Elmhurst, Illinois
Time: Saturday November 3rd - Sunday November 4th, 2024


Saturday - Modern 10kHJ


Preparation Makes Perfect
I was 5k HJ of an NRG event in Chicago about 9 months ago, and after that I was the 10k HJ 6 months ago. For both those events, I didn't circulate a team email (and even if I did it was really late), or pre-arrange breaks or really do anything before the event. Because of constant feedback I've shored up my pre-event preparation, I got my pre-event communication done 1.5 weeks before the event (you can see a copy of it here). Sure breaks aren't terribly difficult to coordinate, but it is another thing that you need to be responsible for, and when you're the HJ it's important to do as much as you can before the event even starts.
Why is this? Well, in a perfect world with perfect preparation I think it's probably fine to leave a few things to be done the day of. But we unfortunately don't live in a perfect world. There are inevitably going to be things I forget to organize or delegate in advance (this time, it was promo distribution and coverage). In addition to things the HJ forgets, there are also unexpected things that may come up the day of. In this instance, one of our judges called out the morning of, and in addition to that, the regular show runner for NRG fell ill and had to take the weekend off, which meant I had to take on a bit more than I usually do at an NRG show.
If I had left the task of creating a break schedule and explaining the expectations of each role until the morning of, I wouldn't have had enough bandwidth to address some of the extra responsibilities I had. Because of this more responsible approach to pre-event planning it was the smoothest and easiest NRG I've ever ran.

A Saga of Game Actions
The new policy change for Sagas now has judges treating the turn-based action of placing a lore counter as a triggered ability. (Toby’s Blog) This has some unexpected outcomes, such as allowing players to potentially stifle the placing a lore counter "trigger" with Tishana's Tidebinder. Luckily, this is pretty unlikely since doing that is generally a bad play outside of some very contrived corner cases. More interestingly, players can now allow their opponents to miss placing the counter on the Saga with no negative repercussions. Remember kids, It's never cheating to fail to point out an opponent's missed trigger. (IPG 2.1)

The Land that Walks Like a Man
It was game three and AP was beginning to execute the Aftermath Analyst combo. If you're not familiar with the deck, it feels a bit like an unholy fusion of a team trios slate of decks - Amulet-Titan from Modern, Lotus Field from Pioneer and Aftermath Analyst from Standard. The combo feels more like modern storm than legacy storm, in that it's a lot of stumbling around and can't easily be looped since each action isn't the same as the one before it.

In this particular case AP had activated Aftermath Analyst to return both Boseiju, Who Endures and Gruul Turf to the battlefield. They then bounced the Boseiju with Gruul Turf's triggered ability, and used it to destroy one of their opponent's lands. Afterwards they activated their Shifting Woodland making it a copy of Aftermath Analyst. They activated its ability, returning itself to the battlefield, in addition to a myriad of other lands. Using a Gruul Turf's triggered ability, they returned Boseiju to their hand, destroyed another land, and also sacrificed two lands to an incoming Lotus Field. Then they went to activate Shifting Woodland again, however at this point NAP said they thought AP had sacrificed Gruul Turf and a Forest to their Lotus Field, instead of an Urza's Saga and a Forest. This would mean that AP no longer had delirium to activate their Shifting Woodland.

NAP was on merfolk, and only had one land remaining on the battlefield. I asked NAP what their plan was if AP's combo fizzled right now. NAP mentioned that their only hope was to draw two lands and Harbinger of the Seas. I then queried AP as to what their plan was if their combo fizzled. They said they'd probably be doing nothing for a few turns, though they did have an Urza's Cave to attempt to find something to fix the delirium issue, though without looking through their library they weren't really sure what. Other than that there wasn't a lot of other information from either side. I was lightly suspicious of NAP, since this was definitely a position where NAP's only out was to attempt to have AP's combo fizzle. However I think it was more likely that either AP misplayed and sacrificed the incorrect lands without noticing, or NAP got confused and thought they saw something that they didn't while lands were flying in and off of the battlefield. I decided to rule in AP's favor since I felt it was less likely that they had made this mistake than NAP had perceived something incorrectly.

Big Emotions and Bad Plays
While I was deep in the investigation detailed above, something nefarious was brewing in a different match entirely. A few chairs down from me, AP yelled loudly and banged the table at the end of their match. I looked over briefly and saw that the situation wasn't escalating and that the opponent was packing up and leaving the table. I briefly considered ducking out of the investigation to poke at that situation a bit more, but noted that there were many other judges in the area that could be the first point of contact for that call if it required further attention. After the investigation had concluded, I touched base with another judge who had been in the area. The judge mentioned that while they hadn't intervened, AP's behavior had made them uneasy, and they felt that AP should at least be spoken to, and possibly issued some kind of USC penalty. Though they weren't sure if it would be minor or major, depending on what the actual situation was. The other judge spoke with AP's opponent who let them know that it was clear that AP's anger was directed at their deck and not at NAP themselves. I sat down with AP and spoke to them, they let me know that their outburst had indeed been at their deck and themselves, and that they realized it wasn't really appropriate. I felt like all this was enough to make me confident that this wasn't USC- major. I let them know that they'd be getting a USC minor and asked if they needed a little time to re-center themselves. They let me know that they'd just gotten pizza and were starting to feel better already.

Your Randomized Portion is Ready, Sir
At the end of NAP's turn, AP thought they still had a treasure token, and illegally activated Expedition Map, finding a Plains. Then they drew a card for turn, and realized their error. The judge ruled game rule violation - backup. (IPG 2.5) The judge took a random card from AP's hand and put it on top of their library, then returned the Expedition Map to the battlefield. Afterwards they took the Plains and shuffled it into the random portion of AP's library, notably, excluding the top card of AP's library, as it was not random, due to an earlier part of the backup. I felt this was particularly odd, since while I agreed the top card was no longer random, as AP and judge knew what it was. I didn't feel like the definition of "random portion of the library" should exclude that card, since, in this case, AP should've been able to draw the plains that they got off Expedition Map as their draw for the turn. Under Backing Up the IPG says "cards being returned to the library as part of the backup should not be shuffled at that stage if their identity was known to only one player." (IPG 1.4)

Simply Triggers
Sometimes it's very easy to forget the basics if you're constantly debating fiddly corner cases. I think in part due to all the complex theoreticals being discussed over the weekend, I almost punted a relatively straightforward missed trigger call. AP forgot to shuffle their graveyard into their library from the triggered ability of Emrakul, the Aeons Torn. Since then, not many game actions had happened, though AP had passed the turn, then NAP had passed back. I was halfway through asking NAP whether they wanted to put the trigger on the stack now when I realized that this trigger was missed more than a turn earlier and was no longer eligible for that part of the additional remedy. (IPG 2.1)

Glorious Layers
AP exerts Arena of Glory and uses one of the mana produced to cast Roc Hatchling. Before it resolves NAP casts and resolves Dress Down. Afterwards AP uses the remaining {R} to cast another Roc Hatchling. Which creatures have haste and why? Neither of them! Since gaining haste and losing haste both happen in layer 6, (CR 613.1f) we simply apply them in timestamp order. Which leads us to ask, what is the timestamp of the continuous effect that grants Roc Hatchling haste? Weirdly enough, its when Arena of Glory was activated, not when the mana was used nor when the creature entered the battlefield. (CR 613.7b) Therefore Dress Down has a more recent timestamp, and neither creature will have haste. (CR 613.7)

Warped Deviation
AP had an obviously warped foil, and called it on themselves. Upon further investigation, it appeared that AP was indeed correct that their cards were marked, and the correct ruling was Marked Cards -warning, and the fix was that AP find a replacement within ten minutes , or suffer a game loss for Decklist Problem instead. (IPG 3.8, IPG 3.4) AP mentioned that they were about to win the game they were currently in, without drawing any additional cards, and would like to just win now, and deal with finding replacement cards after the match had concluded, which would save everyone a bunch of time. AP mentioned that if they didn't win the game immediately, they'd be fine dealing with pausing the game to find replacement cards. I'm a little uneasy about this, since waiting to apply the penalty means that if AP has accrued any advantage in this particular game the penalty won't offset it. I think if this was a game loss for marked cards, I'm much less okay with this ruling, but it just being a warning makes AP's request much more reasonable, so we allowed it.

Underdressed Kaito
AP activates the Ninjutsu ability of Katio, Bane of Nightmares, afterwards NAP casts Dress Down. What are the characteristics of Kaito? He's a 3/4 creature without hexproof. Kaito's ability applies in layer 4, layer 6 and layer 7. (CR 613.1d, CR 613.1f, CR 613.1g) Dress Down only applies in layer 6 (CR 613.1f). So we start applying the ability in layer 4, then in layer 6 we remove the ability (as well as hexproof) because Dress Down has a later timestamp (CR 613.7), but because we already started applying the ability in an earlier layer we will continue applying it in layer 7, even though the ability no longer exists at that point. (CR 613.6)

Repeat Customer
NAP controls Trinisphere and AP wants to cast Shattering Spree to destroy both Trinisphere and NAP's Ornithopter. How much mana will AP have to pay? Three! In fact, AP can destroy three different artifacts for only three mana if they really want to. When casting Shattering Spree, AP first chooses if they are paying any additional or alternate costs. Replicate is an additional cost, so they choose how many times they'd like to replicate right after putting the spell onto the stack. (CR 601.b, CR 702.56a) Then AP determines the total cost of the spell (CR 601.2f) which in this case, after adding the additional cost, is two. Then Trinisphere comes along and checks the total cost to see if it's less than three, in this case, it's two, so Trinisphere adds another mana to the total cost.

You may be aware that this works a little differently than Delve and Convoke. The reason for that is the fact that when we assess the cost of something like Murktide Regent, Trinisphere sees that the spell costs seven mana. (CR 702.66b, CR 702.51b) But when we go to actually pay that mana, during the "paying costs" portion of casting spells, Delve and Covoke allow us to exile cards instead of well, actually paying mana. (601.2h)

Partially Correct, Partially Insane
This weekend there was a lot of hubbub around the "Incorrect Zone change" partial fix under game rule violation. (IPG 2.5) because it was just recently clarified that this partial fix is actually a lot more permissive than was previously thought, many judges might be encountering situations where it applies more frequently. (Toby’s Blog) We had one such situation come up. AP cast Abhorrent Oculus and NAP thought it was Harbinger of the Seas and tapped their Urza's Saga which currently had two lore counters on it for mana before putting it in the graveyard. Then AP passed the turn and manifested dread during NAP's upkeep, at which point NAP noticed that the creature was in fact Abhorrent Oculus and not Harbinger of the Seas, and called a judge. I just did a full backup by shuffling in the two cards that were part of the manifest dread ability into the randomized portion of the library, and putting the Saga back onto the battlefield with two lore counters on it.

However, the initial judge on the call postulated about applying the game rule violation partial fix, but wondered if the Urza's Saga would be returned to the battlefield with or without the two lore counters, in addition to the activated abilities it had gained when it was last on the battlefield. Technically I feel like it should return but only get one counter, and any previous continuous effects applying to it would no longer apply. However philosophically that feels so dumb and also opens us up to a cornucopia of other terrible outcomes.

What happens if there was a bestow creature enchanted on a creature that died incorrectly and is eligible to be partial fixed? Do we return the creature to the battlefield but not reattach the Bestow creature as an Aura? What if it was an Arcbound Ravager with three +1/+1 counters on it? Will it return with only one counter? What if the creature was a token? Are we unable to return it because it no longer exists due to state-based actions? I think that if any of these situations arise, the partial fix no longer applicable because it could be considered "too disruptive".

Sunday - Pioneer 5k - Deck Check Lead


Unstoppable Combo
I might have mentioned this in a previous tournament report but it's still pretty nifty: what happens if Unstoppable Slasher deals combat damage to NAP while AP controls a Bloodletter of Alclazotz? Bad things for NAP! The game will create an event that has NAP lose half their life rounded up then when applying replacement effects, that amount will be doubled by Bloodletter. Gross!

Room Demolition Squad
AP casts Skyclave Apparition on Unholy Annex, while the other half of the room is still locked. Is this legal? And if so, if Skyclave Apparition later leaves the battlefield, what will the power and toughness of the resulting illusion token be? First of all, yes this is totally legal, the mana value of a room on the battlefield is the combined mana value of all the unlocked halves. (CR 709.5) Secondly, if the Apparition leaves the battlefield, the mana value of the resulting Illusion token will be eight! The mana value of a Room anywhere but on the battlefield or the stack is the combined mana value of both sides. (CR 709.4, CR 709.4b)

Sometimes, It Actually is CPV
AP asked NAP how many cards were in their hand, NAP answered "two" when it was actually three. Afterwards AP cast two Treasure Cruises and attacked. After passing the turn back to NAP, the error was discovered, and NAP called a judge. AP mentioned that they wouldn't have attacked if NAP had three cards in their hand, as NAP was on Phoenix and the difference between three cards to potentially reanimate Arclight Phoenixes in the graveyard vs two cards was quite relevant. The correct infraction here is Communication Policy Violation, and the fix is to back up to AP's declaration of attackers, but not to back up the Treasure Cruises, since AP indicated that they would've cast those regardless of how many cards were in NAP's hand. (IPG 3.7)

An Unsporting Show
Near the end of the day myself and another judge were both watching a match where AP was beginning to get frustrated with NAP's pace of play and began badgering them about playing faster in a rather animated and frustrated tone. I told AP that there were two judges watching the match and that if either of us believed slow play was happening we would issue an infraction. While NAP wasn't the quickest player, their pace was still at an acceptable pace for tournament Magic. AP quieted for a moment, but then got visibly annoyed again at NAP a little while later. I was sharper the second time, and told AP that they were not allowed to continue complaining in this way, and that NAP was playing at a reasonable pace. AP didn't make more of a scene for the duration of the match, but the entire interaction clearly flustered NAP and caused them to make some poor play decisions. When myself and the other judge discussed it afterwards I felt like AP should at least be spoken to, and potentially issued a USC - minor. (IPG 4.1) The other judge agreed and mentioned that AP had historically had issues like this in their local game store. I had the other judge speak to AP, since they clearly had a history with the player, and possibly the rapport necessary to issue USC - minor in a way that was productive. I went to speak to NAP instead. While NAP agreed they'd felt flustered, and had made some poor plays, they were very forgiving of their opponent and appreciated that I'd taken the time to check in on them. I'm not sure if I should've issued the USC- Minor immediately after AP complained the second time. I think one one hand, it would've clearly demonstrated to NAP that their opponent was being unreasonable and that NAP had the support of the judge staff. On the other hand, it certainly wouldn't de-escalate AP and would potentially make NAP feel guilty for "having gotten their opponent an infraction".

...In Conclusion
I felt good about how the event went, I felt like my pre-event communication was strong, and that things ran quite smoothly overall. There were no major hiccups and by the end of the day my team seemed happy. I felt a lot more comfortable running this tournament than my first NRG HJ and feel like it's a real sign of my growth in leadership roles. I also felt like my announcements were much more confident and professional, it's hard for me to be the center of attention, so making announcements always makes me a little bit uncomfortable. I also felt super supported by my team, every single member of the team was such a rockstar, and at no point was I ever concerned that anyone was going to do something weird or break anything. I truly felt like I could drop dead and the event would run very smoothly without me. I felt so honored to be able to work with such a strong team of excellent judges, and really appreciated the myriad of small ways they all contributed to a great event.