Montreal, Quebec
Friday May 23rd - Sunday May 25th, 2025


Friday - Deck Check Floor Judge

Heroic or Villainous?
AP cast Heartfire Hero then activated Rockface Village on it. Afterwards they attacked with Heartfire Hero and two Monastery Swiftspears. Before blockers were declared they tapped Soulstone Sanctuary to cast Witchstalker frenzy, killing NAP's Beza, the Bounding Spring and allowing lethal damage to get through. Afterwards AP had no cards in their hand, but NAP had an entire hand full of cards. Without this exact sequence of plays NAP wouldn't die. It was game one, round one of an Open. Making it to top 8 would qualify AP for the next RC, however the event was such that a single loss in round one didn't knock anyone out of top 8. I decided this was likely an innocent mistake, and unfortunately there was no game to rewind at this point, so there was no remedy.

Qualification Conundrum
LCQs are always kind of weird, because byes are front-loaded, meaning that if 32 players don't enroll in any given LCQ a bunch of players are given a bye in round one to prevent any byes in future rounds. Players with byes were expected to still go to the pairings boards to both hand in their decklist, and receive their promo for the event. This system has a few failure points. Firstly, players might just not go to the board when they see they have a bye in the software and will end up ambling in for round 2 with decklist in hand, looking for their promo. I think it might be better to collect lists from all present players in round one, and to put a promo at each match for the loser. Then, in round 2 give all players a promo. The problem here is that because the decklists are on paper, anyone with a bye could watch the round one matches and change their decklist. I feel like the probability of a player doing this is fairly low and I'm not entirely concerned about it. For one they have to locate their LCQ without having access to the table number which is a whole hurdle in and of itself, then they have to want to change their list based on the 2/20 matches they can actually watch, and they also need to understand that they can do this without recourse. However, if we want a completely airtight system we could simply ask players to hand in their decklists at registration before the event starts. The issue with this is that many players want to fiddle with their lists until the very last moment. Another option would be to allow online decklists through a google form or something. To clarify, we can't accept online decklists through MTGMelee in Canada because players don't register for events through Melee, if they did Melee would charge some astronomical conversion/payment processing fees.

A Bored Rule
AP was resolving Stock Up, started, picked up the first two cards and realized one was a sideboard card. After some amount of investigation AP realized that the Get Lost in their hand was also a sideboard card, in addition to a few other cards in their library. This was a bit peculiar, since having a sideboard card in their hand for several turns before noticing was odd indeed. It turned out that AP was borrowing the deck and didn't have a lot of experience on it. They let me know the person they were borrowing the deck from was present at the event, and I figured this would be easy enough to verify afterwards. I spoke to the opponent and the opponent let me know that while AP was aware of what they were playing, from having watched them go to time the previous round, Get Lost was a terrible card against their archetype. I issued the Deck Problem - Warning and had AP reveal all the sideboard cards in their deck to NAP before returning them to the sideboard, and then had NAP choose from among the mainboard cards going in which would replace the card in hand, and which would replace the card in the Stock Up pile. The remaining sideboard cards were shuffled into AP's library. Later I followed up with the friend and they confirmed that AP was relatively inexperienced with the deck and was borrowing it.

Too Many Checks?
While I don't want players to be immune to deck checks, I also think there is a real cost to deck checking the same player too many times. Early on in the day AP was checked and failed to register nonbasic lands in a sealed LCQ, and got a game loss for it. Then later on they had that same sealed pool in their deckbox during a different sealed LCQ. This of course, also merits a game loss. Needless to say this player wasn't very impressed by the entire ordeal and ended up simply dropping out of frustration with the policy. I don't think either game loss was entirely unfair, but it certainly didn't feel great.

Retroactive Mists
On MTG Arena, there is a common bug where if AP casts a spell, and NAP casts a counterspell, AP can then activate Mistrise Village to make the initial spell uncounterable. This is, of course not how it works in paper Magic. A few players came to ask us about this on Friday, we answered correctly and luckily we didn't have any egregious issues with it throughout the rest of the event.

Saturday - Regional Championship Appeals Judge (Formerly EOR Team Lead)

Unfortunate Job Security
Unfortunately our Head Judge was stricken with illness on the weekend of the event and couldn't come. This meant some staff reorganization needed to occur. I had previously been assigned as the EOR team lead, but was field promoted to Appeals Judge. The former Appeals Judge was then promoted to Head Judge. I kind of had a bit of advanced notice about the potential job swap since the HJ hadn't been feeling well all week, so I prepared a very detailed and granular EOR plan in the event the role would be shifted to someone else at the last minute. The next thing I wanted to make note of was how professionally the Head Judge handled the team briefing. I've recently been at some events where the HJ forgoes the team briefing, or does a very informal one, but I'm starting to really see the value in having a very formal start and end of day briefing. Here are the notes from the briefing and everything they covered (partially for my own future reference, but also to give you some ideas of things that might be important to talk about).

Electrifying Policy
I dislike saying "no" to players, so being an Appeals Judge is a bit of a blessing because many judgement call issues will stop with the HJ. Two things were disallowed this event, players listening to music while playing and players using electronic sideboard notes. I think I'm more on board for disallowing both of these things. The electronic sideboard notes in particular, generally the opponent isn't going to be paying super close attention to what is on AP's phone during sideboarding, but also because it's trivial for AP's teammates to edit a group google doc with a bunch of tips about the matchup live or something.

Into the Maw of the CR
AP casts Into the Flood Maw and promises the gift of fish, but NAP counters it, will NAP still get a fish? No. While the choice of whether to gift a fish is made as part of casting the spell, the ultimate result is that it adds a line of text that occurs during the resolution of the spell that allows NAP to create a fish. (CR 702.174a)

You've Gone and Drossed it All Up!
AP controlled Archfiend of the Dross which had it's "enter the battlefield" ability countered by Tishana's Tidebinder, and wanted to know what happens when the Tidebinder goes away. Will AP lose the game immediately or during their next upkeep? Well for starters, AP will lose the game at the beginning of their next upkeep as Archfiend's triggered ability resolves. However more importantly, Tishana's Tidebinder can't counter the replacement effect that causes Archfiend to enter with oil counters. Unfortunately I only found out about this ruling long after it had been made and the players had packed up. The floor judge who was involved in the call helpfully located both players and informed them of the correct rules before the next round, however.

0 Targets, All Counters
If AP casts Eddymurk Crab and chooses zero targets, can the triggered ability still be countered by Tishana's Tidebinder? Yes. The ability still goes onto the stack and AP chooses modes and targets for it (or no targets as part of the choices made while putting it onto the stack). As the ability resolves it will do nothing but it's still there, and if it's countered by Tidebinder, that will cause Eddymurk Crab to lose all its abilities. (CR 601.2c)

Burning Buildings and Artifacts
AP casts Torch the Tower and wants to know whether they'll still get a token if they sacrifice Cori-Steel Cutter to bargain Torch the Tower. They will not, Bargain is an additional cost made while AP is casting the spell. (CR 702.166a) By the time the spell is considered "cast" (and when Cori-Steel Cutter would trigger) the Steel Cutter is no longer on the battlefield. (CR 601.2i) Can AP instead sacrifice the token created by Cori-Steel Cutter to bargain Torch the Tower? No, and for much the same reason, by the time that trigger goes onto the stack, Torch the Tower has already been put on the stack and had any initial and additional costs have been paid, or in this case, not paid.

Tepid Reversal
AP cast Burst Lightning as their second spell for the turn. AP went to change the life totals as they reached for their monk token from Cori-Steel Cutter. NAP argued that AP had missed their trigger as they were already changing life totals. The floor judge ruled out-of-order sequencing, which is a little odd since this wasn't really announced as as batch of actions. (MTR 4.3) I upheld but argued using reversing decisions policy, NAP was tapped out and couldn't do anything in response to the Burst Lightning, so even if AP forgot the trigger initially, they remembered it and would be allowed to rewind back to the point where it could be on the stack. (MTR 4.8)

Sunday - Regional Championship Appeals Judge

QOL Improvements
At the beginning of the day one of the TLs noted that we had a lot of extra space in the room, and that it might be nice to space out the first row of the tournament to give players a more "VIP" experience. I felt this was a good idea, and after all tables were sat by the EOR team, we had any unassigned judges remove chairs and move table numbers. In a similar vein of "making things better for everyone without players explicitly noticing the changes" I noticed quite a few players were standing in front of the TV with the round timer on it. Repeatedly asking players not to stand there didn't seem like a sustainable solution, so instead I took the blue tape and made a giant square on the ground where players were usually standing to create a psychological "exclusion zone". This actually seemed to work as I didn't have to ask players to move again after creating it.

Authoritative Decree
NAP controls Authority of the Consuls and AP casts Kaito, Bane of Nightmares, will it enter tapped? No. When performing the look ahead to assess which replacement effects would apply to Kaito, we don't take into account any counters it has on it, which means the game doesn't see it as a creature entering, and therefore don't apply any replacement effects that would apply to creatures.

Temporarily Confused
AP's Unable to Scream and Storm Crow are underneath Temporary Lockdown. If Temporary Lockdown leaves the battlefield, what happens to the two cards? Can AP choose to enchant the Storm Crow with Unable to Scream? No. AP needs to choose a permanent on the battlefield to attach Unable to Scream to. Storm Crow isn't on the battlefield at this time, so it can't be chosen. (CR 303.4f)

Landbound Opt
AP cast Opt but then grabbed two cards. The cards were Cori-Steel Cutter and an Island. AP was very confident that the extra card was the Cori-Steel Cutter and the card they should've been Opting with was the Island. The judge on the call believed AP, however NAP wasn't sure. The judge on the call ruled LEC because they believed that AP knew the correct card, but NAP appealed. AP didn't need an Island, and so without spending too much extra time I told the FJ that if we LEC'd here the result would be almost identical to the HCE, since in both cases the Cori-Steel Cutter would be shuffled into AP's library. The only difference is that NAP gets to see the Island that AP is most likely going to put on the bottom of their library, which is barely information at all. Afterwards I spoke to the judge and we discussed how if there's any ambiguity at all as to whether the order of the cards changed, then we should just rule HCE. (IPG 2.2, IPG 2.3)

Get Ready to Wait
Deck checks are boring. We all know this. Oftentimes players ask if they can play on their phones or whatever during checks. I'm generally okay with this as long as their phone is in full view of their opponent. Asking a player to sit and stare at the wall for ten minutes is kinda the worst. In this case the players asked if they could look at their opponent's decklists during the check. I honestly didn't see a huge reason not to, and figured it might prevent them from needing as much time later in the match to review the decklists.

AP, of the Two Names
The TO let me know that a player in our event might've played in the American RC at Hartford just the weekend prior. Let's call them Peter, so the TO recognized Peter at Ottawa and recalled seeing the same player at Hartford. Moreover, the TO had seen the name "Pete" in the top 32 standings at Hartford. I still had access to the Hartford events in MTGMelee, so I checked Peter's MTGMelee profile and saw that they were playing in the 10k on Saturday and a 5k on Sunday, whereas Pete was playing in the RC. I spoke to Peter and they corroborated the fact that they had played in both the 10k and 5k and not the RC.

Roaming Dragonhawks
AP controls Roaming Throne naming Bird and casts Dragonhawk, what happens? AP will exile two cards twice. However at the beginning of their next end step, there will only be two instances of the delayed trigger, one for each initial resolution of the first trigger. Roaming Throne doesn't copy delayed triggers created by triggered abilities of creatures of the appropriate type. (CR 113.7) So at most AP can burn NAP for eight, but never any more.

...In Conclusion
I like working Canadian events, it's my old stomping ground and I feel like I know all the judges there pretty well. I really enjoyed being appeals judge. Getting to test myself on some investigations as well as some sticky policy situations really helped me work on skills that I seldom feel I get to excersise in the current era. I feel like it was one of my better events performance-wise as well. I felt I had a strong opening and closing meeting, and my rulings were fairly correct. Overall I really enjoyed the opportunity, though not the circumstances that lead to it, and I look forward to working more events in the future.