Calgary, Alberta
Time: Friday November 15th - Sunday November 17th, 2024
Players: 378 | Format: Pioneer


Friday - Scorekeeping
I haven't scorekept at a large event since the mid-GP era. Where I had a rather catastrophic error which cascaded into causing some major issues for many other people in the event. it's been a while since then, and the landscape of scorekeeping has changed a lot since the days of entering match result slips and punching in DCI numbers, so I thought I would give it another shot. Scorekeepers of the modern era are more intertwined with kickstart than they have been in the past, and more than once I found myself confused about who was in charge of finding starting table numbers for events. The current Face to Face workflow has scorekeepers manually updating starting table numbers and player counts in an excel spreadsheet. Then the scorekeeper needs to go to a different spreadsheet that has the tables in the room visually laid out in cells, and needs to manually highlight the tables in use for each event. I definitely feel like some amount of this can be automated with Excel formulas, but I ended up being weirdly busy all day, and didn't have a chance to explore that.

In semi-related news, while we no longer have to manually enter player's DCI numbers into the software, we haven't completely escaped mundane data entry! Each player in each commander pod needs to be entered into Eventlink. To avoid slowing down ODEs, they don't bother entering all the players into EventLink before launching the pod. Instead the players write their names on the registration sheet, then later on in the day someone, (in this case me) finds each commander pod in EventLink and manually enters in all the players. Overall I'm glad I took a shift behind the scorekeepers desk, since it gave me a lot of insight into what's happening behind the stage, but ultimately don't think it's something I should be doing unless I plan to completely respec into a scorekeeper.

Saturday - Regional Championship Head Judge


The Art of the Email
I sent out this email in preparation for the RC. There are a few things I want to highlight in it, first you'll notice that I've got breaks happening within teams. This is to ensure that there is always a member of each team on the floor at all times. That way we don't have to deal with the messy task of having EOR train another entire team on their method for the single round EOR is on break. Another reason I did this is because when you only have two teams, sending one on break means you've sent half your staff away, this method allowed us to have three rounds of breaks, and better floor coverage the entire time those breaks were happening. Another thing I wanted to highlight was L3+ judges having their level on the schedule. Judge levels are a tool, and as we've had a year for people to settle into the appropriate levels, I'd like to start using them again. In the old GP era judge levels were always on the schedule so you knew who you could go to for the really hard stuff, or you knew who might be coming to you for the really hard stuff! An L3+ judge is someone I can trust to approve an HCE or backup, and currently I feel that's true. I also think recognizing people's accomplishments is important, it's hard to get to L3, and I want people who manage to pass the exam to feel like others are recognizing them!

Coverage is Covered?
There was a lot of confusion around what was going on with coverage. The day before the RC I found out there was going to be coverage. This was fine. While it was unexpected, I was willing to modify my plans a bit to accommodate something that I think is valuable to players. The reason the communication was so last minute was because the stream was being run by a backpack streamer who I assume finalized their agreement with Face to Face at the last moment. I was told that table four would be the coverage table each round. Then, on Saturday morning, I was told that actually coverage wouldn't be happening on Day 1 of the RC, just Day 2. I shrugged and let the paper/coverage team know that "actually nevermind, don't worry about coverage today". Then as round 1 was starting the EOR team lead came up to me asking who was in charge of coverage this round. I let them know that there would be no coverage on day 1, to which they responded that they'd literally just now heard that there was. I let them know this was news to me and did some investigating. Apparently the actual plan was that there was going to be coverage on Day 1, but because the streamer was also playing in the event, it wouldn't be commentated or really closely monitored. So basically, we still wanted players at table 4 to be playing in the feature match area, and the camera might or might not be on. This was... kind of annoying, but at the same time I'd organized it so that the feature match area was close enough to the main event that I wouldn't need a dedicated judge at the table, so it didn't disrupt my plans too much.

Put Your Hands Up in the Air
One of my TLs suggested that when calling time in the round I should instruct the active player to raise their hand, in an effort to ensure that all players are aware that it was, in fact, time in the round. The philosophy here is that if one player raises their hand, others around will notice and try to find out what's going on if they missed the initial announcement, and that this will have a ripple effect ensuring that all players are aware that time has been called. I think this isn't a terrible idea, but I'm not a fan of it for a few reasons.

One: I think it solves a problem that we don't often have. One of the tasks of EOR team is to ensure that all tables are in turns if they should be in turns, players not being aware of time in the round is only a problem if the EOR team is overwhelmed for some reason, which wasn't an issue this event had.

Two: it makes players feel like children. Most competitive players are here because they want their game to be taken somewhat seriously. They don't want to feel like they've reverted to kindergarten and have to raise their hands each round.

Three: it can distract players from playing, if they're busy raising their hands or are confused why others are raising their hands, this can take time away from them actually playing out the conclusion of their match.

All that being said, I think if I find myself in a position where I'm significantly more understaffed than I was at RC Calgary, this will be a good tool.

How to Judge While Understaffed
Maybe I'm just jaded, but people were telling me we were vaguely understaffed all weekend. In total including HJs we had 11 judges (a judge from sides was sent over on Saturday morning). With our player count that would mean 1 judge per ~35 players, which is honestly fine. During break rounds we were a little thinner, at one judge per 50 or 60 players depending on the round. The AJ had some good advice about handling events that were slightly understaffed. Judges should put themselves at the ends of rows instead of in the middle, to allow greater mobility when reacting to judge calls. He also told judges to watch player's heads and hands, because often their motions will give you an indication of whether or not a problem is brewing.

Phoning it In
I've gone back and forth on whether I'm okay with sideboard notes on phones. I think I'm currently on "no". A player could abuse this policy by say, having their "sideboard notes" be an editable google doc where their team can effectively give them outside assistance about the match. While this is a little galaxy brained, I also think it's just too easy to open a groupchat, or explore more brazen methods of outside assistance while under the guise of merely looking at sideboard notes on your phone. Realistically, your opponent isn't going to be paying that much attention to you during sideboarding, and I wouldn't expect them to either. (MTR 2.12) So I'd rather just say "no" to all sideboard notes on phones.

A Quandry of Open Lists
Because the RC is open decklist there are a few different procedural things that always need to be addressed. First, I opted for the global 52 minutes for decklist revision and playing. The alternative is a separate two minute revision period, and then fifty minutes for playing. The main issue I have with this is it doesn't account for players who might want to look at the lists again during sideboarding. It also can result in a lot of players spending 30 seconds looking at a decklist and the remaining 90 seconds staring at the ceiling. The second thing that comes up with open decklists is what to do if a player finds that they're missing their decklist at the beginning of the round. I used to tell players to go to the stage and get it sorted, but a much more time efficient method is instead having them either show their opponent their physical deck OR have the judge should show the opponent the list on their phone. Then the judge can grab the list while the players are playing.

Obvious and Unambiguous
NAP called me over to the table and mentioned that AP had played a card that wasn't on their decklist: Bloodtithe Harvester. I took a look at the decklist and instead saw in its place a card named "Bloodtithe Collector". I had never heard of this card so I asked NAP what it was, they shrugged and said they didn't know. I asked NAP what they thought Bloodtithe Collector was when they'd seen it on the decklist, and they mentioned they thought it was probably Bloodtithe Harvester. I asked whether they'd made any plays based on their opponent playing four Bloodtithe Collectors and not Harvesters, and they said they had not. I didn't know what Bloodtithe Collector was either, so I looked it up. Turns out it's a five-mana unplayable piece of limited jank that no self-respecting player has ever cast in pioneer, ever. I shrugged, and said we all understood what the decklist was trying to say and called it a nothing-burger. I fixed the list, issued no infraction and moved on. (IPG 3.4)

Unholy Motivations
AP controls Unholy Annex, they tank for a while on their turn, and pass. NAP notices that AP has missed their trigger, and calls a judge. It's a beneficial trigger, so there's no warning and NAP gets to choose whether it goes onto the stack now. (IPG 2.1) But this was also very suspicious because NAP had an Arclight Phoenix on board. The Unholy Annex trigger would take AP from five life to three life, which would would allow the bird to beat them into the red zone. AP however had a removal spell in their hand for the phoenix, as well as a fatal push that they could potentially use. It was the first game of round one, which felt a little early for AP to be going for a cheat like this. I didn't DQ AP and issued the missed trigger.

Confronting the Familiar
NAP blocks AP's Etching of Kumano with a Cauldron Familiar. NAP sacrifices the Familiar and puts it into exile by mistake. NAP then says "I guess I'm dead" and begins to scoop. As this was happening a spectator chimes in, though it was unclear what was said, it was either "you aren't dead" or "Cauldron Familiar shouldn't be in exile." This is particularly awkward because the first thing is obviously a problem, while the second is not. I ended up ruling no backup because NAP had made the decision to scoop, and while it was unclear whether the spectators gave OA, it was likely enough that I didn't feel great about rewinding. Notably this is also a Game Rule Violation for both players. (IPG 2.5)

Missing Companionship
AP declares they're keeping, then NAP declares they're also keeping, at which point AP notices they forgot to declare their companion. Unfortunately it's too late for AP to declare their companion at this point. (CR 103.2b)

Sunday - Regional Championship Head Judge


Enduring Suffering
NAP controls Containment Priest and AP's Enduring Innocence dies, what happens? This one is rather tricky, Enduring Innocence will get exiled. When doing the "look ahead" to assess what it would look like on the battlefield, we're only really allowed to take into account three different things. Continuous effects from the permanent's own static abilities. Continuous effects that already exist, and replacement effects that have already been applied that modify how it enters the battlefield. The ability that makes Enduring Innocence an enchantment and not a creature isn't any of those things, it's a continuous effect from a triggered ability. So we don't take it into account when determining which replacement effects apply to it as it enters the battlefield. (CR 614.12)

Stolen in the Nick of Time
AP controls Leyline of Anticipation and Valgavoth, Terror Eater. NAP blocks Valgavoth with their Storm Crown Enchanted with Kaya's Ghost Form. What happens after Storm Crow dies? Valgavoth will cause Storm Crow to be exiled, and Kaya's Ghost Form will trigger. AP is able to cast Storm Crow from exile before it comes back with Kaya's Ghost Form's triggered ability. If AP does this, the Ghost Form trigger will resolve and do nothing. (CR 400.7)

Mulligan Procedure What?
It's a few rounds into day 2 and the loser of this match is dead for prizing, it's game 3. AP and NAP are both going to six. NAP declares an intent to keep and AP then also says keep, but forgets to put a card on the bottom of their library. AP then plays a land and NAP calls a judge and mentions that AP forgot to put a card on the bottom. By the book this is HCE, and NAP selects a card to be put onto the bottom of AP's library. However I think if AP had called this on themselves, we could call this reversing decisions, since in this specific instance AP found out NAP's intent to keep before they decided whether or not they were keeping, so they wouldn't have gained any new information here. As it was NAP called attention to the error, which is new info. (IPG 2.5, 2.4)

No Free Rewinds
AP attacks with all their creatures and NAP says "what the hell?". AP then says "Oh wait, do I die on the crackback? Hold on," NAP had two Unstoppable Slashers and AP was at 7. I explained that NAP did indeed die on the crackback, as they would take four damage and two triggers would go onto the stack, the first would cause AP to lose two life, then the second would cause them to lose their last life. NAP saying "what the hell" constituted AP gaining information which meant that this couldn't be rewound under reversing decisions. (MTR 4.8)

Sneaky Trigger
AP casts Ancestral Reminiscence and discards Sneaky Snacker, will its ability trigger? Yes. After an event, the game will check all objects to see if any of them have triggered abilities that apply to the event. Since Sneaky Snacker is in the graveyard while this check is happening, its ability will trigger. (CR 603.10)

I'd like One Un-Scoop Please
AP draws for their turn, flips their Fable of the Mirror Breaker and then, using the cards in their hand as a "shovel" scoops up their permanents and shuffles the entire mix into their graveyard. They say "I'll be on the play". Then they realize that they aren't actually dead this turn, and call for a judge. This reversing decisions is fine from a policy perspective, AP hasn't gained any information, so it's fine for them to change their mind here. (MTR 4.8) However logistically this is much more problematic. In this case, the players weren't able to determine what exactly was in the graveyard and how many cards were in AP's hand before the partial scoop. So a backup to a reasonable facsimile of the previous game state was impossible, so the game wasn't reconstructed and the concession was upheld.

...In Conclusion
I had a good time at RC Calgary, I recall being HJ of an event like this would've scared me a year ago, but I felt a lot more comfortable in the role this time around. I felt like my pre-event prep was decent, and while a few things changed the day of, it was easy enough to adapt my plan. The event was a little busy, which I like, and had a healthy amount of rules and policy questions. I had a great time in this role but will be happy to sit out as a HJ for a while while other people take the center stage, it's been a fun run, but being the one to make the final call on all the hard stuff can get taxing after a while, and I'm happy to have a break!