Austin, Texas | Modern
Time: Friday January 10th – Sunday January 12th 2019
Main Event Players: 801 Winner: Christopher Candreva

Friday – Pioneer PTQ – Deck Checks


Ride in Reverse
AP cast Swift End targeting one of NAPs creatures, it resolved and then after a few moments AP mentioned he'd like to tap differently for his spell. I thought about allowing him to reverse his decision, but decided that NAP allowing the spell to resolve was too many priority passes for me to be comfortable with AP changing how he tapped.

Combat, What is it Good For?
AP said “Go to combat”, NAP said “Before combat, I want to play Cast Out”. AP then asked where they would be in the turn after Cast Out resolved, in his precombat main phase or in the beginning of combat step. The 'combat shortcut' currently takes us to the beginning of combat unless NAP is taking an action to prevent a beginning of combat trigger to happen. Or if NAP specifies that they want to stop the game before then. In this scenario I was shadowing the call, I was consulted and I let the FJ know he should probably just ask NAP where in the turn he is casting Cast Out, since “before combat” could mean a few different things in player speak. Strangely enough, NAP wanted to cast it during AP's main phase, which is also what AP wanted.

Cut to the Heart of the Problem
My team lead was checking a deck and noticed that all the sideboard cards and 10 of the mainboard cards were in slightly different looking sleeves that he could pick out of the deck fairly easily. He mentioned that this was a somewhat common problem with Katana sleeves. When you get a pack of 100 sleeves, inside the box there are actually two different packs of 50 sleeves. This will result in a 50/25 split when a player sleeves a deck. We both felt like it wasn't really worth a warning for marked cards but that we should let the player know about the problem and instruct them to change their sleeves. I think this feels pretty bad because I myself found it hard to pick out the marked sleeves, and we're telling players to buy new sleeves right after they've bought new sleeves.

Strikingly Incorrect
AP controlled Soul-Scar Mage and cast Lightning Strikes targeting Kytheon, Hero of Akros, which has been chosen for Dauntless Bodyguard. In response, NAP sacrifices the bodyguard, and doesn't put Kytheon, Hero of Akros in the graveyard. A spectator then paused the game. This is one of those cases where it ends up being a double GRV since AP didn't put counters on their Kytheon as a result of NAP's Soul-Scar Mage, and neither of them noticed the issue.

Rise to Victory
AP cast Chart a Course and discarded Arclight Phoenix, then cast two Opts and then said “combat”, he began by tapping the two Arclight Phoenixes he had in play and simultaneously counting damage he reached his Servo tokens when he realized he had forgotten the trigger for the Arclight Phoenix in the graveyard. NAP had declared she was taking the damage, but with no cards in hand and only a tapped Glorybringer. I didn't really think this was any information AP didn't already have. With the extra 3 damage from Arclight Phoenix AP's attack was lethal, however without the damage, AP was dead on the backswing. I decided to rule reversing decisions, since AP hadn't even really finished declaring attackers, NAP appealed but I was upheld.

Feels Bad, Bro
A player arrived late to his seat, I asked him why, and he said “I was literally over there donating to the children”, and was putting away his donation paperwork. I felt kinda bad and issued the game loss, but felt like perhaps it would've been okay to make an exception in this scenario.

Lightning.... Something
A player wrote “Lightning Bolt” on their pioneer decklist, instead of Lightning Strike. I think this could be fine because they are very similar cards, however it was brought up to me that this could potentially be Wizard's Lightning or which sees some fringe play, or more notably Lightning Axe, which is more of a staple in the format. The HJ of the event decided this wasn't going to be a game loss. Personally I'm still on the fence about it.

Saturday – Main Event – End of Round


You Put Your Lands Where?
AP was playing with his lands in front of his other permanents, NAP had asked him if he could play with the lands in the back, and AP had mentioned he thought this was only required for coverage. I let the judge on the call know that the MTR specifies what a board layout should be in the Player Communication section, and that we as judges don't really care what the board layout is if both players are fine with it, but if one player would like it to be the way it's specified in the MTR, we would enforce that.

Mistbound Comumnication
AP cast Merfolk Mistbinder, in response NAP cast Spell Queller to exiles it, then AP cast Harbinger of the Tides and bounced NAP's Spell Queller, putting the Merfolk Mistbinder back into play. AP then attacked, saying“take 14”, which put NAP at 6. NAP untaps, draws, plays and cracks a fetch going to 5 and then equips Batterskull to his Elk token and attacks at which point AP mentions that he forgot to add the extra 4 damage from Merfolk Mistbinder's field buff. I ran this backup by another judge who mentioned that it was possible that NAP had intentionally not taken the extra four damage, as that would put him in a position where it would be likely that AP could kill him on the next turn. However after some investigation it was determined that there really wasn't enough evidence to take any action against NAP and that it was probably just a mistake. Afterwards we issued the GRV and executed the backup.

Free Shuffles for Everyone
I had a player that took their third mulligan, decided to keep, bottomed 3 cards and then shuffled afterwards. They mentioned that they were on storm and one of the cards they had bottomed was Grapeshot, I thought this was a little suspicious, I asked how many copies of Grapeshot he was running, and he said 2. After thinking it over, storm usually gets Grapeshot with Gifts Ungiven anyways, and shuffles enough with fetches, so I thought the potential for cheating was pretty low here. I ruled Mulligan Procedure Error but issued no fix, the additional remedy states that I can have the player take an additional mulligan because it feels like it doesn't really “fix” the problem.

Voice of Death
If AP targets NAPs Voice of Resurgence token with Merfolk Trickster's ability, what will happen? Well, unfortunately, or fortunately depending on which side of the table you're on, it dies.

The Eternal Shuffle
AP cracks a Mishra's Bauble at the end of their turn and then cracks a fetchland and begins searching their library, letting his opponent know that he can take his turn while the fetchland is resolving. NAP takes his turn, drawing a card, and casts two Arcum's Astrolabes and a Mox Opal and passes the turn, at which point AP has finished shuffling, puts down their library, and draws a card for their Bauble after NAP cuts. Is this missed trigger? I said I wouldn't rule this way, as I feel like he drew the card as soon as he could. But I think it would've been better if he'd mentioned the trigger at any point beforehand, like when he passed the turn or during NAP's upkeep. So I wouldn't overturn a FJ that made the Missed Trigger ruling and wouldn't be upset if my HJ overturned me and ruled Missed Trigger.

The Ghost of Past Hands
In the middle of game 2, AP notices a pile of 7 random cards off to the side, he assumes they were his hand from the previous game. This is a deck problem, though a little bit of a weird one, how we fix it is to randomly select mainboard cards from all the mainboard cards that are not currently in the library (including ones that AP may have sideboarded out) and shuffle them into the random portion of the library until AP has a legal deck of 60 cards. I was talking it over with another judge and they mentioned that I might've been a cleaner and quicker fix to just shuffle in the pile that was off to the side. I pretty much agree with this.

Sunday – Pioneer PTQ – Backup HJ [136 players]


Devoted Fanbase
In devotion news, not only do Heliod, God of the Sun's own clerics not provide him devotion, but if I have a transformed Legion's Landing it also doesn't provide white devotion, since it only inherits the converted mana cost of the backside, and not the actual mana cost.

Judge Assist Medal
A player said, after looking at the oracle text of Elder-Deep Fiend “So it doesn't have devoid?” I replied with, “No but it's still colorless.” I think it's pretty clear the wanted to confirm the color of EDF, but I'm wondering if I went a little outside the box and offered too much extra information here.

Whirl of Problems
AP plays Goblin Chainwhirler and says “3 to everything” NAP puts their creatures in the graveyard but then didn't take 3 damage. AP marks down the life total change and then passes. NAP does nothing on their turn and passes back. AP then declares attackers and NAP doesn't block, AP claims NAP is dead but NAP believes they are at 3. The ruling I advised on the floor was that NAP was dead, and players are allowed to keep crummy notes, but it sounds like AP communicated okay. The HJ overturned and ruled CPV for AP and rewound to NAP's declaration of blockers. I ended up asking a lot of judges this question over the weekend and people seemed pretty divided.

A Marked Problem
During a deck check one of the decks had a small fingernail mark on both a Shrapnel Blast and a Stonecoil Serpent, both of which were four-ofs in the deck. The other deck had similar issues on a Forest, a Breeding Pool and a Botanical Sanctum. It was ruled that there would be offsetting game losses and that both players needed to fix the sleeves. I thought that since pioneer doesn't have many shuffle effects, the optional upgrade if the HJ believes significant advantage could be gained from the markings doesn't apply here, and thus the players should be given warnings and simply asked to change the sleeves.

CFBE Decides to Stop Cutting Corners
For mystery drafts, historically players taking the packs and selling them has been a huge problem (as a bit of a value hunter myself, the option to spend $25 to get $120 worth of packs is pretty real). In the past we've had a system where we were banning players that took their packs and ran, or drafted and dropped, but then CFBE had an idea where they'd cut the corners of the packs off in advance so they were theoretically searchable and therefore useless if players wanted to sell them. This weekend however I noticed that at the table judges were simply cutting the entire top of the pack off. I asked why and it was mentioned that people were suspicious that CFBE was searching the packs, and that it looked less suspicious if the packs were simply cut at the table. On a semi-related note, I had a player that really wanted to get into the next mystery draft, but didn't want to be banned for not playing out this draft, he decided to simply shuffle up 40 lands and lose as quickly as possible. Apparently this is within current CFBEs current policy, but I'm not excited about it.

Destruction of Personal Material
AP cast Command the Chaff and NAP asked a judge if he could rip up the cards in his sideboard in response. A few of the judges I asked shrugged and said this was fine. My personal ruling here is that in response to the spell NAP can rip up some number of their sideboard cards, but if it starts taking too long I'm going to stop them (a la slow play) since I don't think ripping up a card is a game action. Then after that period they are no longer allowed to rip up cards (notably as the spell is resolving). I like this because it forces AP to try and guess what NAP is going to choose and destroy only those cards since they are on a bit of a timer, and makes it a strategic decision. The official ruling from WotC is that we would just issue proxies for anything destroyed as it counts as a card destroyed during the tournament. I think that while this has the intended outcome (AP's spell does something and NAP isn't incentivized to destroy their own stuff) it isn't in line with policy which states “Proxies are not allowed as substitutes for cards that their owner has damaged intentionally or through negligence.”

Also any ruling made in Mystery Drafts should be made with the philosophy “What is going to be the coolest story, and what will be the most fun for the players.”

To Dauntlessly Go Where No Player Has Gone Before
NAP activated Gideon, Battle Forged's +1 ability on his Dauntless Bodyguard that had a +1/+1 counter on it, and passed the turn. AP attacked with Questing Beast, and NAP blocked with his Dauntless Bodyguard and put it in the graveyard. I was watching the match at the time, and leaned in to read Gideon, since I was reasonably sure an error had occurred, at which point AP said “Oh, right that shouldn't be dead,” AP was losing the game pretty hard, and having Dauntless Bodyguard die meant he would survive another turn. I was a little uncomfortable here, but the cheat is pretty low value and I felt like there wasn't enough evidence either way, and since it was resolved before anything happened I left it alone.

Oko Might be Banned Now But it Wasn't During MF Austin!
Q: You use Oko, the Trickster on your opponents animated Celestial Colonnade, what happens at the end of APs turn? A: It's still an Elk, and will be one forever. You look at the board and everything's an Elk. You look at your hand and it's just 3/3 Elks, your deck is just 60 3/3 Elks. Your opponent has antlers. You drop your cards because your hooves can't hold them. You worry you might be going crazy and you call your mom but all you hear from the other end is the bleating of Elks.

Very Good Idea*
The Very Good Idea(TM) for this event is actually a very good way to cheat, so as judges I think we should be watching out for this one. Imagine, for a moment, that you are a player in a Comp REL event, and your opponent, across from you, stares you right in the eyes. Intently, and unblinkingly, as he is pile counting your deck, he takes a card and consumes it. He puts it in his mouth and eats it. You're so shocked that it takes you a moment to call a judge. But by the time they arrive, the card is no longer in your opponent's mouth. It's gone, and your opponent claims your deck has 59 cards, which it does. What are you going to do? You can't tell the judge that your opponent ate a card, that's ridiculous and you're going to get DQ'd for lying.

*Disclaimer: Oftentimes Very Good Ideas (TM) are actually Very Bad Ideas (also TM) that have been re-branded by the Vyseri marketing team and should not under any circumstances be implemented in an actual tournament. Tobi and anyone who was talking to her during the inception of the Very Good Idea(TM) are not liable for angry players, destruction of tournament material, destruction of tournament judges or the destruction of the tournament. Tournaments that are destroyed as a result of, or in direct correlation with a Very Good Idea(TM) being implemented cannot be regenerated.

...In Conclusion
MF Austin was a cool time, Modern continues to generate the most interesting rules calls, and so I really enjoy it. It was also nice to work Comp REL all weekend (except for my brief foray into Mystery Land) and I overall had a pretty good time watching magic!