Monday, October 27, 2014

TCG Player Diamond (Columbus)

TCG Player Diamond (Columbus) Event Report
by Dan Regewitz Lv1 – Floor Judge (Deck Checks Team)

Cast:
Jarrod Williams Lv2 - Judge Manager
David Rappaport LV3 - Head Judge
Ryan Seymore UC - TO
Anthony Bucchioni Lv2 - Deck Checks Team Lead (mine)

    Reflecting on this past weekend, we had a pretty good event. 160 players were managed into a relatively smooth 8 rounds. The deck-check team, on which I served, checked 24 decks – before even the top 8 gathered. I'd like to do something a bit different with this judge article, and that is first, I'd like to retread some information about deckchecks, what they are and how we do them. Retread because I've covered this topic before as part of my tournament report for SCG open – Pittsburgh July 2011 (check the archives of my articles, it's in there).

    Deck checks

    So as part of my duties for this event, I was on the deck-checks team, and as luck would have it I remained on this team as was not pulled away from other duties as the day went on. Deck checks are a feature of nearly every major competitive magic event in modern memory. It is a task that we, as judges are expected to perform, and a task that requires some skill. Certainly there is learning involved as a judge may become faster or more efficient at this task.

    We perform deck checks primarily to ensure the integrity of the event. The deck list is a record of what deck any given player is playing in that event. Errors in said deck list can result in a potential for advantage when cards are registered incorrectly – or not at all.

    The Magic Tournament Rules (2.8) outline the expectations of what a deck check entails for players. The Infraction Procedure Guide (3.5) outlines the penalties for an improperly registered deck.

    However, there are many ins-and-outs of how to perform a deck check that are not recorded, except in judge articles. Performing a deck-check is largely a learn-by-doing exercise for judge canidates and new judges, and I will not attempt to cover everything that goes into the process. But here's a little of what to expect.

    There are essentially 2 types of deck checks. Targeted, and random. Random deck checks are just like they sound. A table # is generated at random, often by the scorekeeper, and the deck check team will swoop (slang for moving in and getting the decks at the right moment without alerting the players) the table.

    A targeted deck check occurs, when we encounter a potential error when checking the lists. This could be an unreadable card name or number, an abbreviated card name, a list without a name, or other minor clerical error. Often we investigate these issues by taking a look at the actual deck that the player is running. More often than not we make a note on the deck list as to the actual contents of the deck being run, and issue a penalty if we deem it necessary.

    The last time I discussed some of the details that go into actually swooping the decks, so this time around I'd like to cover the things that we look for when we check a deck for errors.

    The IPG specifically calls out the the following problems that could result in a deck-decklist error.
    The deck or decklist contains an illegal number of cards for the format.
    The deck or decklist contains 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 interepreted as more than one card. Truncated names of storyline characters (legendary permanents, planeswalkers) are acceptable as long as they are the only representation of that character in the format and are 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.

    We check for these things largely by sorting out the deck we obtained from the player, and comparing it to the list submitted at the start of the event.

    However it is important to note that these are not the only things that a member of the deck-check team may look for. Sometimes we also have to consider the possibility of marked cards. In a large event it is entirely possible for sleeves that are not marked to become somewhat marked during the event in the process of shuffling, cutting, playing, and otherwise manipulating cards. So a glance is usually given to sleeves to determine what kind of wear they have seen, and if a pattern can be determined.

    Scorekeeping 101
    Two interesting match results came to my attention during this tournament. Kudos to Lv2 Patrick Nelson.

    In one case, A player was seated and was waiting for his opponent to show up. The player meeting for the TCG-gold modern side event was announced, and the player wanted to go play modern. This resulted in a match where the player conceded to a no-show opponent, and then dropped to attend the other event. In the end we reported the match, and simply dropped both players.

    In another case, we had a table with a match slip and no players seated. That's right a double-tardiness match loss. In the end we reported this match as 0-0, and simply dropped both players.

    Missing Triggers
    Player A cast a Fiendslayer Paladin, while Player N has an Eidolon of the Great Revel on the battlefield. Eidolon reads in part “Whenever a player casts a spell with converted mana cost 3 or less, Eidolon of the Great Revel deals 2 damage to that player.” Player N, picks up the Paladin, reads it, puts it down, and says “Resolves”, and a moment later “And you take 2.” At which point I am called to the table.

    The Eidolon has a triggered ability that causes a change to the visible state of the game (namely life totals). By the definition of Triggered ability, the controller has to demonstrate awareness of the trigger when this game state change occurs. Since this particular trigger occurs when the spell is cast, that is the most appropriate time.

    I spent a moment on this one, because it seemed like one could count player N's “Resolves” comment as advancing past that moment. I, however was not comfortable drawing that particular line. For me personally, for the trigger to be missed, player N would have had to perform a more distinct game action (like try to resolve something else), or allowed the game to progress to a different phase or step. This had not happened, so I ruled that the trigger was NOT missed.

    This was a very line-y situation where I suspected highly that Player A would appeal my decision, and they did. After explaining the situation to HJ David Rappaport, he spoke to the players for a moment to confirm the details of the situation, then talked to me about my thought processes. In the end he opted to overturn my decision.