Thanks to all of the readers (as well as KYT and the ManaDeprived team) for giving me such a warm welcome. I’ll try my best to make every piece as witty, dramatic, earth-shatteringly revelatory, and modest as possible. For anyone wondering, this column will not focus on answering rules questions, although if they come up in the course of my story, I won’t omit them. However, feel free to ask me any questions (rules or otherwise) in the comments or send them to jason [dot] wong [at] manadeprived [dot] com.
Let’s be honest. 90% of a floor judge’s job could be carried out by a group of robots. I don’t mean just a bunch of Roombas with rulebooks taped onto the top (though we do pick up a lot of garbage), but a custom-built IBM Watson super genius. You know, the kind that can solve rules interactions, verify decklist legality and enslave the human race. Oh, and also pick up garbage (seriously guys, if you could help out just a little…). In this article, I’ll be talking about the remaining 10% of a judge’s job. These are the situations that require discussion about the philosophy behind certain infractions. They divide judges by community, by experience, and by personality. They require… *cue dramatic music* a judge’s discretion.
Not dramatic enough for you? Then how about this? In a world gone mad… Titans will clash… *cue dramatic music* in an impassioned… thought-provoking… friendly debate on an internet forum.
Still no? Aw, fine.
I will be posing a Yes/No question for three different scenarios, and arguments for both Yes and No. These scenarios are taken from real events, and both sides have received support from various judges, so neither answer is incorrect. It is up to you do decide what kind of judge you’d be.
Scenario 1: Slow Play during sideboarding
Let’s start with one of the most contested infractions in Magic. According to the Magic Infraction Procedure Guide, players engage in Slow Play if they “take longer than is reasonably required to complete game actions.” What does that even mean, though? Some judges count to a certain number and issue a warning after that. Others may give more or less time depending on the complexity of the board state and what’s in the player’s hand. As Level 5 judge Sheldon Menery said, “If you’re wondering whether or not it’s Slow Play, it’s probably Slow Play.” Of course, regardless of the time we allow the player before we issue the penalty, the player always responds with “What?! Look how complicated this board is, of course I’m taking longer to think!” to which I reply, “Your opponent is actually about to fall asleep from boredom.”
Slow Play can also occur during sideboarding. Players must have sideboarded, shuffled, and presented their decks within three minutes. Should there be exceptions to this rule, though?
Scenario
It’s the finals of a Competitive REL event. It’s a pretty high-profile event, so there are still a lot of spectators. The finalists are good friends and popular with the crowd, so they’re joking and hamming it up. They finish game one, and proceed to sideboarding for game two. At two minutes in, you notice the players are still making sideboarding decisions, so you remind them that they only have three minutes to present. Two more minutes pass (four minutes in total) and neither player has even started shuffling yet. Do you issue a Slow Play warning?
Arguments
– Yes! The players were made aware of the time limit, and they’re not even done sideboarding, which means they’ll take even more time to shuffle. It’ll be at least 5 or 6 minutes before they present, and that’s way too long. Just because it’s an untimed Top 8 doesn’t mean we can stay here forever; a reasonable pace is still expected of both players.
– No! The philosophy behind Slow Play is to prevent players from gaining an advantage of the time. In an untimed match, there’s no potential for advantage there. The players and spectators are having a good time, and no one is bored out of his/her mind. With such huge stakes on the line, we can provide a bit more leniency for taking extra time for decisions.
One factor that should not be considered is whether either player has received a penalty for Slow Play earlier in the tournament. A second Slow Play infraction would result in a Game Loss, but you should never think “Well I don’t want to give him a Game Loss in the finals, so I’ll say No to Slow Play.”
Scenario 2: Copying spells with Chandra, the Firebrand
Sometimes players will do things slightly out of order. They’ll draw before they untap. They’ll put a Rampant Growth in their graveyards before they search for their land. They’ll block, block, animate a creature land, and block with that. Generally, we allow this “out-of-order sequencing” as long as no advantage was gained by doing so. But how much should we allow?
Scenario
It’s round 4 of a competitive REL event. Player A has a Chandra, the Firebrand on the board. He draws for the turn, and declares “Mind Rot targeting you, and I’ll copy it with Chandra’s -2 ability.” Player B calls for you and argues that player A can’t copy it because Mind Rot was on the stack when he tried to activate Chandra. You ask Player A a few questions, and discover that he thought he could actually use Chandra’s ability at “instant speed”. Do you allow the Mind Rot to be copied?
Oh Chandra, why does your second ability make no sense?
Arguments
– Yes! Magic is a complex game, and players aren’t expected to do everything technically perfectly. Player A gained no advantage by doing these steps in the reverse order. It’s not like Player A tried to gauge a response from his opponent before trying to copy it with Chandra. His intent was clear; we shouldn’t be playing “Gotcha!” when the ability is weird enough already.
– No! While technically perfect play is not expected, players should be expected to have a competent level of rules knowledge at a Competitive REL event. The fact that the player admitted to thinking Chandra’s ability could be activated at instant speed means he doesn’t understand how planeswalker abilities work, and Player B should not be penalized because Player A doesn’t know how the rules work.
Scenario 3: Artistic modifications
People love having altered cards. I’ve seen Beta duals with art extended to the border, countless basic lands with anime characters drawn on them, and my personal favourite, a set of Squadron Hawks represented by the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. According to the Magic Tournament Rules, “artistic modifications are acceptable, provided that the modifications do not make the card unrecognizable.” That’s usually not a problem, but what if this happens?
Scenario
You’re the Head Judge of a pre-rotation (M10 to Scars block) Standard PTQ. Before the tournament starts, a player approaches you, and asks if he can play with four of this card:
A soldier in a lion’s costume
Would you allow him to play with them?
Arguments
– Yes! The two cards are nearly identical, excepting their name and creature type. You can’t name non-Standard legal cards with Memoricide, and nothing affects Humans, Soldiers or Cats except Adapative Automaton. There’s no way the player can get any strategic advantage out of someone confusing this card with the Lions, so let him have his fun.
– No! Even though there’s probably no strategic advantage gained, we don’t want to confuse players every time the card is played. Because Magic is an international game, the common way for players to recognize cards is by their art. By allowing such confusing art, you are telling players that they can use altered art to mislead their opponents.
Note that if this were during an Innistrad Standard, the opportunity for advantage would be much greater, due to tribal considerations. That’s why the scenario was set in a pre-rotation Standard.
Your Mileage May Vary
Three scenarios, three opportunities for varying degrees of strictness. In a game with so many rules, so many interactions, and so much communication, it is impossible to moderate every scenario that pops up. That’s why judges exist – to deal with the 10% of the game that cannot be explicitly ruled. Is it slightly unfair that you might be able to play with your Elite Lions in this province, but not in another? Perhaps, but this what the rules allow judges to decide, and I can’t think of a better system.
So how did you rule in each situation? Do you have arguments for Yes or No that weren’t mentioned here? How do you think I would rule? Make a comment below! I didn’t include my answer because I didn’t want to influence your answers, because obviously what I say is correct. I’ll let you guys know next time, though. And until then, all hail our future robot overlords.
Jason Wong
@azngenius on twitter
(Thanks to Diego Reynaldo, Kyle Ryc, and Charlotte Sable for posing the original questions)
Answers to last week’s question “What do you think are the three most common judge calls?” (with my most common responses):
– “I have no opponent.” (Congratulations on winning what must have been a hard-fought match.)
– “How much time is left in the round?” (There’s a round clock RIGHT BEHIND ME.)
– “Can you bring up the match slip?” (No.)
As a level 2 judge from Kingston, Ontario, you’ll find me at many of the big events in the Toronto/Montreal area. Stop by and say hi, and listen to me butcher another foreign language!