So, most seem to agree that Augur of Bolas is no longer well positioned. Now the question is, what do we do about it?
The first solution is to replace it with more of the type of spells we would have wanted to draw off it.
So the next solution is to replace the Augurs with more card-draw.
Thoughts?
Well, the solution really comes down to figuring out what you need that spot to do. If you're just needing a better speed bump, then a more resilient creature is probably the best option. For me, aggro is less prevalent in my format, so if I took out Augur, it'd be for another draw spell. Though, I play Sorin, LoI, so Augur can end up being a beat-stick for me, and even if he only blocks once in an aggro match-up, that's usually enough.
Figure out where you're weakest, and use the Augur's spot to fill that gap. What match-ups do you have problems with, and what are the worst aspects of that match-up? -Jack
Game one was very drawn out. There was a lot of each of us just casting draw spells EOT. I didn't realize what the deck was at first and shocked myself with my lands a few times, so I had to play carefully whenever he got a Reckoner down. He used Harvest Pyre and Blasphemous Act a few times, but Far//Away really shined here. Either he had no other creatures, and I just made him sacrifice it, or I bounced it, nullifying any meaningful play on his part. After many turns of using Drownyard, he had lethal on the board, but a Revelation into Jace finished the game.
I don't remember what I sided out, but I brought in the two Negates and two Dissipates.
Game two was much less exciting. I had counters or removal at all the right times, and he drew a lot of lands.
1-0
I can't remember what I played against round 2 (really should have written this up sooner), but I won 2-0.
2-0
Round 3 vs. Junk Reanimator
Game one goes very smoothly, me countering anything really relevant, slowly pushing through damage with Lingering Souls and Sorin.
Game two, I brought in 2 Detention Sphere, 2 Negate, and 2 Dissipate. I keep a questionable hand, which then gets ripped apart by turns two and three Sin Collectors. He gets my Revelation and Verdict, and starts attacking. I amazingly stabilized at 5 life, with Lingering Souls and Sorin providing great defense and some life gain. He eventually runs out of steam, and I win through a horde of tokens.
This match definitely told me I want some form of graveyard hate. I like Crypt Incursion, and will probably try it.
3-0
Round 4 vs. R/W Sort of Aggro
His deck was kind of aggro, with Lightning Mauler, Thalia, and Silverblade Paladin, but didn't come crazy out the gates like most R/W decks.
Game one we both mull to six. I keep Drowned Catacomb, Drownyard, Azorius Charm, 2 Devour Flesh, and something else. Not great, but I didn't want to go to five, no matter what I was playing against. He plays Thalia turn two, and I don't draw lands in my first two draws, so I assume I'm going to lose. He plays a Silverblade Paladin, bonds with Thalia, and puts me to 16. I draw a land, and am able to get rid of two of his creatures with the Devours, but he is playing more creatures, too. In this game, he got me to two, but Far//Away worked AMAZINGLY, along with Azorius Charm, to stymie most of the damage I would have taken. I'm eventually able to climb back up in health with Sorin's tokens, and finally take the game.
I side in the two Terminus and two Tragic Slip. However, in game two, I play some check-lands while he does nothing until a turn 3 Lightning Mauler, un-bonded. I was very easily able to keep complete control over the situation for the whole game, and won with no problem.
//
I'm missing some of the duals, that's why the land-base is kind of crap. I also want to play Superboy next week. Liliana wasn't all that great the few times I played her, so she's being relegated to the sideboard for the control mirror. I'll figure out something else to cut for another Superboy. Dramatic Rescue wasn't the best tonight, but I didn't play any fast aggro, so it didn't really get a chance to shine. Hopefully next week I will see just how good it can be. Any suggestions? -Jack
We don't issue penalties just because you messed up, we also do it as a deterrent to others, and what deterrent is there if players can just claim "well, isn't a basic land penalty enough?" Take the game loss like a champ, learn from it, and move on.
While it is a good precedent to other players to enforce the rules as written, there is the stipulation that if it's an accident, a game loss should not be given. This is where the hard part of being a judge comes in; an investigation. Judges should be trained to some extent to figure out when a player is lying, and especially at a smaller event at a local store, the TO/judge will probably know the players well enough to determine if it was an accident or not.
Again, it's good to have a precedent to avoid cheating, but at the same time, you don't want to scare players away from having fun. If players think they will get a game loss for something accidental, they may be more careful, but they may also just be afraid to play at the store. Part of being a judge is fostering a fun environment and protecting the integrity of the tournament. By the situation described, and if an investigation did not prove otherwise, I see no reason to issue a game loss. -Jack
3.9. Tournament Error — Deck/Decklist Problem
Definition
A player commits one or more of the following errors involving their deck:
• The deck and/or decklist contain an illegal number of cards for the format.
• The deck and/or decklist contain one or more cards that are illegal for the format.
• A card listed on a decklist is not identified by its full name, and could be interpreted as more than one card.
Truncated names of storyline characters (legendary permanents and Planeswalkers) are acceptable as long
as they are the only representation of that character in the format and should be treated as referring to that
card, even if other cards begin with the same name.
• The contents of the presented deck and sideboard do not match the decklist registered.
Sideboards are considered to be a part of the deck for the purpose of this infraction. If sideboard cards are lost, make
a note of this, but issue no penalty.
This infraction does not cover errors in registration made by another participant prior to a sealed pool swap, which
should be corrected at the discretion of the judge.
Examples
A. A player has 59 cards in her deck, but 60 listed on the decklist.
B. A player in a Legacy tournament lists Mana Drain (a banned card) on his decklist.
C. A player has a 56-card decklist. His actual deck contains 60 cards, with four Psychatogs not listed.
D. A player has a Pacifism in his deck from a previous opponent.
E. A player lists ‘Ajani’ in a format with both Ajani Goldmane and Ajani Vengeant
F. A player looking at her sideboard during a game fails to keep it clearly separate from her deck.
Philosophy
Decklists are used to ensure that decks are not altered in the course of a tournament. Judges and other tournament
officials should be vigilant about reminding players before the tournament begins of the importance of submitting a
legal decklist, and playing with a legal deck.
In large events, the DCI recommends that tournament officials verify the legality of all lists as soon as possible, but
the Head Judge should wait until the start of the next round to issue all decklist penalties unless there is reason to
believe the deck itself is illegal. This minimizes the disruption to the game currently being played and provides
consistency in case some players have finished playing their match before the penalty can be administered.
Ambiguous or unclear names on a decklist may allow a player to manipulate the contents of his or her deck up until
the point at which they are discovered. Use of a truncated name that is not unique may be downgraded to a Warning
at the Head Judge’s discretion if he or she believes that the intended card is obvious and the potential for abuse
minimal. When determining if a name is ambiguous, judges may take into account the format being played.
If the sideboard is not kept sufficiently separate from the deck during play, it becomes impossible to determine the
legality of the deck. Additionally, if there are extra cards stored with the sideboard that could conceivably be played
in the player’s deck, they will be considered a part of the sideboard unless they are:
• Promotional cards that have been handed out as part of the tournament.
• Double-faced cards represented by checklist cards in the deck.
• Double-faced cards being used to represent the ‘night’ side of cards in the deck.
Penalty
Game Loss17
These cards must not be sleeved in the same way as cards in the main deck and/or sideboard.
Additional Remedy
Remove any cards from the deck that are illegal for the format or violate the maximum number allowed, fix any
failures to de-sideboard, restore any missing cards if they (or identical replacements) can be located, then alter the
decklist to reflect the remaining deck. If the remaining deck has too few cards, add basic lands of the player’s choice
to reach the minimum number. If the deck and decklist both violate a maximum cards restriction (usually too many
cards in a sideboard or more than four of a card), remove cards starting from the bottom of the appropriate section of
the list.
If the player, upon drawing an opening hand, discovers a deck problem and calls a judge at that point, the Head
Judge may downgrade the penalty, fix the deck, and allow the player to redraw the hand with one fewer card. The
player may continue to take further mulligans if he or she desires.
My first thought was that, yes, this is a deck/decklist error, for which the penalty is a game loss. However, reading over it, I came across this:
Quote from IPG »
Sideboards are considered to be a part of the deck for the purpose of this infraction. If sideboard cards are lost, make a note of this, but issue no penalty.
From this, it is pretty straight forward that no, a game loss should not have been issued here. Unfortunately, looking through the IPG, I can't find the remedy for this situation.
If the owner was able to determine that the card was yours between rounds, I see no reason for him not to return the card to you. Also, if you had realized you were short a card in your board, yes, you should call a judge immediately and inform them of the situation.
Like I said, a game loss was the wrong penalty. But I don't see a precedent for how to fix the situation. Does anyone know the precedent or remedy here? -Jack
If I play a creature using Karador, would I also be able to cast another creature out of my yard another way, like Haakon, Stromgald Scourge? In other words, does Karador limit me to only playing one creature from my yard a turn, or is it just one through his ability? -Jack
He tried to cast the spell with an illegal target, thus the entire casting of the spell was an illegal action. Back up to before he cast the spell. -Jack
No. You're discarding the Smiter as part of a cost, which is not considered a spell or ability an opponent controls. Also, I'm fairly certain that since you activated the ability, you control it. -Jack
I'm confused. You literally just referenced the rules quote that proves him wrong.
You and me both.
That's a ruling straight from the Gatherer entry for Travel Preparations. How is he not willing to accept an official ruling like that? Here's the relevant Comprehensive Rules quote, just to pile it on:
Yes, the piling is what I was figuring I'd have to do, so hopefully this will help.
That should do it. Going one step further, Seeds of Strength is an example of a card where you can target the same creature multiple times (three, in fact), since there are multiple instances of the word "target" in its text.
I'll definitely use this as an example of what he would need to do what he thinks he's doing. Thank you. I knew I was right, and tried to argue this to him, but he IS a very experienced player, and I could tell he wasn't going to budge on this one. It was a casual game, so I just gave up on it for the time being. Hopefully this will change his mind. Thanks, everyone. -Jack
I know in the card rulings it says you can't target the same creature twice to put two +1/+1 counters on it. However, the proprietor of my local gaming venue thinks you can target one creature and put the two counters on it. I argued that it says put A +1/+1 counter on UP TO two target creatures, so no matter how many are targeted, they only get one apiece. I just need some confirmation on this so I can put it to rest. If there's any relevant rules quotes, you can throw them out there, too. -Jack
The enchantment will replace the destruction, but if there are multiple, only one will be able to replace the destruction, so you only lose one (of your choice). Once the destruction has been replaced once, there is no destruction for the other enchantments to replace. -Jack
Wildebeests' ability is a triggered ability, as signaled by starting with "At", and can be Stifled. You have the order correct at the beginning of your post, and yes, the opponent would respond to the ability going on the stack with their Path. No matter which creature they exile with Path, you will still have to return a creature, because the ability is already on the stack. -Jack
However, if witness is the only other creature you control and he paths during your untap step, your wildebeest will die.
Relevant to note here; players do not receive priority during the untap step, so Path cannot be cast at this time. He can Path either creature during the upkeep, but the Wildebeests' ability will be on the stack before he can. -Jack
No, because Horobi's trigger will resolve first, killing the targeted creature before the Valkyrie's ability resolves. In fact, the Valkyrie's ability won't resolve, because it won't have a legal target when it tries to resolve (unless the creature is indestructible or regenerates). -Jack
Since these are all triggered abilities, you would be able to activate Sundial to end the turn, ending the loop. However, once their deck runs out of cards, the loop will end. If there's something like Progenitus in the mix, though, you won't be able to end the turn when they have no cards in their library. The replacement effect will happen immediately, not giving you time to end the turn after they mill. -Jack
I have a couple favorite cards. I've collect Birds of Paradise, because that was the card I lost the first time I got ripped off in a trade. I've got two in Japanese, and a French 4ED Bird that has a black border despite being 4ED. My other favorite card is Vizzerdrix. I once decided to start collecting a really bad card, and I picked Vizzerdix, and now I have over 250 of them. -Jack
That is simultaneously the funniest and most horrible thing I have heard. Ever. Thank you for a few moments of humor. I hope this blog didn't apply to you, because then I'll look like a total ass. -Jack
-Jack
Well, the solution really comes down to figuring out what you need that spot to do. If you're just needing a better speed bump, then a more resilient creature is probably the best option. For me, aggro is less prevalent in my format, so if I took out Augur, it'd be for another draw spell. Though, I play Sorin, LoI, so Augur can end up being a beat-stick for me, and even if he only blocks once in an aggro match-up, that's usually enough.
Figure out where you're weakest, and use the Augur's spot to fill that gap. What match-ups do you have problems with, and what are the worst aspects of that match-up? -Jack
4 Hallowed Fountain
4 Glacial Fortress
3 Godless Shrine
1 Isolated Chapel
3 Watery Grave
4 Drowned Catacomb
3 Nephalia Drownyard
2 Plains
1 Island
1 Swamp
Creatures (7)
3 Snapcaster Mage
2 Restoration Angel
2 Augur of Bolas
4 Supreme Verdict
3 Lingering Souls
Instant (16)
4 Azorius Charm
2 Devour Flesh
2 Dissipate
2 Far // Away
2 Sphinx's Revelation
2 Think Twice
1 Syncopate
1 Dramatic Rescue
Planeswalker (4)
2 Sorin, Lord of Innistrad
1 Liliana of the Veil
1 Jace, Architect of Thought
3 Appetite for Brains
2 Terminus
2 Tragic Slip
2 Detention Sphere
2 Negate
2 Dissipate
1 Psychic Spiral
1 Witchbane Orb
Round 1 vs. WUR Reckoner/Act Combo
Game one was very drawn out. There was a lot of each of us just casting draw spells EOT. I didn't realize what the deck was at first and shocked myself with my lands a few times, so I had to play carefully whenever he got a Reckoner down. He used Harvest Pyre and Blasphemous Act a few times, but Far//Away really shined here. Either he had no other creatures, and I just made him sacrifice it, or I bounced it, nullifying any meaningful play on his part. After many turns of using Drownyard, he had lethal on the board, but a Revelation into Jace finished the game.
I don't remember what I sided out, but I brought in the two Negates and two Dissipates.
Game two was much less exciting. I had counters or removal at all the right times, and he drew a lot of lands.
1-0
I can't remember what I played against round 2 (really should have written this up sooner), but I won 2-0.
2-0
Round 3 vs. Junk Reanimator
Game one goes very smoothly, me countering anything really relevant, slowly pushing through damage with Lingering Souls and Sorin.
Game two, I brought in 2 Detention Sphere, 2 Negate, and 2 Dissipate. I keep a questionable hand, which then gets ripped apart by turns two and three Sin Collectors. He gets my Revelation and Verdict, and starts attacking. I amazingly stabilized at 5 life, with Lingering Souls and Sorin providing great defense and some life gain. He eventually runs out of steam, and I win through a horde of tokens.
This match definitely told me I want some form of graveyard hate. I like Crypt Incursion, and will probably try it.
3-0
Round 4 vs. R/W Sort of Aggro
His deck was kind of aggro, with Lightning Mauler, Thalia, and Silverblade Paladin, but didn't come crazy out the gates like most R/W decks.
Game one we both mull to six. I keep Drowned Catacomb, Drownyard, Azorius Charm, 2 Devour Flesh, and something else. Not great, but I didn't want to go to five, no matter what I was playing against. He plays Thalia turn two, and I don't draw lands in my first two draws, so I assume I'm going to lose. He plays a Silverblade Paladin, bonds with Thalia, and puts me to 16. I draw a land, and am able to get rid of two of his creatures with the Devours, but he is playing more creatures, too. In this game, he got me to two, but Far//Away worked AMAZINGLY, along with Azorius Charm, to stymie most of the damage I would have taken. I'm eventually able to climb back up in health with Sorin's tokens, and finally take the game.
I side in the two Terminus and two Tragic Slip. However, in game two, I play some check-lands while he does nothing until a turn 3 Lightning Mauler, un-bonded. I was very easily able to keep complete control over the situation for the whole game, and won with no problem.
//
I'm missing some of the duals, that's why the land-base is kind of crap. I also want to play Superboy next week. Liliana wasn't all that great the few times I played her, so she's being relegated to the sideboard for the control mirror. I'll figure out something else to cut for another Superboy. Dramatic Rescue wasn't the best tonight, but I didn't play any fast aggro, so it didn't really get a chance to shine. Hopefully next week I will see just how good it can be. Any suggestions? -Jack
Again, it's good to have a precedent to avoid cheating, but at the same time, you don't want to scare players away from having fun. If players think they will get a game loss for something accidental, they may be more careful, but they may also just be afraid to play at the store. Part of being a judge is fostering a fun environment and protecting the integrity of the tournament. By the situation described, and if an investigation did not prove otherwise, I see no reason to issue a game loss. -Jack
Definition
A player commits one or more of the following errors involving their deck:
• The deck and/or decklist contain an illegal number of cards for the format.
• The deck and/or decklist contain one or more cards that are illegal for the format.
• A card listed on a decklist is not identified by its full name, and could be interpreted as more than one card.
Truncated names of storyline characters (legendary permanents and Planeswalkers) are acceptable as long
as they are the only representation of that character in the format and should be treated as referring to that
card, even if other cards begin with the same name.
• The contents of the presented deck and sideboard do not match the decklist registered.
Sideboards are considered to be a part of the deck for the purpose of this infraction. If sideboard cards are lost, make
a note of this, but issue no penalty.
This infraction does not cover errors in registration made by another participant prior to a sealed pool swap, which
should be corrected at the discretion of the judge.
Examples
A. A player has 59 cards in her deck, but 60 listed on the decklist.
B. A player in a Legacy tournament lists Mana Drain (a banned card) on his decklist.
C. A player has a 56-card decklist. His actual deck contains 60 cards, with four Psychatogs not listed.
D. A player has a Pacifism in his deck from a previous opponent.
E. A player lists ‘Ajani’ in a format with both Ajani Goldmane and Ajani Vengeant
F. A player looking at her sideboard during a game fails to keep it clearly separate from her deck.
Philosophy
Decklists are used to ensure that decks are not altered in the course of a tournament. Judges and other tournament
officials should be vigilant about reminding players before the tournament begins of the importance of submitting a
legal decklist, and playing with a legal deck.
In large events, the DCI recommends that tournament officials verify the legality of all lists as soon as possible, but
the Head Judge should wait until the start of the next round to issue all decklist penalties unless there is reason to
believe the deck itself is illegal. This minimizes the disruption to the game currently being played and provides
consistency in case some players have finished playing their match before the penalty can be administered.
Ambiguous or unclear names on a decklist may allow a player to manipulate the contents of his or her deck up until
the point at which they are discovered. Use of a truncated name that is not unique may be downgraded to a Warning
at the Head Judge’s discretion if he or she believes that the intended card is obvious and the potential for abuse
minimal. When determining if a name is ambiguous, judges may take into account the format being played.
If the sideboard is not kept sufficiently separate from the deck during play, it becomes impossible to determine the
legality of the deck. Additionally, if there are extra cards stored with the sideboard that could conceivably be played
in the player’s deck, they will be considered a part of the sideboard unless they are:
• Promotional cards that have been handed out as part of the tournament.
• Double-faced cards represented by checklist cards in the deck.
• Double-faced cards being used to represent the ‘night’ side of cards in the deck.
Penalty
Game Loss17
These cards must not be sleeved in the same way as cards in the main deck and/or sideboard.
Additional Remedy
Remove any cards from the deck that are illegal for the format or violate the maximum number allowed, fix any
failures to de-sideboard, restore any missing cards if they (or identical replacements) can be located, then alter the
decklist to reflect the remaining deck. If the remaining deck has too few cards, add basic lands of the player’s choice
to reach the minimum number. If the deck and decklist both violate a maximum cards restriction (usually too many
cards in a sideboard or more than four of a card), remove cards starting from the bottom of the appropriate section of
the list.
If the player, upon drawing an opening hand, discovers a deck problem and calls a judge at that point, the Head
Judge may downgrade the penalty, fix the deck, and allow the player to redraw the hand with one fewer card. The
player may continue to take further mulligans if he or she desires.
My first thought was that, yes, this is a deck/decklist error, for which the penalty is a game loss. However, reading over it, I came across this:
From this, it is pretty straight forward that no, a game loss should not have been issued here. Unfortunately, looking through the IPG, I can't find the remedy for this situation.
If the owner was able to determine that the card was yours between rounds, I see no reason for him not to return the card to you. Also, if you had realized you were short a card in your board, yes, you should call a judge immediately and inform them of the situation.
Like I said, a game loss was the wrong penalty. But I don't see a precedent for how to fix the situation. Does anyone know the precedent or remedy here? -Jack
Selesnya Charm
He tried to cast the spell with an illegal target, thus the entire casting of the spell was an illegal action. Back up to before he cast the spell. -Jack
I know in the card rulings it says you can't target the same creature twice to put two +1/+1 counters on it. However, the proprietor of my local gaming venue thinks you can target one creature and put the two counters on it. I argued that it says put A +1/+1 counter on UP TO two target creatures, so no matter how many are targeted, they only get one apiece. I just need some confirmation on this so I can put it to rest. If there's any relevant rules quotes, you can throw them out there, too. -Jack