Toronto, Canada | Modern
Time: Saturday, July 9th 2022
Role: Floor Team Lead
Players: 196 | Winner: Eduardo Sajgalik

Please Report to the Correct Convention Center
So, my very first act as floor team lead was to miss the morning team meeting. But not just miss it normally, no I missed it spectacularly by going to the wrong convention center. How did this happen? Well I Googled “Face to Face Toronto” and the first result was the RCQ in November. Of course, I paid no attention to the date on the page and merely scrolled down to the part of the page that had the address of the venue. The worst part, is that I did this multiple times to ensure I had the venue address correct. Anyways I only discovered this while sitting in the Toronto Convention Center and texting my teammates asking them what hall number we were in. After some confused messages back and forth, eventually I sent them a photo of where I was. At this point they helpfully informed me that I needed to go somewhere completely different. To make matters worse the correct hall was a hefty 30 minute Uber away. Eugh. Anyways, I eventually shambled into the room where the event was being held a little frazzled and more than a little embarrassed. However, I remember a long time ago I was late to a GP (a GP Toronto, actually) I let it put me on tilt, and performed sub-optimally all day. I took a moment to centre myself and resolved not to let this ruin my day, after all, a late judge that also sucks all day is much worse than a late judge that does a good job all day.

Unauthorized Viewing of Cards
AP accidentally revealed the top card of their library to their opponent. I was halfway through mentioning that this wouldn’t be an infraction and that AP was allowed to reveal hidden information to their opponent, when NAP mentioned that they weren’t technically allowed to reveal this card since it was in AP’s library, which AP wasn’t currently looking at. I noted that, and agreed it was an error, but didn’t see a good argument for LEC for AP (since they hadn’t actually looked at any cards) and it definitely wasn’t an LEC for NAP (you can’t force infractions on your opponent.) so I just told them to shuffle, preserving the known cards and move on. I think there might be an argument for GRV here, but at the same time, it really doesn’t feel like enough of a thing to actually issue a penalty for it, and also AP has already been “punished” by revealing a card to their opponent.

The Promised Trigger
I was shadowing another judge on a call where AP cast an Emrakul, the Promised End and didn’t announce the target for its triggered ability until the end of their turn. The judge on the call consulted with me as I was watching, and I let them know I didn’t think it was missed since, while most of the time failing to announce a target is a problem, “target opponent” is by default assumed to be the opponent in a 1v1 game. NAP wanted to appeal, technically the judge on the call was the HJ of the event, but they went and escalated to the HJ of the main event. I spoke with them about it after since I wasn’t totally sure how I felt about that, and they said they felt like it was good customer service to be able to give the player the appeal, even if they weren’t technically allowed to appeal that particular ruling. I think I agree with this, which is why I often try to avoid taking calls if I’m the HJ of an event, and spend much more time shadowing calls.

One List, Two List, R List, U List
On the IQ the HJ and FJ were counting and verifying each players list to ensure that it both had 60 cards and also that all the cards were legal. I recall doing this very early in my judging career and then being told sometime after that it was kind of a waste of time. I still verify top 8 lists (ideally by checking them before top 8 but sometimes I just verify that the list is legal) because coverage will be mad if they’re wrong, but I think it’s a better use of judge time to be on the floor watching magic and taking calls. I thought that this philosophy was ubiquitous throughout the program but was surprised that the HJ of the Open also thought that checking lists was a good idea.

Prized Husher
AP has prized amalgam in their GY and dredges for their turn, flipping a Narcomoeba, which happily enters the battlefield. Afterwards, NAP casts Hushbringer to prevent The Amalgam from coming back at the end of the turn. This unfortunately doesn’t work the way NAP wants it to, since Narcomoeba’s entry has already caused Prized Amalgam’s initial trigger to set up the delayed trigger at the end of the turn to bring it back. NAP should’ve played Hushbringer in response to Narcomoeba’s enter the battlefield trigger.

Time Extension Candy
I’m pretty liberal with my time extensions. I usually give any call that took more than two seconds 2 minutes. I’ve never had a tournament ruined by a 2 minute time extension but I’ve definitely had players angry they didn’t get a 2 minute time extension. I mentioned this as feedback to another judge on the floor, and they mentioned that while this seemed like a good idea, it could become problematic if the player had multiple 30 second judge calls that they got two minutes for each time. I thought this was an interesting angle that I hadn’t considered. I still think that multiple judge calls in a match is somewhat unlikely so I’m not too concerned about giving out the time extensions like candy, but it is something to be cognizant of, especially with more “call-happy” players.

Creature Here, Walker There, Problems Everywhere
AP controlled a Grist, the Hunger Tide and wanted to know if they sacrificed it, if their Blood Artist would trigger. I said no, because “dies” triggers check what things looked like immediately before the trigger, and at that point Grist is on the battlefield and isn’t a creature. However for something like Sefris of the Hidden Ways, Grist would count as a creature and would trigger the ability, since this trigger would be checked after the event had happened (which would mean that Grist is considered a creature, as it’s in the GY)

Borrow From Exile
I was watching top 8 and AP exiled Brazen Borrower to their Force of Negation early on in the game. A few turns passed and then they tried to cast it from exile. I took a moment to confirm that I hadn’t missed anything and stopped the players to ask them about it. My moment involved NAP untapping and drawing for their turn. NAP immediately mentioned how advantageous this seemed, so I roped in the HJ to conduct the investigation. After a few questions and AP mentioning that they had a Borrower in hand and had a dumb moment, the HJ ruled no cheating and authorized the backup. Unfortunately I think both of us had assumed that the other person had taken a closer look at this backup than they actually did, because after executing it (having NAP put a random card from their hand on top of their library, and returning the borrower to AP’s hand) NAP immediately fetched away the top card, effectively getting to fix their draw for the turn. Now, upon reflection I still think this backup is okay (if a little sub-optimal) since an entire creature just appearing out of nowhere is kinda bad, but at least one of us should’ve actually thought about the backup a little more before letting it happen.

...In Conclusion
Overall I had a great time at Face to Face Toronto. I really enjoy Comp REL events and I also enjoy Modern and this is both of those. While Face to Face events aren’t exactly Grand Prixs, large, Comp REL events are far and few between these days, and so I’ll happily do anything I don’t lose money on :)