Detroit, Michigan | Limited
Time: Friday July 12th – Sunday July 14th
Players: 706 Winner: Ben Bellis

Friday – On-Demand Events


One-Headed Giant Draft
A player calls a judge over “Judge, we've almost gotten to the end of this pack and we think we may have the wrong number of cards,” The judge takes a look, in this 2HG draft, a team has 16 cards, two teams have 14 cards (the correct number of cards) and one team has 8 cards, there are two packs still circulating, one with four cards and one with two cards. The judge on the call tells all the teams that have more than 8 cards to take their last two picks and give them to the team with 8 cards and then to finish drafting the cards on the table. This felt like kind of a weird solution, when I discussed this with another judge he mentioned just giving the team the remaining cards on the table, which I feel is a little less disruptive.

Prizes for All
The MCQ top 8 historically has been given boxes as their prize support, this has been problematic in the past because there was always some level of confusion between whether the MCQ top 8 judge should be the one to pull out the boxes and distribute them to the players, or if it should be prize tickets job, and if so, how it should be communicated to them. Now the MCQ players are just being given prize tickets instead. I think this is WAY better, boxes are a pretty archaic way of paying out events, and when we have such a smooth and logical prize ticket system in place, why not utilize it for one of the more premiere events. Also this gives players the opportunity to get something they might want more from the prize wall instead of just boring old boxes. Another weird thing is that top 8 players are also given a playset of the foil lightning bolt promo, which is cool, until you realize that they got one for entering, so now they have 5, which is a little weird. The final thing about prizing I want to mention is that it's very typical for the prize breakdown to end up with nothing in first. There's a ton of tix in second but 0 tix in first, just the invite, I recall a few weeks ago I was working top 8 of an MCQ and I was given a pack of War of the Spark with a piece of blue tape on it that said “invite”, when I asked about it the PM sides manager just said “I just want it to feel like there is something in first, even if it's just a token, so the winner goes home with something.”

Saturday – MCQ Team Lead – Paper Team


Path to the Graveyard
AP attacked with Raging Ravine and NAP cast Path to Exile targeting it, AP grabbed his basic then after combat be activated Wrenn and Six's +1 targeting Raging Ravine, he played Raging Ravine for turn and passed. NAP untapped, drew a card, played a land and then realized that Raging Ravine should've been exiled. I issued a GRV/FTMGS and did a rewind to the point of activating Wrenn and Six and allowing him to pick a legal target for the ability. But after discussing the scenario with another judge, I think I should've investigated more for cheating, it was late in the game and aside from the Wrenn and Six there were no other nonland permanents on the board. Both players were low on resources, having one card in hand each (NAP had a land, I never saw AP's hand). There were no other manlands on board nor were there any in the graveyard for Wrenn and Six. I think I should've checked AP's hand to see if it was another threat, or nothing, if it was nothing, then the incentive for cheating is higher here, I could've also looked through AP's GY and checked to see if he had any relevant instants or sorceries to cast with retrace in the event Wrenn and Six ultimates. Another thing to ask would've been what kind of communication the players engaged in when Path to Exile was cast, if NAP said “path your creature, go get a land” its less suspicious than if NAP just said “path your creature” and AP got a land on his own, implieing that he knows what Path to Exile does, and should know that the creature shouldn't end up in the graveyard.

PSA: Snapcaster + Force is Still Bad
I would say a large percentage of all calls on the MCQ were “if I give Force of Negation flashback with Snapcaster Mage, can I pay the alternate casting cost?” No. No you cannot. You can't do it in legacy and you can't do it here. Snapcaster Mage gives the card flashback equal to it's mana cost, meaning you can cast the card from your GY on the condition that you pay the mana cost. It doesn't mean you can cast this card by any means necessary from your GY this turn. In slightly more technical terms, you're already paying an alternative cost, (the flashback cost) so you can't pay another alternative cost on top of that one.

Cryptic Phases
AP said “Combat?” NAP said “Ok, I cast Cryptic Command, tap your dudes and draw a card,” In response AP activated some mana abilities and tried to cast a big creature, at which point NAP was confused because he thought we were in the beginning of combat. I got called over, and ruled that we were in fact, in the beginning of combat, but that we were rewinding the casting of this creature. I issued no infraction as I felt like this was simply a misunderstanding. AP thought that because NAP had interrupted him when he said 'combat' that he was being stopped before combat, while the NAP wanted to stop priority in the beginning of combat.

I Wish I Had a Sideboard
A player called me over and in a panicky tone said, “Judge there is something wrong with my deck!” I asked him what it was, and he responded “I'm missing a card, there is an extra card in my deck!”
I asked, “What do you mean you're missing a card?”
“I'm missing a card from my sideboard,” The player riffled through his sideboard anxiously
“.....Do you have a sideboard card main board?”
“Yes!”
“What game is it?”
“Game 2.”
I stopped for a moment and was like, wait there is nothing at all wrong with this,“This is legal.”
The player thought for a moment and then resolutely looked down and said “Okay, Karn, the Great Creator grabs Walking Ballista.”
The opponent then chimes in, “So Mycosynth Lattice is in the library”
“....Yeah”

Trust with Insurance
A player calls me over, “Judge I drew 8 cards, but didn't look at any of them for my opening hand.” I asked the opponent if the player had looked at any of the cards, the opponent shrugged and said he wasn't sure. I thought for a moment and decided that the player was probably telling the truth, and decided to take a random card from the hand and shuffle it in just in case. The player kept trying to tell me what the last card he had drawn was and attempting to put it on top. When I discussed the call with another judge, they mentioned that if I was trusting this player, shuffling a random card in makes no sense. I mentioned that in the event that the player was lying, but we couldn't identify it, at least this way it still offset some of the potential advantage. Thought I am considering the opposing stance.

Karn, the Great Game Breaker
AP was on Amulet Titan, he had resolved Karn, the Great Creator and grabbed and cast Mycosynth Lattice, he seemed pretty confident in his line. NAP, on some kind of prison deck, seemed a little confused, but took her turn, played a land, looked at her own Karn, the Great Creator, and her Ensnaring Bridge, shrugged and passed. AP then took his turn and tried to tap 6 mana to cast a spell, I was watching the game and shook my head and said “No, your opponent also has a Karn,” AP paused for a moment to consider what he had done, sighed, and determined that he needed to get rid of his opponent's Ensnaring Bridge, he activated Karn and attempted to grab an Engineered Explosives out of the sideboard, I stopped him in tandem with his opponent, mentioning that Karn was also an artifact. I issued a GRV to the player and told them to continue. He looked down, and realized he had an Azusa, Lost but Seeking, he attacked and killed his opponent's Karn, he then grabbed his Engineered Explosives, he attempted to tap a Boros Garrison for RW while Damping Sphere was in play, we stopped him and he tapped different mana instead, he activated it on 3 to wipe up Ensnaring Bridge, I tapped his Azusa, Lost but Seeking since it seemed he was going to forget that as well. The next turn his opponent cast a Chalice of the Void on 0 and passed.

AP cast Summoner's Pact, looked at his opponent an asked if it was ok, the opponent nodded and he began searching his library, at which point a spectator said, “Doesn't Chalice of the Void interact with that?” I stopped the spectator before he said anything else, I motioned for him to talk to me away from the table, I stood up told the players the trigger had been clearly missed, and for AP to continue resolving his Summoner's Pact. I explained to the spectator that what he had done was give Outside Assistance, and that the penalty was a Match Loss, but that I didn't feel it was worth issuing here, as no assistance had been gained. I let him know this was a deviation, and explained the policy regarding triggers to him. This was incorrect and is the second time I've made a mistake of this nature, after the fact, I spoke with another judge and the HJ about what I did and they both agreed that while the deviation was fine, the correct course of action would've been to get the HJ involved. In my conversation with the spectator he mentioned that AP might be grabbing a Primeval Titan with Summoner's Pact. I paused and nodded and walked back over to the game to see a resolved Primeval Titan in play along with two lands, Summoner's Pact only grabs a green creature, and currently, due to Mycosynth Lattice, Primeval Titan was most certainly not green, the player groaned. I told him to put the lands and the titan back in the library and continue.

He looked down at his board state, then looked to me and said in a joking manner, “Is there anything preventing me from attacking?” I examined the board state and responded, “It seems fine to me.” After the match, I let the player know that it would've been pretty easy to GRV him to death, but I decided against it since the match felt effectively over and additional GRVs seemed to be putting him on tilt. I was a little uneasy about how it had gone and checked in with AP to see if there was anything he would've liked me to do differently, as well as NAP. I also went over the lack of additional GRVs with the HJ later who mentioned that in this deviation, he would've also liked to have been looped in. both the HJ as another FJ on the event agreed that I probably at least should've given the player the second GRV just to let him know that he really couldn't be making this many mistakes.

Sunday – Strike Team
I've never been on strike before, so this was another stamp on my “Work all the roles at a MF stamp card”. In this particular building there were two unions, which meant that there were certain things that by law strike wasn't allowed to do, for example, taking down or setting up certain banners, constructing or deconstructing the stage, and stacking chairs and moving tables. So I didn't get the full strike experience this time, as there was just a large amount of stuff we were barred from doing. I still enjoyed it though, tetrising items into the flight cases and learning to use pallete wrap was fun.

...In Conclusion
MF Detroit was one of the funnest shows I've been to in a long time, the circuit has been a little rocky for me lately, but I this show reminded me of why I judge and why I love being on the circuit. I really enjoyed working the MCQ, and even ODEs and Strike were a nice change of pace. I had a ton of fun with the players and my fellow judges and I'm really excited to work Denver!