"Fixing" a deck?

[John Danker]

For the 13 & under regional tournament at GenCon Indy I ran across something unexpected. In truth I should have already known this but it occurred to me that I'm unaware of any documentation that specifies it.

Player A has 3 unlisted fusion monsters in his deck but a legal deck.

Player B has only 39 cards listed on his deck sheet but a Magical Merchant in their deck that is unlisted (making the actual deck 40 cards)

This was a top 8 deck check, the player with a 39 card deck list just got missed when we were going through the deck sheets at the beginning of the tournament.

Once all the deck checks were done and I asked if there were any problems. I was informed of what was wrong. As I looked in the UDE guidelines to insure the correct penalties were given out and already knowing that you "fix" a deck whenever possible one of the judges said that Player A would not be allowed to use the extra 3 fusion monsters and Player B would add the Magical Merchant to his deck sheet, both players receive warnings. I know this to be true, however, it occurred to me that no where that I've seen does it state "how" to fix a deck in these scenarios. How is it fair to subtract from one person's deck and add to another persons deck when both were unlisted? I'm not saying it is or isn't fair....just food for thought mind you.

Lets go to a hypothetical scenario....

Player Z has a deck list with 39 cards listed. In reality Player Z has a 42 card deck though and didn't list 3 cards. The way I understand it we're to make the deck legal with 40 cards and not let the player use 2 of those cards? Who determines which 2 cards are not allowed to be played? Is if fair to let a player play an entire tournament knowing the competition and then let them choose which cards to keep at that point? If a player had not been deck checked until the top 8 her could potentially throw in numerous cards into his deck and the "claim" to have not included by on their deck sheet....and then take their pick to "fix" their deck?

It just appears that the general pool of judges could use some direction into how to correctly "fix" a deck, what is an appropriate fix and what is not.

 

[skey23]

My first question is where does it say you are not allowed to use the 'extra' cards? I can't find any reference to that 'punishment'. In fact, I've been told otherwise directly from UDE.

If I'm not mistaken, the guildelines say that when the Decklist is in error and the Deck is legal, you change the Decklist to match the deck, and issue the player a Warning. This, IMHO, opens up a GIANT can of worms because a player 'might' switch out a card or two because they know they will only get a Warning if caught.

It also says the if the Decklist is legal, but the Deck is not legal, then you make the Deck match the Decklist, and issue the player a Game Loss. I agree with this. Anytime you have to make a change to the Deck, it should be a Game Loss, IMHO.

In all of the situations you provided, you simply have an incorrect Decklist. Those Decklists should be modified to match the Legal Decks, and the player(s) should be issued Warnings only. There is no need to 'disallow' them to use any cards.

That's my take on it.

 

[John Danker]

According to the head judge of the SJC the fixes that I listed are the standard and acceptable ones.

You're correct in that we have no documentation on how to "fix" decks. That's the largest point this thread. If you have documentation that instucts us how to do so I'd greatly appreciate a link to it.

My first thought on the scenario was as you said, we've got a legal deck list, add the monsters to the deck list, give a warning for illegal deck list and move on. I was informed this is incorrect. If the deck is already legal (In the case with the extra fusion monsters) The player would be unable to use the extra cards. In the case with the deck list missing the 40th card on the list, add the monster to make it a legal deck. While I don't see this "solution" anywhere in the penalty guidelines it's what I was instructed to be the correct solution.

The problem with this scenario is that a player could add a card at anytime in the course of a tournament and claim that they forgot to list it. This can be a HUGE advantage to the player. (Pretty much as you stated DJ)

P-20 Deck Error"“Illegal Decklist (Penalty: Warning)

This penalty applies to infractions that involve the use of decklists, where the actual contents of the player's deck are legal, but the decklist shows an illegal deck, or the decklist does not match the contents of the deck. It is appropriate to fix the decklist to match the contents of the player's deck when this discrepancy is discovered. This penalty also applies to side decks for games that use side decks, such as Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG.

So how did I rule these? There was a good amount of discussion on the topic among the judges. We were wasting time. Based on the penalty guidelines and it saying nothing of being about a player not being able to use the cards not listed I had both player add the unlisted cards to their deck list, they recieved warnings, and we moved on. I do see problems with the way the penalty guidelines state to make the deck list match the deck though....huge potenial for cheating.

 

[skey23]

You're correct in that we have no documentation on how to "fix" decks.

I beg to differ. The Penalty Guidelines DO tell us how to 'fix' the deck. You actually posted and bolded the example for me...lol.

P-20 Deck Error"“Illegal Decklist (Penalty: Warning)

This penalty applies to infractions that involve the use of decklists, where the actual contents of the player's deck are legal, but the decklist shows an illegal deck, or the decklist does not match the contents of the deck. It is appropriate to fix the decklist to match the contents of the player's deck when this discrepancy is discovered. This penalty also applies to side decks for games that use side decks, such as Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG.

And here's the next one from the Guidelines.

P-21 Deck Error"“Illegal Deck (Penalty: Game Loss)

This penalty applies to infractions that involve presenting an illegal deck during a tournament. It is usually appropriate to fix the deck to match the contents of the deck registration sheet. If the deck registration sheet is also illegal, it is appropriate to fix the deck by making it legal first and then fix the deck registration sheet to match the deck.

That tells me how to 'fix' the deck when certain issues arise.


I understand these are 'guidelines', but again, I don't see anything about not allowing players to use the 'extra' cards discovered.

 

[John Danker]

There is far too much room for cheating by these rulings...and fi both the deck sheet and deck are illegal we have no guidelines as to HOW to fix the deck.

If there are 39 cards in the deck and a 39 card deck list....are we to let the player pick any card they wish to make it a legal deck? Are we to pick a card at random?

Perhaps better worded, I should say there isn't enough information instructing us how to fix decks.

 

[skey23]

There is far too much room for cheating by these rulings...and fi both the deck sheet and deck are illegal we have no guidelines as to HOW to fix the deck.

If there are 39 cards in the deck and a 39 card deck list....are we to let the player pick any card they wish to make it a legal deck? Are we to pick a card at random?

Perhaps better worded, I should say there isn't enough information instructing us how to fix decks.

Ahh..yes. Much better. Because the policy documents do indeed tell us WHAT to do in that situation, but not HOW to do it...lol. Why not ask this on the L3 list?

 

[masterwoo0]

The problem I see happening in this scenario is, if the player has played his way to Top 8, using a illegal 39 card Deck, and obviously only has 39 cards to include 39 cards on his Deck List, he has played more than likely 7-10 Matches illegally.

Since they have had a probable advantage over their opponents (probable, because they did make Top 8), how do you make something that was always illegal, "legal", and continue to allow them to play?

As far as catching a 39 card Deck and trying to fix it, you could possibly have a scenario where the player does not have any extra cards, other than their Side Deck. If you replace the card with a Side Deck Card, that makes their Side Deck illegal. If they at least have the 40th card listed, but not included in the Deck (which it could conceivably have been lost throughout the day), then replacing the card is much easier if they can obtain the same card.

I really think that it should be limited to making the Deck "Legal", if there are more than 40 cards, but only 39 listed, as that could be the players Strategy, to test out which card will be the most useful, and drop the others when caught, or, they just drop them for certain Duels, as they Side Deck in/out the "extra" cards, since their opponent will probably not pay attention to the number, or count the Side Deck Cards.

 

[Kyhotae]

Masterwoo0 brings up the same concern I had when I first read your post. If these players have played all the way to the top 8 with illegal decks, why are they not disqualified and replaced with the next placing individual(s). Isn't that part of the reason that deck checks are performed on all 8 of the Top 8 in the first place? To make sure that the top 8 didn't cheat their way to the top?

 

[John Danker]

I'm unaware of any statement that tells us to disqualify a player if they're deck checked in round 7 for example and are found to have an illegal deck....or for that matter issue match loses for a player for two matches after round 2. The policy as it stands now tells us to "fix the deck" and move on.

 

[Kyhotae]

Yeah. I noticed that, but considering you lose a game if your deck is checked and there is an unintentional pattern, I would think that submitting a false deck-list would be a worse offense. I just don't understand it, I guess...

 

[ygo doc]

The first player with the 39 card Decklist but legal 40 card deck has a situation clearly covered in the UDE Penalty Guidelines. He corrects his Decklist and gets a warning.

The second player without 3 listed Fusion monsters but otherwise a legal Main Deck and/or Side Deck is a different issue. I do NOT see this situation clearly covered by current UDE Penalty Guidelines. A judge could allow the use of the 3 Fusion cards and correct the Decklist, or the judge could rule to disallow the Fusion monsters and have that player play with only his listed cards.

Let me give you a similar scenario. A top 8 player at the last Chicago SJC had a 42 card Main Deck, but forgot to list 2 Spirit Reapers he had. He admitted he had played with the Spirit Reapers for all 9 rounds but never got Deck checked until the top 8. Head Judge ruled he had to play with only the 40 cards listed in his Decklist; no Spiirit Reapers. I agree with this ruling 100% because if we let this duelist stick in 2 unlisted cards and just issue a warning, what's to stop the next duelist after studying the current tournament meta tell us that he had 3 Kuriboh's he was playing with but forgot to list them. (Perhaps, he threw the cards in the Deck later to counter Cyber Stein OTK).

On another thread, I mentioned issuing a Game Loss to one player who forgot to list his Side Deck, and another player who forgot to list his Fusion Deck. Both of these players could have only been issued a warning; however, how do I know one player hasn't been continually adjusting his Side Deck to counter the current meta? The most recent type of cheating I have seen is where duelists keep their side decks in deck boxes and actually have more than 15 cards available to side deck.

It was interesting because the one player with the unlisted Side Deck is a respected player and also a judge and argued he should only get a warning. I told him, I could issue a warning but then he would not be allowed to use his Side Deck for the remainder of the tournament. He easily accepted the game loss and added his Side Deck to the Deck list.

Personally, I feel that if someone forgets to list his/her Side Deck, there should only be only 1 or 2 solutions: continue play w/o a Side Deck and get a warning or get a Game Loss and list the Side Deck as found on the table. Same thoughts for your duelist with the unlisted 3 extra Fusion monsters. How do we as judges know that he always had these 3 monsters or did he add them to the Fusion deck to counter the current meta? Writing down Side Deck cards or adding cards to the Fusion/Main Decks late in a tournament can be abused and give a player too much advantage!

The best advice I can give is that the Penalty Guideline is exactly THAT: A Guideline! This was a 13 y/o and under tournament, so I can see some leniency given to the young players. If the 2nd Player obviously had cards in his deck to use Fusion monsters, I would have let him correct his Decklist and given him a warning only; however, I would also informed him that such a error in the future could be treated very differently!

Remember John, the young 10 y/o that had the illegal Traditional Format Deck in the SJC! I thought for certain John Williams or Julia would issue a game loss! I'm glad they let the youngster correct his Deck and Decklist and play on.

doc

 

[John Danker]

Well, in this case the extra three fusion monsters were 3 Punished Eagles, I didn't see this kid winning the top 8 on account of those three frusion monsters....so as you said doc, rather than making a stink about it I adjusted the "policy" This wasn't a earth shattering event, it did, however, raise questions in my mind about the whole policy and how I feel it leaves room for cheating. I'm not opposed to anything you said ygo doc, I just don't think the policy covers the ground very with direction on how to "fix" decks in numerous circumstances.

 

[masterwoo0]

Well, in this case the extra three fusion monsters were 3 Punished Eagles, I didn't see this kid winning the top 8 on account of those three frusion monsters....so as you said doc, rather than making a stink about it I adjusted the "policy" This wasn't a earth shattering event, it did, however, raise questions in my mind about the whole policy and how I feel it leaves room for cheating. I'm not opposed to anything you said ygo doc, I just don't think the policy covers the ground very with direction on how to "fix" decks in numerous circumstances.

It leaves plenty of ground for player's with less than "honorable" playing styles, and we know it happens because of the increased names on the Players Suspended/Banned List, to manipulate their Decks while the Tournament is in progress.

They could easily just leave one or two slots open on their Deck List, and actually play with 40 cards, and have the ability to rotate any number of cards into their Deck, along with the Side Deck.

If the only "punishment" is a Warning, that doesnt discourage them from making it a part of their Game Strategy, because just 2 open spots allows them to push any combination of cards in as needed, and they can always claim that they had a "multiple" of a common monster, like Dekoichi, Reaper, or Faith, that they forgot to write down.

 

[John Danker]

Agreed masterwoo0, I've e-mailed people at UDE with the power to bring the issue up and make possible policy changes. I believe the new penalty guidelines policy is due out in Oct. of this year. We may see a couple of minor changes it in, perhaps we'll be lucky enough to have this one addressed as well.

 

[Dillie-O]

I remember at the Vegas regional that I was a head judge at (wow, first time too) we had a kid in Top 8 that had an illegal side deck (14 cards). When approached about adding a card to deck, he said he didn't have anymore cards, so we gave him the warning, but I deemed it best to have him not play with the side deck because that was allowing him to play with an illegal deck. Getting a random card from a friend either wasn't an option because it opened up too many doors to have that extra Chaos Sorceror or other powerful card now become part of his arsenal when it wasn't before.

The hardest issue I think with "fixing" decks is adding cards to finish off a legal deck. When there are too many cards and the issue is found, its easy enough to trim off those cards and only let them play with what's on the deck list. But when there are 39 cards, you just don't know how to fill the gap.

As silly as this sounds, if I was Head Judging another tourney, I'd start keeping a stack of Kozaky cards on me and if the deck is one or two short, then we give them a loaner Kozaky or two to make the deck legal. While this may seem a bit "cruel" and "hurtful" to their deck, but one of the few ways to assure that fair play continues.