Arizona, Phoenix | Limited
Time: Friday October 25 – Sunday October 27 2019
Players: 556 Winner: Max Mick

Friday – PTQ/MCQ Team Lead


It's Only Cheating if I Get Caught!
A player came up to a judge and said that they had the following conversation with their opponent at the end of the first round of the modern double-up.
NAP: I might switch decks next round
AP: Uhh, I don't think that's legal
NAP: I don't think anyone is watching...

The judge asked AP what deck NAP was on and checked in next round, luckily NAP didn't decide to cheat!

Three's a Crowd... and a Dangerous Life Total
Something I've been trying to do more often is shadow other judges. I've been encouraged to try and do some more mentoring. One thing I've become increasingly aware of is the amount of judges on any given call. I feel like two judges is usually fine, the second judge is usually nice because if the first judge has a question they can easily ask it. However once there are three judges on a call, I think that's too many. Players can begin to feel crowded pretty easily, so if there are ever two judges on a call or at a table at the end of the round I'll usually leave if I don't have a specific reason to be there.

Just so We Know Who Touched it Last
A player let a judge know that they weren't on the pairings sheet. The judge took the player to the scorekeeper and they fished out the slip from the last round and saw that the player had clearly marked “drop”. The player then helpfully told the judge that they thought they were supposed to initial the drop box if they were the player that dropped off the slip.

Look at the Top 5 and Put one in the Graveyard
AP cast Ancient Stirrings and looks at the top 5 cards of his library. He then selects Arcbound Ravager and puts it in the graveyard. A few turns later both players realize this happened. The infraction is GPE-GRV, we have a partial fix, the item is in the incorrect zone due to a zone change being missed, and we can move it with minor disruption to the game, we can move it. However, the Arcbound Ravager player was fairly low on cards by this point, and it's reasonable the opponent made some decisions based on the number of cards in the hand. The FJ on the call decided that it was better to not partial fix here. Personally I think I'd ask the opponent whether they thought the Ravager was in the hand the entire time, and if they'd made any decisions based on the number of cards in the hand. If they either thought the Ravager was there the entire time or made no decisions based on the number of cards in their opponents hand, I think I'd be okay with the partial fix here.

To Backup or to Not Backup
AP cast Scavenging Ooze with a Blood Crypt and a Swamp and passed. NAP took their turn and played Windswept Heath, cracked for a Breeding Pool, cast Blighted Agent, and went to pass the turn when they noticed that AP didn't have the correct mana to cast Scavenging Ooze. AP had two Overgrown Tombs in hand, and let me know they had intended to play one of those instead. I was HJ at the time, and my FJ wanted to back up. I didn't see any huge issues so I authorized it. We backed up to the Scavenging Ooze but not the land drop. NAP was a little upset because he said that now that AP knew he had a Blighted Agent in his hand AP could make decisions based on that, such as leaving two mana untapped for potentially a kill spell. Neither player seemed thrilled about the backup, and upon reflection I think both players believed the board state to contain an Overgrown Tomb, and that it would've been less disruptive to simply exchange the Tomb for a Crypt.

Sword of Meek Disregard for Continuous Effects
AP equipped a Sword of the Meek to an Urza, Lord High Artificer while NAP controlled a Karn, the Great Creator, several turns later the players noticed the issue. I ruled GRV no fix, however NAP was not thrilled about this ruling. NAP had a Warping Wail in hand and could no longer exile the Urza with its first mode. I was HJ at the time, so unfortunately NAP couldn't appeal my ruling. I spoke with him for a bit and explained that while the action of equipping the sword was illegal, it being equipped was not.

A Triggering GRV
AP controlled a Rotting Regisaur, and drew for turn, before discarding. When the judge asked which card AP had drawn, AP helpfully mentioned that the Tarmogoyf he drew this turn was the card he wanted to discard. The correct fix here is GPE – MT – warning, NAP chooses whether the trigger goes on the stack or not, however this is, as AP stated, very advantageous for him. Instead however the FJ ruled GPE – GRV warning, and did the HCE fix of revealing the hand to the opponent and letting them select the card to be discarded. I spoke with the judge afterwards, and he mentioned that he did realize later that GRV was the incorrect infraction, he felt like the HCE fix here was more fair than the missed trigger one. I do feel that in this scenario HCE does a better job than MT, however when we start deviating for “cleaner” or “better” fixes, we start moving into other judge territory, and we degrade consistency.

Saturday – Main Event - Slips


Oko, Thief of Formats
If Oko, Thief of Crowns makes a Food token, and then makes the Food token a 3/3 green elk, will things like Bog Naughty still be able to sacrifice the Food token? The answer is no, Oko's second ability changes the type, subype, color and power/toughness of the food token. Notably it overwrites any subtypes it had before, like food. So while the token is still named food, it no longer has the subtype food. When cards mention “forests” or “food” they are referring to the subtype, not the name. If they wanted cards with a specific name they would be templated to say “sacrifice a card named food”

Is It IDaW if they Already Determined a Winner?
I was watching a match and at the end of the fifth turn, AP asked NAP to concede, NAP declined. AP looked a little down, and began flipping cards from the top of his library. I stopped him and told both players to fill out the match slip, but decided not to match loss for IDaW. I educated AP about this at the table, letting him know I wouldn't be infracting him but that what he had done was not ok. NAP came and asked me about it later, and I let him know the call I made was that the match result had already been determined that it looked more like AP was looking at his next draws to see how the game would've played out for himself, rather than to sway his opponents decision to concede. Which is why I didn't issue the infraction. NAP seemed to understand.

Judge! The Judge Gave OA!
The classic “Judge, can I Spellskite Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker's ability?” Is a question as old as modern, and always a topic of hot debate. Many people have different opinions on how much we should be answering that question and when 'information about rules' becomes 'strategic advice'. I'm more on the line of answering what the player is trying to ask me. I don't like the idea of forcing them to ask the “correct question” to get the answer they are trying to get. I personally think it's a waste of time. I also don't like the idea of answering only the question they asked if it's clearly not what they are trying to ask. I think if your answer to a judge call is feels like a “gotcha” you are doing it wrong.
Therefore, my answer to the Spellskite question will always be “Yes, but it won't do anything.”
This came up at MF Phoenix, a player asked me “How does Covetous Urge work with Adventures?” NAP currently had a Realm-Cloaked Giant in his hand. I gave a full explanation, including who would be able to cast the adventure from exile. I felt a little uncomfortable with giving all the information at the table however, because NAP could likely perceive me as giving OA. However, I feel like either two things happen if I don't fully answer the question, AP calls a judge in like 2 minutes after he's taken the Adventure card and doesn't know what happens when he casts the Adventure half. Or AP has to keep asking me questions until he drags all the info out of me. Both these scenarios seem like kind of a waste of time, so I took the initiative.

Sunday - Main Event – TLTP Testing


TLTP Attempt II
Sunday was my second crack at leading slips team on day 2. Being watched makes me pretty anxious, so it was a nerve-wracking day for me. I get uncomfortable giving presentations at conferences (doing a workshop is a little different) when other judges shadow my calls, or even just opening a team meeting. Unfortunately a few minor things happened and I didn't pass again. I'm not entirely sure that I'm terribly cut out for team leading. I feel like this type of position favors people who are outgoing, charismatic and talkative, which are three things that certainly don't describe me. In the debrief I was asked why I wanted the TLTP and ultimately to certify for L3.
My answer was pretty simple.

I'd like to be more useful to my employers, I'd like to be able to do more things to help the event. And I'd like to be able to authorize backups, game losses and HCEs. I enjoy interesting policy situations and with either L3 or TLTP I'd be able to interact with more of them. So even if it's not something I'm particularly good at now, it's something I still would like to pursue. So I'll continue to work on it until I get there. Hopefully my next shot at TLTP will go a little more smoothly.

...In Conclusion
I enjoyed MF Phoenix, even if Sunday was a little demoralizing. I feel like I am improving, but more slowly than at the beginning. I'm still getting to do new things at each event.