TWD Tension in the Ranks
David Corson-Knowles clearly did not play with any intent to gain advantage by having a 91 card deck. It was merely an oversight on his part not having tuned his deck because he hadn't played in years.
The tournament ended without this being known. It was only through David's honesty that he reported the 91 card list for the TWDA. He even mentioned the error in his write-up.
I would not recommend any sanction against him for his mistake.
When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike.
I don't know about that - you'll have to check with Vincent, he's in charge of logging decks in the TWDA.
brandonsantacruz wrote: Pascal, would it be OK for this player to drop this useless graverobbing from his deck to avoid a disqualification?
Regarding this event, Ginés and I decided not to disqualify David.
I, however, highly recommend calling the judge if something is wrong in your deck.
Pascal Bertrand wrote: I, however, highly recommend calling the judge if something is wrong in your deck.
Apparently this was noticed only AFTER the tournament:
Jeff Kuta wrote: The tournament ended without this being known. It was only through David's honesty that he reported the 91 card list for the TWDA. He even mentioned the error in his write-up.
The card came up in the tournament but I gather it didn't ring any bells at that time:
brandonsantacruz wrote: Deck notes: Graverobbing was a mistaken inclusion, probably in the same card box from when Anson and a few different Malks were in a previous version of the deck. (I've been playing variations on this "quick Malks & friends" deck since Kalinda came out). Not realizing that there isn't a single level of Dominate in the crypt, I actually drew and held on to Graverobbing for a few turns in Round 2 and considered fishing for a vamp to use it (thankfully I didn't!).
Often during a tournament I tend to count the cards in my deck while shuffling between the rounds. And before the 1st round. Just to see if the numbers don't match...
I feel sorry for David, but the deck won't be included in the TWDA as it's not a legal deck. I can't include the 90-cards version of the deck neither, because it wasn't the deck that was played.
Pascal Bertrand wrote: I don't know about that - you'll have to check with Vincent, he's in charge of logging decks in the TWDA.