Saturday September 15th, 2024
Main Event: Modern | Players: 38
Role: Deck Checks


Electronic Assistance
What constitutes OA when deciding whether to draw into top 8 is murky at best. We all agree that if AP and NAP have sat down, discussing and looking at standings to determine whether to draw is fine (insofar as it doesn't take too long for them to come to a conclusion). It's a little more uncouth if players discuss with table one and all four decide to draw, contingent on other matches drawing. I believe the majority of judges would still find both of these uninfractable. However, this next example is where discord begins to arise, let say, for instance AP asks their friend who walking by whether they can draw in or not. Some judges would consider this OA (I would not). The next step is having a phone face up in front of both players with the stream of the match at table 1 playing, such that as soon as a particular player loses the players at table 2 can choose to draw in. I personally still think this is fine. I think the current philosophy is such that we allow players to determine match results by doing tournament breaker math, and so long as that breaker math doesn't start to cause logistical issues, I don't have a problem with it.

Consigned to Memorize
AP writes "Consign" instead of "Consign to Memory" on a UB decklist. This is pretty awkward since Consign///Oblivion is a UB card that isn't expressedly unplayable. I think personally I'd probably assume it was Consign to Memory, since it's significantly more likely, and probably wouldn't issue an infraction. (IPG 3.4)

Unfortunate Ends
AP casts Emrakul, the Promised End and targets NAP. During NAP's turn they cast Final Fortune. When AP takes their next turn, will they lose at the end of it? Yes. Extra turns function similarly to the stack, so the one that most recently resolved will occur first. (CR 500.7)

Rootbound
AP activates Wall of Roots and NAP casts Tishana's Tidebinder to counter the ability, this is a GRV rewind, but where should we rewind to? I think there's a reasonable argument to say that "Tidebinder your Wall of Roots" was a shortcut and the MTR instructs us to stop the shortcut at the point it becomes illegal (the point where Tidebinder has resolved and its ability is targeting something it can't target) (MTR 4.2) However there's another argument that NAP committed a GRV by simply casting the Tidebinder, since they didn't have priority to do so, since Wall of Roots is a mana ability. (CR 605.1a) is that case, we'd have to rewind the entire Tidebinder. I think personally I'm in this category, since it's potentially likely AP wants to take some other actions before passing priority.

Make Like a Tree and Copy
AP makes Shifting Wildwood a copy of a Storm Crow then casts Clone copying Shifting Wildwood, what does the Clone look like? Clone will become a copy of Storm Crow. Part of an objects copiable attributes are the characteristics modified by other copy effects. In this case Shifting Wildwood's ability is a copy effect, and thus can be copied! (CR 707.2)

...In Conclusion
Overall I enjoyed this event a lot more than I thought I would. In my last few reports you may have noticed a general morose feeling towards judging. Things were uncertain, and events just weren't being that fun. This event though actually went fairly well, I did some mentoring, I answered player questions and I even did some deck checks. Overall I just did my job and had a good time. I'm not really sure why I had a good time, but I did and it's made me somewhat excited to judge more. I'm cautiously excited for my next event!