zero reward. So the whole exercise is moot. Why bother?

Also none of these points are meant to confront you specifically, your comment about how having Obosh in your sideboard is a legal deck is technically accurate (the best kind) but betrays the deeper argument:
Obosh in you sideboard with even costs in your deck is legal
Obosh in you sideboard with even costs in your deck and you announce him on T0 is not

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

I guess two points

1) There is no way to use the companion ability incorrectly that is not in violation of the IPG. Some people have implied it's only a problem if you cast a companion first, then demonstrate deck building violations after, but some how if you cast Gurmag first then say "Oops, I forgot I sided him in, guess I can't cast Lurrus now" that that is somehow less a violation. Both are violations. The companion ability starts at the beginning of the game, not when you decide to cast the creature.

2) There is nothing to gain from cheating this. Other deck building restrictions are much more beneficial. Playing 5 Force of Wills will give you a noticeable advantage unless you're caught. But since you have to announce your companion on Turn 0, 100% of the cards you play are able to be checked against the companion. Showing up with Pokemon cards sleeved up is much risk/zero reward. So the whole exercise is moot. Why bother?

1 is correct but 2 isn't. Think of it as high stakes chalice checking. :D


Also none of these points are meant to confront you specifically, your comment about how having Obosh in your sideboard is a legal deck is technically accurate (the best kind) but betrays the deeper argument:
Obosh in you sideboard with even costs in your deck is legal
Obosh in you sideboard with even costs in your deck and you announce him on T0 is not
The reason why I'm being technically correct is because people are asking and arguing about what penalty to asses when they do do the later. We agree it's wrong and something should happen but specifically what is a matter for identifying the exact violation comitted, and identifying exactly the penalty associated with it. The two scenarios you described describe the difference between a deck problem and a game rule violation. The deck problem has the potential to upgrade, where as the game rule violation does not. Also being technically correct matters because we know that doing it intentionally is cheating, which is punished by a DQ.
So it matters because the outcomes are different.