{"id":1203,"date":"2014-11-19T10:49:12","date_gmt":"2014-11-19T18:49:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/knowledgepool\/?p=1203"},"modified":"2015-02-05T15:07:05","modified_gmt":"2015-02-05T23:07:05","slug":"relentless-rats-or-shadowborn-apostles","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/knowledgepool\/2014\/11\/19\/relentless-rats-or-shadowborn-apostles\/","title":{"rendered":"Relentless Rats or Shadowborn Apostles&#8230;?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p><img  style='float:left'  class='lems-mtg-cardimg' src='http:\/\/gatherer.wizards.com\/Handlers\/Image.ashx?size=small&type=card&name=Relentless Rats'><\/p><p><img  class='lems-mtg-cardimg' src='http:\/\/gatherer.wizards.com\/Handlers\/Image.ashx?size=small&type=card&name=Shadowborn Apostle'><\/p>Louis is playing in a GPT, of which you are head judge. As you are checking decklists, you notice Louis&#8217;s list ends with the line &#8220;23 ______________&#8221; with no card name filled in. The remainder of the list contains 37 cards, all of which are either blue or artifacts.<\/p>\n<p>What do you do?<\/p>\n<p>Judges, feel free to discuss this scenario <a href=\"http:\/\/apps.magicjudges.org\/forum\/topic\/14133\/?page=1#post-91129\" target=\"_blank\">on Judge Apps<\/a>!<\/p>\n<p>[expand title=Answer]This week our question focused on this passage from the IPG:<br \/>\nOriginally posted by IPG 3.5 Philosophy:<\/p>\n<p>The Head Judge may choose to not issue this penalty if they believe that what the player wrote on their decklist is obvious and unambiguous, even if it is not the full, accurate name of the card. This should be determined solely by what is written on the decklist, and not based on intent or the actual contents of the deck; needing to check the deck for confirmation is a sign that the entry is not obvious.<br \/>\nSo the issue is fundamentally what a player could conceivably mean by \u201c23.\u201d As Ernst Jan Plugge correctly points out, format is potentially important here due to the existence of Snow-Covered basics, but when we wrote this scenario, the intent was for it to be a Standard event. With that context, there are only 5 cards of which a player could play 23 copies, and those are the basic lands. Of the basic lands, only \u201cIsland\u201d makes sense in the context of the rest of the list, which is mono blue.<\/p>\n<p>Some consideration has been given to the possibility that \u201c23\u201d may mean \u201c23 assorted lands.\u201d While this could theoretically happen, it is not consistent with the way players write actually deck lists. If you see a list that says \u201c4 Bolt\u201d that means \u201c4 Lightning Bolt,\u201d not \u201c3 Lightning Bolt, 1 Forked Bolt.\u201d In much the same way, it would be very easy for a rushed player to write 23 and leave it blank with 23 copies of the same card. It would not make nearly as much sense for him to write \u201c23\u201d when he meant \u201c17 Island, 4 Temple of Mystery, 2 Radiant Fountain.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>As such, it is the opinion of the Knowledge Pool team that 23 unambiguously means \u201c23 Islands\u201d and the deck list should be corrected without penalty. No follow-up deck check is required.[\/expand]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Louis is playing in a GPT, of which you are head judge. As you are checking decklists, you notice Louis&#8217;s list ends with the line &#8220;23 ______________&#8221; with no card name filled in. The remainder of the list contains 37 cards, all of which are either blue or artifacts. What do you do? Judges, feel [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[42,4],"tags":[],"language":[56],"class_list":["post-1203","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-deckdecklist-problem","category-silver","language-en"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/knowledgepool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1203","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/knowledgepool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/knowledgepool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/knowledgepool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/knowledgepool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1203"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/knowledgepool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1203\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1205,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/knowledgepool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1203\/revisions\/1205"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/knowledgepool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1203"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/knowledgepool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1203"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/knowledgepool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1203"},{"taxonomy":"language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/knowledgepool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/language?post=1203"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}