Drudge Skeleton

[CopperLeaf]

I have one of the german (i think; dont have the card on me) drudge skeleton misprints with a picture of a basic swamp on it.  Can i play it as a swamp, or is it a drudge skeleton?
Thanks

 

[Dante]

Drudge skeleton.  The art has no bearing on anything related to the game.

[Komatteru]

The art has no bearing on anything related to the game.

Ah! Careful! The art is THE critical piece for recognizing a card and determining its playability.  You can mess with anything else on the card, but if the art is not recognizable, the card is not playable.  This is precisely why foreign language cards are legal -- you cannot read the card, but you can recognize the art, so everyone knows what it is.  If you black out all the text, what's really the difference from having a card with a textbox written in Japanese well, and you're not JD, so you can't read it?  For example, Vroman's AMAZING modified cards.  Technically, they are not legal because he has completely changed the art.  I don't think anyone in Vintage would ever care about it, but, for instance, I would never play a heavily altered card in sanctioned play because of the higher risk of problem.

I don't know the policy in regards to misprints, but I'm sure its a drudge skeleton, as Serendib Efreet from revised is still a 3/4 flyer.

[CopperLeaf]

I was thinking about the textless terror and mana leak.. arent they only legal if the card art is the defining quality of the card, rather than the text?

[dandan]

Those Forests with Plains as the picture are more of a problem. I'm pretty sure many judges would see it as cheating unless you made a point of warning them and all opponents beforehand.

[BigMac]

Jdizzle wrote

Ah! Careful! The art is THE critical piece for recognizing a card and determining its playability.  You can mess with anything else on the card, but if the art is not recognizable, the card is not playable. 

This is not entirely true. The part when you alter the card yourself, and it being recognizable by art alone is true enough. When a card is altered so much by yourself it is unrecognizable there could arise problems with a judge.

However, misprints are considered normal unaltered cards. What the rule surrounding these cards are i am not entirely sure of. But i know they are legal, i know that the name of card is the most important part of the card. If that can be read, that is how you have to play the card. In case of the German swamp/drudge skeleton, its name is drudge skeleton making it a drudge skeleton, nothing else. In the case of the German forest on the plains, this card actually has a name and a mana symbol. If you cannot read the name, you can see by the mana symbol that it gives you green mana. Together with the name of the card this will bring you to forest, basic land.

It actually goes a step further than this all. When a card is miscut, saying a force of will is miscut letting you see the top of the force of will, but an entirely other card on top of that but you cannot see the name of that card, this card will be considered a force of will and not the card you can see the art of. Even if you just have the name force of will with the entire other card on top of it but without the name of that card it is considered a force of will. The player playing that card still needs to be able to tell what the text of the card force of will is and must be able to explain it.

So name is way more important than art, but art can play some role in it when altering it yourself on top of the card. Misprints are considered normal cards without alterations. This is how i know it. Correct me if i am wrong as i have a whole lot of the cards mentioned here.

[Toad]

The name of the card is important here, and the card is always linked to its name (regardless of the language). A Drudge Skeleton with a Swamp picture and the big Swamp sign in the text box is still a Drudge Skeleton. Nevertheless, the card might be refused by the HJ of your tournament because It's extremely misleading, and playing with them may make you subject for penalties if the HJ considers you are clearly intending to abuse alterations/misprints to create an advantage.

For example, Vroman's AMAZING modified cards.  Technically, they are not legal because he has completely changed the art.  I don't think anyone in Vintage would ever care about it,

Meh, I would care for sure. And as a HJ I would not allow them for my tournaments.

[Dante]

Those Forests with Plains as the picture are more of a problem. I'm pretty sure many judges would see it as cheating unless you made a point of warning them and all opponents beforehand.

I used German misprints (Walds - german for Forest, but with the misprint picture of a plains) in my TnT deck back in the 2002/2003ish time frame.  When I made top 8 at the first Crazy Con in Chicago and they did deck checks, the judge made me replace them with "real" (i.e. easily recognizable) Forests.

Dante

[Khahan]

To answer the question directly (topic went off on an interesting tangent):

A card is whatever its english name is, regardless of the art.
If the translated name is 'swamp', then its a swamp, regardless of the fact that it has (b): regenerate and 1/1 at the bottom.

If its English name is Drudge Skeleton, then its a Drudge Skeleton, regardless of the art showing a swamp.


From the DCI Floor rules:
121.   Deck Size Limits
Constructed decks must contain a minimum of sixty cards. There is no maximum deck size; however, players must be able to sufficiently randomize their deck within the time allotted.

With the exception of basic land cards, a player's combined deck and sideboard may not contain more than four of any individual card, counted by its English card title.

This rule limits non-basic-land cards to 4, but also references the fact that the English card title is the deciding factor.

[dandan]

Those Forests with Plains as the picture are more of a problem. I'm pretty sure many judges would see it as cheating unless you made a point of warning them and all opponents beforehand.

I used German misprints (Walds - german for Forest, but with the misprint picture of a plains) in my TnT deck back in the 2002/2003ish time frame.  When I made top 8 at the first Crazy Con in Chicago and they did deck checks, the judge made me replace them with "real" (i.e. easily recognizable) Forests.
Dante

The real problem with those Walds is that it is very easy to use them as 'multilands'. Remember that in those days lands (apart from Portal lands  ) did not have huge mana symbols printed on them, just standard text and a mana symbol which is many many times smaller than the picture. As the text is identical on all basic lands and many people don't know the German for Forest despite eating Black Forest Gateaux being one of life's best non-sexual pleases, only the picture and mana symbol show what the card does.
Few people would bat an eyelid at a land with a picture of a Plains on it being tapped for White mana, some might block a Kird Ape when looking at an opponent with a Mountain and what looks like a Plains, a Duress might reveal a hand with several Plains in it and lets not forget the sadness of a Righteous Avengers player finally getting a chance to use Plainswalk and seeing his dream shattered by a sneaky block!

In comparison, the Drudge Skeletons is far less of a problem, if used they would clearly be put with lands or creatures, if put anywhere near lands, I'd expect a judge to call that cheating.

[ashiXIII]

As I judge, I think I would allow the German Plains Forests to be played with, but I would explain to the player that when he plays one, he needs to explicitly state to his opponent that it's a Forest, not a Plains. If he failed to announce this, I wouldn't hesitate to DQ him, as I would consider it cheating. I think this is fair if he wants to play with them, and if he disagrees, he can always swap them out for 'normal' looking Plains.

[Dante]

As I judge, I think I would allow the German Plains Forests to be played with, but I would explain to the player that when he plays one, he needs to explicitly state to his opponent that it's a Forest, not a Plains. If he failed to announce this, I wouldn't hesitate to DQ him, as I would consider it cheating. I think this is fair if he wants to play with them, and if he disagrees, he can always swap them out for 'normal' looking Plains.

If this was explained to a player ahead of time (that he must inform opponents about the card being a forest), I can see a penalty if he does not(although DQ is quite harsh).  I see making them use a "normal looking" forest too.

Let's also understand, this was not being used in a deck with white - there were no white cards at all in the deck - it was a Red Green TnT deck.  So there was no intent of trying to use it as a "basic dual land" - just something that looked cool.

[dandan]

Let's also understand, this was not being used in a deck with white - there were no white cards at all in the deck - it was a Red Green TnT deck.  So there was no intent of trying to use it as a "basic dual land" - just something that looked cool.

Still no reason to taunt all of those Vintage players packing Righteous Avengers!

[JAG]

actually , i recall that warning the opponent and judges ahead of time is not enough....because by doing so, you are acknowledging that you know what you are doing may cause a problem, and yet you persist in doing it.  If you showed them to the judge beforehand, do not be surprised if they tell you to replace them.  If you do not show them, or don't replace them, expecting to simply explain the situation to your opponents, don't be surprised to be served with a DQ for Cheating.

Apparently this came up with misprinted Forests-as-Islands or vice versa, and a UG deck.  Don't know the actual case, but it's interesting nonetheless, no?

-JM

[jro]

I was thinking about the textless terror and mana leak.. arent they only legal if the card art is the defining quality of the card, rather than the text?

LOL.  Take a look at the actual "textless" cards (for instance, Terror).  They do have the card name on them, and according to the Comp Rules

202.3. Two cards have the same name if the English versions of their names are identical, regardless of anything else printed on the cards.

[Mr. Nightmare]

To answer the question directly (topic went off on an interesting tangent):

A card is whatever its english name is, regardless of the art.
If the translated name is 'swamp', then its a swamp, regardless of the fact that it has (b): regenerate and 1/1 at the bottom.

If its English name is Drudge Skeleton, then its a Drudge Skeleton, regardless of the art showing a swamp.


From the DCI Floor rules:
121.   Deck Size Limits
Constructed decks must contain a minimum of sixty cards. There is no maximum deck size; however, players must be able to sufficiently randomize their deck within the time allotted.

With the exception of basic land cards, a player's combined deck and sideboard may not contain more than four of any individual card, counted by its English card title.

This rule limits non-basic-land cards to 4, but also references the fact that the English card title is the deciding factor.

My question then becomes this:

I take a basic Island, and using a black marker, black out everything but "Island" and the big blue mana symbol.  Is this card legal in tournament play?  What if I don't leave the name?  What if I only leave the name?

[jro]

My question then becomes this:

I take a basic Island, and using a black marker, black out everything but "Island" and the big blue mana symbol.  Is this card legal in tournament play?  What if I don't leave the name?  What if I only leave the name?

There has been extensive discussion of this question in previous threads.  Here's what the DCI Floor Rules say:

28.  Taking Notes
[first two paragraphs omitted]
Cards used in a tournament may not have writing on their faces other than signatures or artistic modifications. Modifications may not obscure the artwork so as to make the card unrecognizable. If modifications to a card are deemed by the head judge to constitute outside notes or unsporting conduct, the player using such cards will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the DCI Penalty Guidelines.

32. Card Interpretation
The head judge is the final authority regarding card interpretations. See the DCI Floor Rules for the appropriate game for more detailed rules regarding how cards should be interpreted. If the head judge determines that a player is using non-English–language cards and/or misprints to create an advantage by using misleading text or artwork, that player will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the DCI Penalty Guidelines.

So I think that makes it fairly clear that what modifications are or aren't allowed is at the discretion of the judges.  I'd expect most judges to come down pretty hard on any modifications that would interfere with an opponent's ability to determine quickly and easily what is going on in the game.  I'd also expect them to not stand for "testing the limits" of this policy; they're job is hard enough as is.

[Khahan]

I take a basic Island, and using a black marker, black out everything but "Island" and the big blue mana symbol.  Is this card legal in tournament play?  What if I don't leave the name?  What if I only leave the name?

A card's English title simply defines which card it is. Whether or not that particular card is legal from other factors is a completely seperate question.

If you want to use a dredge skeleton misprinted with the swamp picture as a swamp, then its a proxie because 'swamp' is not what that card is.

If you want to use a drudge skeleton misprinted with a swamp picture as a drudge skeleton, then check with a judge to make sure its legal to do so as the judge will have the final say. He may decide that it is not legal to use because it is too difficult to easily tell what the card is.

[Upinthe]

Does this mean if you try to pay 1R for the misprinted orcish artillery from Alpha that you will be DQed?

[Khahan]

Does this mean if you try to pay 1R for the misprinted orcish artillery from Alpha that you will be DQed?

The punishment will be determined by the judge. It may or may not be DQ'd.  But, it is a players responsibility to know the most current oracle wording for all cards s/he is playing.

[Apollyon]

As I judge, I think I would allow the German Plains Forests to be played with, but I would explain to the player that when he plays one, he needs to explicitly state to his opponent that it's a Forest, not a Plains. If he failed to announce this, I wouldn't hesitate to DQ him, as I would consider it cheating. I think this is fair if he wants to play with them, and if he disagrees, he can always swap them out for 'normal' looking Plains.

If this was explained to a player ahead of time (that he must inform opponents about the card being a forest), I can see a penalty if he does not(although DQ is quite harsh).  I see making them use a "normal looking" forest too.

Let's also understand, this was not being used in a deck with white - there were no white cards at all in the deck - it was a Red Green TnT deck.  So there was no intent of trying to use it as a "basic dual land" - just something that looked cool.

A DQ is not at all too harsh for people who intentionally misrepresent the game state. Doing so is Cheating. If I felt, as a judge, that he was using the Walds to gain advantage by even misrepresenting what mana he has available, that would be a textbook case of Cheating.

The same is true for the Drudge Skeletons, the Orcish Artillery, the Japanese Cursed Scroll, etc.

Advice: Leave the misprints at home in the case. They might look cool, but they are also highly suspect. If you are going to use them, make sure that you announce everything. Not telling your opponents might be all the evidence a judge requires to consider you to be cheating.

[Dante]

So if it was announced as a "Forest" when it was played, it would be fine?

[Apollyon]

So if it was announced as a "Forest" when it was played, it would be fine?

The

• Answer: It's up to the Head Judge to determine if doing so constituted cheating.

My answer is that if you were aboveboard about it, I'd just "reccomend" that you to replace them, assuming that I felt that you weren't still using them to mislead your opponents. Just because you announce that they are Forests doesn't make you innocent. Usage of them is generally considered sketchy behavior, whether or not you are cheating.

For further reference, see UTR 32.