SCG Columbus (Modern Open, Standard and Legacy IQ)
Cast:
The Head Judges
Modern Open Head Judge - Federico Donner - L3 - Montevideo, Uruguay
Standard Premier IQ Head Judge - Jeremy Behunin - L3 - Ogden, UT
Legacy Premier IQ Head Judge - Jon Goud - L2 - Dartmouth, Canada
My Team Leads
Floor Team Lead - Michael McCliment – L2 – Montreal, Canada
Shared Deck Check Lead – Abraham Corson – L3 – Alexandria, Virginia
Other Awesome judges I got into really good conversations with.
Karl Weisling – L2 – Milwaukee, Wisconsin
David Hanson – L1 – Sparta, Wisconsin
Expectations
This particular event marked a few firsts for myself, and as a result I tried to anticipate some of the differences I might encounter. First, this marks the first time I have traveled to an event that was more than simply Magic, related. This particular weekend held host to the Origins Game Fair. Probably among the top gaming shows focused on board and card games. I anticipated that being part of such a larger event would be slightly awesome, as well as significantly larger than some prior Opens I've been to.
It also feels somewhat odd to admit that this was my first multi-day event. My expectations for this piece of the puzzle was somewhat more negative. I expected to be much more tired, my feet to hurt more, and my performance as a whole to suffer over the weekend. Fortunately, while I must admit that this was at least partially true, I found myself coping much better than I thought I would. Through personal pacing and good management of judges from team leads and SCG staff, I had a very good experience over the weekend, and would do it again without any worries.
Also of note, this was also the first time I have worked an SCG Invitational weekend. Fortunately (or not) the events were well segregated (on opposite ends of the hall), and I did not interact with any of the invitational related festivities.
Setting Goals
Early in the day Michael challenged myself, as well as others on our team to come up with a specific aspect of judging, and what we could do (specifically) to improve/ work on said aspect. It was a great approach that allowed me to focus my efforts, and provide a framework through which I can reflect and appraise my own work.
So the aspect of judging that I tagged for myself this weekend was communication with players, specifically the customer service angle. The items on my agenda were to ask good questions to identify the situation or problem at hand; and also to provide a good closure to any call.
Situations
The Player who calls me to the table informs me that they just played a land, but have not yet drawn a card. My gut reaction is call this out of order sequencing. This is probably due to my exposure to a lot of casual play where the exact sequence of untap-upkeep-draw, play a land is often done out of order. Also at REG REL we don't impart any penalties for such minor errors. Here at competitive REL this exact situation is a game rules violation. Simply because there are game rules about the sequencing of the phases of the turn. While I ended up going with that initial impression, this is one situation that I look back on and wonder if I didn't make a mistake, or simply could have done better.
The Player who calls me to the table has just cast an Ornithopter, and his opponent has attempted to Lightning Bolt it. The problem is the active player has priority after any spell or ability resolves, and in this case wants to do something with it (cast another spell – to turn on Metalcraft for Mox Opal). Depending on what's been going on previously with these two and the details this can be either a GPE-GRV, or simply a communication problem (Not a TE-CPV). I opt for the former.
The most frequently asked rules question during the modern event involves the interaction between Spellskite and Kolaghan's Command. Spellskite's ability only changes a single target of a spell with multiple targets. Each mode of Kolaghan's Command requires the controller to choose a target, but because the word 'target' is used in each mode the same object can be legally chosen for multiple modes as long as it is legal for both. Thus if A uses Kolaghan's Command to 'destroy target artifact' choosing N's mox opal, and deal 2 damage to N's Ornithopter that is legal. It is also legal for N to activate Spellskite once to change one of those modes to target Spellskite, and even activate it again to change the target of the remaining mode to Spellskite.
The most curious rules question I fielded on the weekend came out of the 2HG sealed deck on Saturday. This interaction has nothing to do with the fact that a 2HG game was being played. So one player (N) has a face-up Jeskai infiltrator on the battlefield which reads in part 'When Jeskai Infiltrator deals combat damage to a player, exile it and the top card of your library in a face-down pile, shuffle that pile, then manifest those cards.' An opponent (A) asks if he casts Mob Rule choosing 'Gain control of all creatures with power 3 or less until end of turn. Untap those creatures. They gain haste until end of turn.' and manages to trigger the infiltrator, what will happen?
It's actually a rather easy ruling. As the player who now controls the Infiltrator, (A) would also control the trigger, and the be the player to manifest cards. As added bonus, because the trigger exiles the Infiltrator and brings it back to the battlefield, it is no longer the same object, and (A) essentially gets to keep the Infiltrator until it dies. What I found most peculiar about this scenario is that when we exile (N)'s infiltrator and the top card of (A)'s library and shuffle them, we end up with a game state where everyone knows where the Infiltrator is because (A) and (N)'s sleeves differ. A slightly awkward result of the way the card is designed and the fact that people tend to play with sleeves.
Observations and Reflections
Sometimes asking good questions involves repeating back to the player what they have just told you (to the best of your understanding). This can be especially helpful if some of the original situation was given to you out of sequence. Also repeating questions to both players can give you a better idea of their mutual game state.
Closure is not a hard thing. Certainly it seems easier than investigating a judge call. I found a simple phrase such as “You guys are good to go.” or simply thanking the players for calling a judge before leaving the table is adequate enough. Yet it remains something that I don't see a lot of other judges doing.
Showing posts with label competitive. Show all posts
Showing posts with label competitive. Show all posts
Saturday, June 20, 2015
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
SCGIQ - Tarentum; Head Judge Report
Star City Games IQ – Tarentum
Head Judge Tournament Report
Competitive; Standard
For this particular event, I found myself wearing many hats. I was Judge Manager, and responsible for securing staff for the event. I was Head Judge, responsible for identifying tasks and goals, and delegating responsibilities. I was Scorekeeper, and had to keep track of the event as it progressed. I'm going to discuss various aspects of all of these roles.
Cast:
Tournament Organizer: Jonathan Engel
Head Judge / Scorekeeper: Dan Regewitz (myself)
Floor Judge: Christopher Hartman
Floor Judge: Chelsea Hogan
55 awesome players.
= Preparation
I originally lined up this event with Jon after I had just completed a 50 player GPT with myself as the only judge. As that event was a little stressful for me personally I knew this event, we were going to need at least one other judge. Fortunately, we had a lot of time to consider what we needed to do and how for the event, as it took some time to get permission to run the event from the owner (this was the company's first SCG-IQ), as well as order and receive the tournament kit.
So as Judge manager, I created an event on Judge apps, made a call out for other judges, and had to turn at least one judge away entirely. This was all new to me, as I had never formally acted as a judge manager for a multi-judge event before. I knew that I needed some judges. As our planning continued, it became clear that my tournament role would mostly likely be scorekeeper AND head judge. So, I knew not to count myself for 'floor coverage'. Our estimated attendance was 30-60 players, which we did hit. So our target was 2 floor judges, with a third possibly on standby in case something crazy happened.
Overall I prepared well, even making notes for myself on what to cover in the pre-event judge meeting, and player meeting. I also took some steps that were clearly over-preparing. For example, I packed my own laptop and printer to the event – again just in case something catastrophic occurred.
= Score keeping
My experiences as Scorekeeper are perhaps the least exciting. As a local judge and TO, I have had close to 5 years of experience working with tournament software (first DCIR, now WER), and was fairly confident that I could score keep a competitive REL event. I vaguely recall a few moments where things were a little hectic, however barring a hiccup or two, the day was without severe incident.
Christopher showed me the wondrous multiprint feature, which I had not had the opportunity to use previously, and that certainly made things go smoothly.
I in turn, was able to show him the WER fixed seating workaround. For those unfamiliar with this, WER does not have a function where you can fix a player to a certain table number. However, you sometimes want to do this to make the day easier for people with crutches, or a cane, etc. The workaround involves pairing all matches randomly, finding the player whose seat you want to fix, and unpairing them. Then, you find and unpair the table you want to fix them to. Then you repair the 4 players correctly, in table order.
The only other scorekeeper note I have for this event, is one match where the players finished game 2 in turns, and were 1/1, but the slip was filled out 1/1/1. So in this case, no third game was played, and I took the liberty to fix the slip after clarifying the situation with Chelsea.
= Head Judge
As an experienced lv1, I have had my turn at being Head Judge in various situations. However, as luck or providence would have it, this was my first event as Head Judge where other judges were under my direction. This changes the focus of what I need to do and think about in terms of the event. In context, being head judge in such a situation is a lot more about defining tasks, giving instructions, and delegating responsibility.
In terms of defining tasks: It's pretty easy to identify the various pieces that go into running a successful event. The timely posting of pairings, the distribution of match-slips near the beginning of round, Deck checks, and the coverage of the floor throughout the event. It is quite another thing to meld these items into a cohesive whole. I found it helpful to imagine things as they would occur in an actual tournament environment, come up with a proper sequence, try to think about potential snag-points, and modify accordingly. Lastly, although you have this wonderful plan, don't be afraid to modify it based on what is actually going on in the live event.
Just as an example, I announced the start of the round, but was having difficulties projecting properly on the day. Thus some players had started their match and some had not. Chris re-announced the start of round more robustly, but because of the confusion included we skipped the beginning of round deck check for that round, pulling a mid-round instead.
Giving Instructions: So as head judge I had two sets of notes. One was information I was going to go over with the judges at our judge meeting. This largely included the tasks that identified, and the way in which I imagined them being executed. The other set of notes was for the player meeting, and included information for them: please check your deck lists for errors, what competitive REL means, and so forth. The point is that communication is a big piece of being head judge.
There are two instances where my communication to the players broke down a bit. The first is I simply had issues projecting. This is an issue I had throughout the day, though my end-of-round announcements went smoothly. I am simply accustomed to being a quiet speaker, and need more practice making these sorts of announcements.
I had planned to make an announcement going into the final rounds of the event with an instruction that players should be playing magic, or shaking hands, and not improperly determining winner, or attempting bribery. This announcement was unintentionally skipped due to other issues that had to be dealt with – a direct result of my multiple tournament roles.
= Other notes
On the day, I was called in on an appeal twice. The first case involved a player who called judge upon discovering their opponent counting 59 card main deck, 16 card sideboard, in between games 1 and 2. Christopher was the responding judge. It was his ruling that as we are currently between games, no penalty is issued. This ruling was upheld.
The other case involved Player N cast Magma Jet targeting Prognostic Sphinx. Player A discarded a card to give the Sphinx Hexproof. Chelsea was the responding judge. It was her ruling that the spell will resolve and do as much as possible, allowing Player N to scry 2. This was overturned. As Magma jet goes to resolve, we check to see if the target is legal, and it is not because of hexproof. As a result the spell is countered by the game rules and none of it's effects occur (CR 602.8b).
A small hiccup occurred in logistics. A player asked me as were entering round 4 (of 6) if standings had been posted at all. They had not, and I did want to post standings at the end of round 3, as that was the half-way point for the event. I thanked the player and made a note to post standings end of round 4. Standings were posted, but then I quickly forgot to pair round 5 before printing pairings and match-slips. This resulted in duplicate pairings, which we had to quickly retract. Fortunately I caught the error quickly.
Head Judge Tournament Report
Competitive; Standard
For this particular event, I found myself wearing many hats. I was Judge Manager, and responsible for securing staff for the event. I was Head Judge, responsible for identifying tasks and goals, and delegating responsibilities. I was Scorekeeper, and had to keep track of the event as it progressed. I'm going to discuss various aspects of all of these roles.
Cast:
Tournament Organizer: Jonathan Engel
Head Judge / Scorekeeper: Dan Regewitz (myself)
Floor Judge: Christopher Hartman
Floor Judge: Chelsea Hogan
55 awesome players.
= Preparation
I originally lined up this event with Jon after I had just completed a 50 player GPT with myself as the only judge. As that event was a little stressful for me personally I knew this event, we were going to need at least one other judge. Fortunately, we had a lot of time to consider what we needed to do and how for the event, as it took some time to get permission to run the event from the owner (this was the company's first SCG-IQ), as well as order and receive the tournament kit.
So as Judge manager, I created an event on Judge apps, made a call out for other judges, and had to turn at least one judge away entirely. This was all new to me, as I had never formally acted as a judge manager for a multi-judge event before. I knew that I needed some judges. As our planning continued, it became clear that my tournament role would mostly likely be scorekeeper AND head judge. So, I knew not to count myself for 'floor coverage'. Our estimated attendance was 30-60 players, which we did hit. So our target was 2 floor judges, with a third possibly on standby in case something crazy happened.
Overall I prepared well, even making notes for myself on what to cover in the pre-event judge meeting, and player meeting. I also took some steps that were clearly over-preparing. For example, I packed my own laptop and printer to the event – again just in case something catastrophic occurred.
= Score keeping
My experiences as Scorekeeper are perhaps the least exciting. As a local judge and TO, I have had close to 5 years of experience working with tournament software (first DCIR, now WER), and was fairly confident that I could score keep a competitive REL event. I vaguely recall a few moments where things were a little hectic, however barring a hiccup or two, the day was without severe incident.
Christopher showed me the wondrous multiprint feature, which I had not had the opportunity to use previously, and that certainly made things go smoothly.
I in turn, was able to show him the WER fixed seating workaround. For those unfamiliar with this, WER does not have a function where you can fix a player to a certain table number. However, you sometimes want to do this to make the day easier for people with crutches, or a cane, etc. The workaround involves pairing all matches randomly, finding the player whose seat you want to fix, and unpairing them. Then, you find and unpair the table you want to fix them to. Then you repair the 4 players correctly, in table order.
The only other scorekeeper note I have for this event, is one match where the players finished game 2 in turns, and were 1/1, but the slip was filled out 1/1/1. So in this case, no third game was played, and I took the liberty to fix the slip after clarifying the situation with Chelsea.
= Head Judge
As an experienced lv1, I have had my turn at being Head Judge in various situations. However, as luck or providence would have it, this was my first event as Head Judge where other judges were under my direction. This changes the focus of what I need to do and think about in terms of the event. In context, being head judge in such a situation is a lot more about defining tasks, giving instructions, and delegating responsibility.
In terms of defining tasks: It's pretty easy to identify the various pieces that go into running a successful event. The timely posting of pairings, the distribution of match-slips near the beginning of round, Deck checks, and the coverage of the floor throughout the event. It is quite another thing to meld these items into a cohesive whole. I found it helpful to imagine things as they would occur in an actual tournament environment, come up with a proper sequence, try to think about potential snag-points, and modify accordingly. Lastly, although you have this wonderful plan, don't be afraid to modify it based on what is actually going on in the live event.
Just as an example, I announced the start of the round, but was having difficulties projecting properly on the day. Thus some players had started their match and some had not. Chris re-announced the start of round more robustly, but because of the confusion included we skipped the beginning of round deck check for that round, pulling a mid-round instead.
Giving Instructions: So as head judge I had two sets of notes. One was information I was going to go over with the judges at our judge meeting. This largely included the tasks that identified, and the way in which I imagined them being executed. The other set of notes was for the player meeting, and included information for them: please check your deck lists for errors, what competitive REL means, and so forth. The point is that communication is a big piece of being head judge.
There are two instances where my communication to the players broke down a bit. The first is I simply had issues projecting. This is an issue I had throughout the day, though my end-of-round announcements went smoothly. I am simply accustomed to being a quiet speaker, and need more practice making these sorts of announcements.
I had planned to make an announcement going into the final rounds of the event with an instruction that players should be playing magic, or shaking hands, and not improperly determining winner, or attempting bribery. This announcement was unintentionally skipped due to other issues that had to be dealt with – a direct result of my multiple tournament roles.
= Other notes
On the day, I was called in on an appeal twice. The first case involved a player who called judge upon discovering their opponent counting 59 card main deck, 16 card sideboard, in between games 1 and 2. Christopher was the responding judge. It was his ruling that as we are currently between games, no penalty is issued. This ruling was upheld.
The other case involved Player N cast Magma Jet targeting Prognostic Sphinx. Player A discarded a card to give the Sphinx Hexproof. Chelsea was the responding judge. It was her ruling that the spell will resolve and do as much as possible, allowing Player N to scry 2. This was overturned. As Magma jet goes to resolve, we check to see if the target is legal, and it is not because of hexproof. As a result the spell is countered by the game rules and none of it's effects occur (CR 602.8b).
A small hiccup occurred in logistics. A player asked me as were entering round 4 (of 6) if standings had been posted at all. They had not, and I did want to post standings at the end of round 3, as that was the half-way point for the event. I thanked the player and made a note to post standings end of round 4. Standings were posted, but then I quickly forgot to pair round 5 before printing pairings and match-slips. This resulted in duplicate pairings, which we had to quickly retract. Fortunately I caught the error quickly.
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.
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.
Monday, August 18, 2014
GPT Orlando - Tarentum; Head Judge Report
Grand Prix Trial Orlando – New Dimension Comics Mills (Tarentum, PA)
Head Judge Report
Or how to run (or not) a Grand Prix Trial.
This particular event represents my sixth or so Grand Prix Trial that I have had the fortune to judge in my years in the program. As such, I would like to not only cover some things that occurred in this event in a typical head judge report, but also write in broader strokes about what my fellow judges and Tournament Organizers can do to make these events run smoother.
Preparation.
These events take a certain amount of forethought and planning. To run a successful event the TO needs to make sure they have the space, and time to run the event. Provide for some lead time to advertise the event, secure the services of a certified judge such as myself, make sure they have a computer and printer that can be dedicated to the event. Assign someone (sometimes a judge, sometimes not) to keep score. Table numbers, paper cutter, water for parched players and staff – and probably a good number of items that I have failed to mention.
The point is that as a TO, you need to think of the comfort of your players and staff. Absolutely anything you can do to make the day go smoother is probably a good thing. Jon (My TO on this event) gets a passing score in this department. His store recently underwent an expansion, and we had room for nearly 3 times the number of players we actually hosted (24). Drinks and snacks were on tap, we had a dedicated computer and printer in our room. At the end of the day I'd have to say we put on a successful event for everyone involved.
I see part of my job as head judge to help the TO prepare. With new TO or ones I have not previously worked with, I try to make sure that they have considered all the things that go into these events. Because if something is forgotten or communication doesn't flow, it often creates a combination of delays or unneeded stress.
Dealing with new Players.
Grand Prix Trials are an interesting niche. They are relatively small events that occur on the store level, but they are Competitive Rules Enforcement Level. So you are often faced with players who are playing in their first competitive event. It becomes helpful then to make these events friendly to those players, while maintaining that competitive level. This is most easily done I've found through my Head Judge announcements. I discussed briefly:
Today is Competitive REL – that simply means that we will hold you to more technically precise play.
Outside assistance – If someone is involved in a tournament match, make sure that you do not say something that could be construed as play advice. By the same token, if you believe you see a rules issue, you can ask the players to pause the game, and get me involved right away!
Sealed Deck Swap – You will receive 6 packs of M15. You will be opening these packs, and simply registering the contents of them with the checklists we just passed out. You will not be playing with the cards that you open.
This is also true at least in part for the top-8 single elimination rounds. Many of your players may have never been in this situation before. It's good to have some instructions prepared for these players.
Zone Draft – When passing packs, do not stack packs between players!
Keep your eyes to yourself.
Please do not discuss the draft in any way.
You will have a chance to review your picks between packs.
The rounds you are about to play are still best of 3 matches, the matches are untimed, but we still expect you to play at a reasonable pace.
The rounds you are about to play are single -elimination rounds.
Without mentioning names of course, I'm going to mention that we had one particular new player who I now know that this was probably his first ever magic event. As much as I rejoice to see anyone join this awesome hobby – this player is not the target audience for this event. I sincerely hope this player returns to this (or another store) to enjoy magic in the future, but I think allowing him to play at Competitive REL as his first event was probably a disservice.
Penalties.
Of course one of the things that is different at Competitive REL, is that we have a very well structured and defined system of penalties, defined by the IPG. And we had a few of those.
That new player I mentioned before, the pool that he registered was done in a fashion that was rather incomplete and unclear. This was discovered by the player who received the pool at the start of the deck building process. This was also the moment when I became totally aware that this was in fact a brand new player. This falls under the Limited Procedure Violation penalty (warning).
To resolve this issue, I worked with the player who received this pool. I assisted him in creating a more proper record of the pool.
The real story was that during round 1, we found 1 deck list with an issue. And – you guessed it, it was this list. The player whom we had saddled with partial responsibility for recording this pool, had forgotten to record the basic land that he was playing. This falls under the deck/decklist problem penalty (Game Loss). However, I opted to downgrade this penalty to a warning for two potent reasons. First, that we had saddled this player with additional responsibility; second – I was collecting deck lists and double-checking them to see that the player had recorded their name and land – and somehow missed this one.
The only other penalty on the day was another Limited Procedure Violation. This one occurred during our top 8 draft when a player who was between picks of pack 1, reviewed his picks thus far. It was quickly caught, and I re-clarified that review happens between packs only.
Deck Checks
All competitive level events also include some kind of deck list, and we judges are required to check at least some of them during the course of the event. The recommendation I often hear is that we want to try to check about 10% of the decks in the event. For this event of 24 people, I felt we could fill this basic requirement by checking a single match. I knew I wanted this check to occur sometime later in the event, preferably round 3 or 4 (of 5). I also knew that because we were a small crowd, and players were not required to play at their assigned tables (this was done so that we weren't boxed into one corner of an otherwise large room) – I was going to swoop into a game mid-round.
Everything went according to plan here, except the check in question occurred in round 5 instead of round 3 or 4. While not ideal due to the fact that for several matches draws were declared, it accomplished our basic goals. I enlisted Jon's aid to check both decks in a timely fashion, and the decks were returned to the players without incident.
Rulings
Answering questions about rules and card interactions is one of many ways Judges serve the players. As this was a limited M15 event, there weren't many questions that stood out as particularly interesting. But I did take notes on 2 that I felt might be educational to some players.
Generator Servant “T, Sacrifice Generator Servant: Add (2) to your mana pool. If that mana is spent on a creature spell, it gains haste until end of turn.
Phyrexian Revoker “As Phyrexian Revoker enters the battlefield, name a nonland card.
Activated abilities of sources with the chosen name can't be activated.”
If Phyrexian Revoker names Generator servant, than you may not sacrifice it for (2) mana. While this is a mana ability, Phyrexian Revoker doesn't care about this quality, and only cares that it is in fact an activated ability.
Urborg, Tomb of Yogmoth “Each land is a Swamp in addition to its other land types.”
Staff of the Death Magus “Whenever you cast a black spell or a Swamp enters the battlefield under your control, you gain 1 life.”
Urborg's ability is static and continuously effects the game state. As such any land that you play or put into play will enter as a swamp, and trigger the staff of the Death Magus.
As a side note, Urborg effects all land, and not just your own, so your opponent's land is also swamps if they happen to have a Staff of the Death Magus in play.
Until next time, play some awesome magic.
- Dan Regewitz Lv1 Magic Judge
Head Judge Report
Or how to run (or not) a Grand Prix Trial.
This particular event represents my sixth or so Grand Prix Trial that I have had the fortune to judge in my years in the program. As such, I would like to not only cover some things that occurred in this event in a typical head judge report, but also write in broader strokes about what my fellow judges and Tournament Organizers can do to make these events run smoother.
Preparation.
These events take a certain amount of forethought and planning. To run a successful event the TO needs to make sure they have the space, and time to run the event. Provide for some lead time to advertise the event, secure the services of a certified judge such as myself, make sure they have a computer and printer that can be dedicated to the event. Assign someone (sometimes a judge, sometimes not) to keep score. Table numbers, paper cutter, water for parched players and staff – and probably a good number of items that I have failed to mention.
The point is that as a TO, you need to think of the comfort of your players and staff. Absolutely anything you can do to make the day go smoother is probably a good thing. Jon (My TO on this event) gets a passing score in this department. His store recently underwent an expansion, and we had room for nearly 3 times the number of players we actually hosted (24). Drinks and snacks were on tap, we had a dedicated computer and printer in our room. At the end of the day I'd have to say we put on a successful event for everyone involved.
I see part of my job as head judge to help the TO prepare. With new TO or ones I have not previously worked with, I try to make sure that they have considered all the things that go into these events. Because if something is forgotten or communication doesn't flow, it often creates a combination of delays or unneeded stress.
Dealing with new Players.
Grand Prix Trials are an interesting niche. They are relatively small events that occur on the store level, but they are Competitive Rules Enforcement Level. So you are often faced with players who are playing in their first competitive event. It becomes helpful then to make these events friendly to those players, while maintaining that competitive level. This is most easily done I've found through my Head Judge announcements. I discussed briefly:
Today is Competitive REL – that simply means that we will hold you to more technically precise play.
Outside assistance – If someone is involved in a tournament match, make sure that you do not say something that could be construed as play advice. By the same token, if you believe you see a rules issue, you can ask the players to pause the game, and get me involved right away!
Sealed Deck Swap – You will receive 6 packs of M15. You will be opening these packs, and simply registering the contents of them with the checklists we just passed out. You will not be playing with the cards that you open.
This is also true at least in part for the top-8 single elimination rounds. Many of your players may have never been in this situation before. It's good to have some instructions prepared for these players.
Zone Draft – When passing packs, do not stack packs between players!
Keep your eyes to yourself.
Please do not discuss the draft in any way.
You will have a chance to review your picks between packs.
The rounds you are about to play are still best of 3 matches, the matches are untimed, but we still expect you to play at a reasonable pace.
The rounds you are about to play are single -elimination rounds.
Without mentioning names of course, I'm going to mention that we had one particular new player who I now know that this was probably his first ever magic event. As much as I rejoice to see anyone join this awesome hobby – this player is not the target audience for this event. I sincerely hope this player returns to this (or another store) to enjoy magic in the future, but I think allowing him to play at Competitive REL as his first event was probably a disservice.
Penalties.
Of course one of the things that is different at Competitive REL, is that we have a very well structured and defined system of penalties, defined by the IPG. And we had a few of those.
That new player I mentioned before, the pool that he registered was done in a fashion that was rather incomplete and unclear. This was discovered by the player who received the pool at the start of the deck building process. This was also the moment when I became totally aware that this was in fact a brand new player. This falls under the Limited Procedure Violation penalty (warning).
To resolve this issue, I worked with the player who received this pool. I assisted him in creating a more proper record of the pool.
The real story was that during round 1, we found 1 deck list with an issue. And – you guessed it, it was this list. The player whom we had saddled with partial responsibility for recording this pool, had forgotten to record the basic land that he was playing. This falls under the deck/decklist problem penalty (Game Loss). However, I opted to downgrade this penalty to a warning for two potent reasons. First, that we had saddled this player with additional responsibility; second – I was collecting deck lists and double-checking them to see that the player had recorded their name and land – and somehow missed this one.
The only other penalty on the day was another Limited Procedure Violation. This one occurred during our top 8 draft when a player who was between picks of pack 1, reviewed his picks thus far. It was quickly caught, and I re-clarified that review happens between packs only.
Deck Checks
All competitive level events also include some kind of deck list, and we judges are required to check at least some of them during the course of the event. The recommendation I often hear is that we want to try to check about 10% of the decks in the event. For this event of 24 people, I felt we could fill this basic requirement by checking a single match. I knew I wanted this check to occur sometime later in the event, preferably round 3 or 4 (of 5). I also knew that because we were a small crowd, and players were not required to play at their assigned tables (this was done so that we weren't boxed into one corner of an otherwise large room) – I was going to swoop into a game mid-round.
Everything went according to plan here, except the check in question occurred in round 5 instead of round 3 or 4. While not ideal due to the fact that for several matches draws were declared, it accomplished our basic goals. I enlisted Jon's aid to check both decks in a timely fashion, and the decks were returned to the players without incident.
Rulings
Answering questions about rules and card interactions is one of many ways Judges serve the players. As this was a limited M15 event, there weren't many questions that stood out as particularly interesting. But I did take notes on 2 that I felt might be educational to some players.
Generator Servant “T, Sacrifice Generator Servant: Add (2) to your mana pool. If that mana is spent on a creature spell, it gains haste until end of turn.
Phyrexian Revoker “As Phyrexian Revoker enters the battlefield, name a nonland card.
Activated abilities of sources with the chosen name can't be activated.”
If Phyrexian Revoker names Generator servant, than you may not sacrifice it for (2) mana. While this is a mana ability, Phyrexian Revoker doesn't care about this quality, and only cares that it is in fact an activated ability.
Urborg, Tomb of Yogmoth “Each land is a Swamp in addition to its other land types.”
Staff of the Death Magus “Whenever you cast a black spell or a Swamp enters the battlefield under your control, you gain 1 life.”
Urborg's ability is static and continuously effects the game state. As such any land that you play or put into play will enter as a swamp, and trigger the staff of the Death Magus.
As a side note, Urborg effects all land, and not just your own, so your opponent's land is also swamps if they happen to have a Staff of the Death Magus in play.
Until next time, play some awesome magic.
- Dan Regewitz Lv1 Magic Judge
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
