Mundelein, Chicago | Legacy
Time: Friday, July 30th 2022 – Sunday July 31st 2022
Players: 168 | Winner: Rodney Bedell

Saturday - Floor Lead


NRG Has You Covered
So, there was coverage at this event! This is something I haven’t had to deal with since before the pandemic. Going into top 8 one of the players asked if they’d get a copy of their opponents decklist, I initially said “no that’s only for the matches on coverage” but when the players looked back at me confused, I decided to double check, and yes everyone in top 8 gets a copy of their opponents decklist, because it’s likely that most of them have been on coverage throughout the day, and it would be unfair if, for instance, AP was on camera in round 2 but NAP wasn’t on camera at all throughout the day. This would mean that NAP would know what AP was playing, but AP wouldn’t have the same info, meaning that being on coverage would be pure downside.

Trigger Happy
AP controls ingenious smith, casts an artifact and misses their trigger. Then later in the turn, they cast another artifact and attempt to get the trigger. The verdict on this is that you don’t get a reroll on remembering that trigger just because it didn’t actually trigger earlier in the turn. There was one point during this turn in which it should’ve triggered, if you missed it, it’s gone.

No Partials for You!
Illegal partial fixes are the forbidden fruit of judging. There are so many GRVs that seem so simple to partial fix. I shadowed a call on Urza’s Saga, where AP had forgotten to put their lore counter on the Saga. The judge on the call really wanted to just put the counter onto the Saga now, but seemed flustered since this would do weird things to the game. I went over with them that while it was appealing to partial fix this, that wasn’t allowed by policy and we could either back up or not.

Tardiness Technicalities
There was a player that was sitting in the wrong seat before the round started and let a judge know that he needed to go to the bathroom. He went and while he was gone the other player that should’ve been sitting in the seat came over and let us know that the bathroom player was in the wrong seat. I felt that technically, he had told a judge before the round started that he was going to be in the bathroom and therefore was not eligible for the tardiness game loss that usually accompanies sitting in the wrong seat.

Solitary Choices
I shadowed a call where AP cast Thoughtsieze and selected Risen Reef from NAP’s hand, then they realized that they also wanted to cast Inquisition of Kozilek that turn, anduse that to get rid of Risen Reef instead, since NAP’s only cards in hand were Solitude, Risen Reef and three lands. The judge on the call consulted with me and I let him know this seemed totally fine, and fell neatly under reversing decisions. AP hadn’t gained any information in between the decision to take Risen Reef and the decision to not take Risen Reef, and so it was fine. The judge on the call issued the ruling, but mentioned offhand that Thoughtsieze had targeted Risen Reef. This isn’t a big deal, but judges should try to use technically correct language when possible.

This Interaction Only Works Ephemerally
AP asked if he could cast Ephemerate off Ragavan, Nimble Pilferer and what would happen. I said that it would get cast and then get exiled to rebound, and then rebound for AP the next upkeep. I couldn't see any reason why Ephemerate wouldn’t Rebound if AP was casting it. Well... it turns out the players did see a reason, seeing as Rebound only happens if you cast it from your hand. And it says as much on the card. Later on in the match the players called me back over later to let me know the correct ruling, that they’d figured out, after reading the reminder text on Rebound. I felt kinda dumb, but apologized and thanked them for letting me know so that I wouldn’t screw it up for anyone else. The players themselves were remarkably good-natured about the whole thing, which I appreciated.

Rewind Everything
AP played and bounced Golgari Rot Farm three times on their turn to cast Primeval Titan, however NAP pointed out that the third play/bounce wasn’t legal since before casting Asuza, Lost but Seeking AP had played a Forest. I consulted with another judge mentioning I wanted to rewind the final land and the Primeval Titan, they let me know that rewinding through all three land plays felt more accurate. I pondered this for a moment but decided I agreed, while it’s not exactly the same as rewinding tapping lands to cast an illegal spell, it felt similar enough that I felt like it was correct within policy.

You Can Have Your Chancellor and Exile it Too!
AP had Chancellor of the Forge and Gemstone Caverns in his opening hand and wanted to both reveal Chancellor for the benefit as well as exile it to Gemstone Caverns. I thought about it, and wasn’t sure, I felt like there might be a specific order to pre-game effects but AP might also be able to choose. I quickly bounced it off another judge and it turns out AP gets to choose.

Chalice Still Doesn’t Work in Policy
AP cast a spell into their own Chalice of the Void and forgot the trigger. By the time the players noticed the spell had resolved and the game had moved on. Current policy has us address Chalice like any other missed trigger, which is have the opponent choose whether or not to put it on the stack now, and issue a warning if it was a detrimental trigger. Unfortunately with Chalice, putting the trigger on the stack now doesn’t do anything since the spell has already resolved. I explained this to the players and they were, understandably, dissatisfied with the ruling, I offered the appeal and was upheld, to basically everyone’s chagrin.

Sunday – 5K Head Judge


Sideboard Shenanigans
A player came up to us in round 2 and let us know that the sideboard their friend had registered was totally wrong, and that their friend only had 2/15 registered cards and no other cards in the SB. I asked how this had happened and he said he had lent the other person the deck as well as an old copy of the decklist, and that’s what the player had sent in. I said that the player could either play with a 2 card SB or they could take a game loss and build a SB now. It was a little iffy since “what the player intended to play” is not totally clear, since it did seem like a sideboard was going to be put together for them now, rather than it having been a bunch of unregistered cards in their deckbox. I did consider the possibility that they had scoped out the field and were building a sideboard based on what they had seen in round one, but that is significantly less likely, and I felt like I could justify this as being “the player intended to play a reasonable sideboard”.

You Still Can’t Force Others to Get LEC
AP knocked some cards off the top of an adjacent match's library and the opponent in that match saw the cards. I shrugged, you still can’t force LEC on people, so I just fixed the issue and moved on.

I’m Sorry, Sir, But We Lost Your Infraction
I was shadowing a FJ on a fairly bog-standard GRV call. The FJ got through the fix and was about to leave the call when I prodded them to ask if AP had received any previous infractions this event. Lo and behold, they had! Two other GRVs, in fact. This was a great learning moment for the FJ since they got to see first hand why asking before executing the fix was important. I let the player know it would be a game loss but we were just going to first verify it was actually a game loss. I don’t expect players to remember the nuance of every penalty they receive and I don’t want to issue a game loss without double checking first. After fighting with EventLink and getting it to surrender the information, it only managed to cough up one GRV for this player. I thought it was weird, but assumed someone had forgotten to input the penalty. I shrugged and let the player know we had “dun goofed” and they wouldn’t be getting a game loss. I could’ve definitely investigated further, maybe asked some of the other judges, but ultimately, the judge staff made a mistake and the player’s honesty shouldn’t be the thing that sinks them.

Oracle Assistance
After game 1 had ended a spectator informed AP of the oracle text on Boseiju,Who Endures, since the spectator had noticed that AP had only been grabbing basics when their opponent cast it. While players are technically entitled to oracle text, I think that forcing oracle text upon someone treads a little too close to the outside assistance line for my comfort. I decided against issuing OA but let the spectator know that I didn’t want them doing that again, and let them know that another judge might not be as lenient and might issue the match loss.

Narset Never Truly Leaves a Format
AP controls Narset, Parter of Veils and Hullbreacher, and casts Day’s Undoing. They would like to know if they get any treasures, if somehow this is happening after the opponent has drawn a card, then no treasures are created, however, if it’s before the opponent has drawn any cards, then seven treasures will be created.

Google is a Terrible Magic Judge
So... I did the thing that I tell other people not to do in my “how to take a judge call” presentation. Eugh. I wasn’t totally sure on how Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale worked, since I knew it had changed a few times. Instead of looking in the IPG I decided to try and find the judge blog that talked about the change. I certainly found... a judge blog that talked about it. Too bad it was pre-current policy. That blog had it listed as a warning for the player who controlled the permanent with the trigger (the creature’s controller) however current policy says it’s not a warning unless the controller owns the card responsible for the existence of the trigger.

Count on Counterfeits
Someone at the NRG booth alerted us to the fact that one of the players who was currently playing in the Legacy main event tried to sell a bunch of fakes to the booth the previous day. Their response to being told the cards were fake was one of indifference, which is a little bit of a red flag for me (however behaviour in and of itself isn’t a great metric to use when determining whether an action was on purpose or a mistake). I thanked them for the information and ran a targeted deck check on the player. Everything seemed on the up and up (or the player had very good counterfeits).

Locus Today, Mana Tomorrow
AP searched for Vesuva with Expedition Map, then played it as a Cloudpost to bump up their other loci. Then they played an Eye of Ugin with enough mana to crack it this turn. The FJ sitting on the match mentioned that this, illegal second land was pretty relevant, since they were dead in two turns. Without the both lands, they wouldn’t be able to play and crack Eye of Ugin this turn, which meant they’d have to crack it next turn, which meant they couldn’t also play what they fetched, which would mean they’d die when they passed the turn. I asked both players a few questions. The table had already had a few judge calls and was in a time extension when the call started. The judge sitting on the match had noticed the error, and in the end I determined that it was more likely that the players were just playing fast and had made a mistake. I think if it was an intentional cheat, it would’ve been pretty low EV to try to execute in front of a judge and on a turn with very little going on.

Going Infinite... Judge Version
So... the current policy states that “Failure to Maintain Game State” should be given to players who allow other players to commit a Game Play Error without pointing it out immediately. It was brought to my attention that if, for instance, AP commits a GRV and no one notices, NAP should get an FTMGS, however FTMGS is also a Game Play Error, so after that infraction has been committed, if AP doesn’t notice, then AP should also get FTMGS, but then NAP would get another FTMGS, and, well, you see where this is going. I told the judge that if I saw a match with, like, 17 FTMGSs it wasn’t the players that were going to be investigated.

...In Conclusion
This event was awesome! Being HJ is cool because you get to interface with all the interesting calls in an event, and it’s also really challenging. Not a lot of them were mentioned here, but there were a TON of investigations this event, I was a little too busy to take down most of the calls (which is unfortunate) but I think I’m improving at least a little bit on when and how to look for malpractice from players. The event was also a little frustrating for me, because on Saturday the policy was to check with another judge for backups and HCEs. I did this a few times, and at least four times the other judge pointed out a partial fix or tweak to the backup that would make it better. I felt kinda dumb for not noticing these things earlier, but I am glad I was able to give better rulings because of it. I really enjoyed working for NRG, and hope that I have the opportunity to do so again in the future.