Alright; I know there have been a bunch of people talking about checklists and "Being unable to find the card in question" or whatever stupid stuff they're worried people may use to "cheat" but these have easy solutions assuming you're not playing casual games with jerks. But I have a more serious concern...
What's to stop people from putting multiple "checklist" cards in their deck in a limited event even if they only have one copy of the Transformation Card in question? I understand that this wont be an issue for constructed or major tournaments with checked deck registration but at FNMs and the like this seems like a potentially huge problem. Is there a plan on Wizards part to address this? And if not what can be done to stop it from happening?
edit: More details
Lets say Player A opens a Ludaevic's Test Subject. They only open one but they have multiple check list cards. What's to stop them from filling out several of the checklist cards to increase their odds of drawing the Test Subject?
This is something that's always been a (theoretical) problem in more casual tournaments where there's a risk of people bringing cards to "stack" their decks however this seems to make it not only easier to do but far more tempting.
It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
If they play multiple checklist cards, ask to see each DFC individually. If they refuse, call a judge. I don't see what the problem is really.
If you don't have a judge at your LGS, you may have a problem...
The TO can (indeed, is meant to) act in a judge's stead.
This is no different, and far easier to detect, than people simply inserting extra copies of cards into their limited decks. Due diligence and asking the TO or judge to do a quick deck check if suspicions arise is all that needed.
If they play multiple checklist cards, ask to see each DFC individually. If they refuse, call a judge. I don't see what the problem is really.
If you don't have a judge at your LGS, you may have a problem...
I'm not sure what DFS stands for but are you allowed to ask to see your opponents full deck? Because I'm not sure how else you could as to see it as I'd assume they simply wouldn't play the second/third/ect checklist when they draw it.
The TO can (indeed, is meant to) act in a judge's stead.
This is no different, and far easier to detect, than people simply inserting extra copies of cards into their limited decks. Due diligence and asking the TO or judge to do a quick deck check if suspicions arise is all that needed.
I guess I'm just not clear how it's easier to detect if they simply hold onto the extra copies of the checklist rather than using them. Generally you can pick up on people stacking their decks since you notice that there are too many rares in the draft or the like.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cyme we inne frið, fram the grip of deaþ to lif inne ðis smylte land.
I'm not sure what DFS stands for but are you allowed to ask to see your opponents full deck? Because I'm not sure how else you could as to see it as I'd assume they simply wouldn't play the second/third/ect checklist when they draw it.
Would you want to cheat in such a way that if someone casts Mind Rot, you get disqualified?
Would you want to cheat in such a way that if someone casts Mind Rot, you get disqualified?
You always have the option of conceding in response. It's not necessarily a suspicious move — conceding a game you've probably lost is a good strategy to prevent your opponent from gaining valuable information about your deck.
You always have the option of conceding in response. It's not necessarily a suspicious move — conceding a game you've probably lost is a good strategy to prevent your opponent from gaining valuable information about your deck.
Except if you have your opponent at 1 life and you're going to win next turn, it looks suspicious. Also, a spectator can call a judge and disqualify you even if your opponent doesn't know.
Except if you have your opponent at 1 life and you're going to win next turn, it looks suspicious. Also, a spectator can call a judge and disqualify you even if your opponent doesn't know.
Sure, but it's exceptionally rare that something like that happens. Besides, it's probably not too hard to hide that info from a spectator, as you can keep the important part of the checklist covered up.
What's to stop people from putting multiple "checklist" cards in their deck in a limited event even if they only have one copy of the Transformation Card in question? I understand that this wont be an issue for constructed or major tournaments with checked deck registration but at FNMs and the like this seems like a potentially huge problem. Is there a plan on Wizards part to address this? And if not what can be done to stop it from happening?
edit: More details
Lets say Player A opens a Ludaevic's Test Subject. They only open one but they have multiple check list cards. What's to stop them from filling out several of the checklist cards to increase their odds of drawing the Test Subject?
This is something that's always been a (theoretical) problem in more casual tournaments where there's a risk of people bringing cards to "stack" their decks however this seems to make it not only easier to do but far more tempting.
If you don't have a judge at your LGS, you may have a problem...
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Comic Book Set
Archester: Frontier of Steam (A steampunk set!)
A Good Place to Start Designing
The TO can (indeed, is meant to) act in a judge's stead.
This is no different, and far easier to detect, than people simply inserting extra copies of cards into their limited decks. Due diligence and asking the TO or judge to do a quick deck check if suspicions arise is all that needed.
I'm not sure what DFS stands for but are you allowed to ask to see your opponents full deck? Because I'm not sure how else you could as to see it as I'd assume they simply wouldn't play the second/third/ect checklist when they draw it.
I guess I'm just not clear how it's easier to detect if they simply hold onto the extra copies of the checklist rather than using them. Generally you can pick up on people stacking their decks since you notice that there are too many rares in the draft or the like.
You always have the option of conceding in response. It's not necessarily a suspicious move — conceding a game you've probably lost is a good strategy to prevent your opponent from gaining valuable information about your deck.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
Except if you have your opponent at 1 life and you're going to win next turn, it looks suspicious. Also, a spectator can call a judge and disqualify you even if your opponent doesn't know.
Sure, but it's exceptionally rare that something like that happens. Besides, it's probably not too hard to hide that info from a spectator, as you can keep the important part of the checklist covered up.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
Sure, it takes more time. This is the price that you, the player, has to pay for Wizards wanting to spice up the game with DFCs.
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
I'd rather have cheating than 10 hour 4 round prereleases.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)