Welcome to magicthegathering.comNew to Magic? Click here!
MAGICTHEGATHERING.COM ARTICLES TOURNAMENTS MAGIC ONLINE GATHERER
Return to Magicthegathering.com front page

MAGICTHEGATHERING.COM

ARTICLES

TOURNAMENTS

MAGIC ONLINE


Return to Magicthegathering.com front page


Chicago PTQ-Brighton, MA

Matt Villamaino

Matt Villamaino [Level 2]
Judging Report
Chicago Pro Tour Qualifier
10/23, 1999
Knights of Columbus, Brighton, MA
117 Players
Judging Staff - Nat Fairbanks (Head Judge), Me, Marty Lund & Helen Dunsmoir (Scorekeeper)

"Which Pro Tour did I just qualify for?"
- Michelle Bush, upon winning the 10/23, 1999 Boston Qualifier

This weekend was a busy one for me. Not one, but two PTQ's were held in Boston. The first thing I should mention about this weekend was the high level of sportsmanship on both days. Some issues could have been real problems, but due to good sportsmanship they were resolved without a problem.

Interesting rulings/situations (some of these rulings are from the second day, because not enough happened to write a separate report about it):

- There were several of the usual Urza Block questions.
- Can a Powder Keg with zero counters on it kill an animated land? Yes.
- What does successfully cast mean under sixth edition rules? It means the spell is played.
- Can I put a Treachery or Confiscate on an untargetable creature when it comes into play though a Replenish? Yes, because it is not the target of a spell or ability.

- Player A played disenchant targeting Player B's Masticore. In response, Player B put a regeneration shield on it. In response to that, Player A humbled the Masticore. Player A thought that because the Masticore was a 0/1 without any abilities, it would not regenerate from the disenchant. I told him that having a regeneration shield around a creature is not an ability, and therefore not taken away by the Humble (however, the ability to generate additional regeneration shields is lost)

- Player C played Show and Tell. Upon resolution, he revealed a Serra Avatar. Player D wanted to put a Confiscate in play with the Show and Tell onto that Serra Avatar. I told him he couldn't because the Avatar wasn't in play when he chose what the Confiscate's target was. (Incidentally, that Serra Avatar changed control no less than three times during that game. The judging staff called it the most fickle Serra Avatar in the room :-)

- Player E had a Masticore in play and forgot to discard to it for three turns. After his opponent noticed it, they called me over and player E admitted to forgetting to discard for the Masticore. Due to the severe impact the Masticore had on the game over those three turns (12 points of damage to his opponent, plus possibly killing several creatures), instead of just giving him a warning I gave him a duel loss.

- In another match, player F attacked player G with a Lone Wolf. Player G blocks with a random creature. Player F chooses to have the Lone Wolf deal its damage to player G instead of the blocking creature. After he chose to do this, he played Might of Oaks on the Lone Wolf. However, since he had said where the Lone Wolf was dealing its combat damage he had already put combat damage on the stack and could not deal an extra seven points of damage to Player G (the Lone Wolf however survived to see another day).

- Player H called me over for the following incident. Player H had lost the preceding game in the match and chose to play. After looking at his hand he decided to mulligan. While he was resolving his mulligan, his opponent, Player J decided that he wanted to mulligan and started to do so. Player H argued that Player J was trying to gain a "psychological advantage" over him by doing so. I gave player J a warning for misplaying the mulligan rule and told him how mulligans were supposed to be resolved, with the active player resolving theirs and then the inactive player resolving theirs. He continued to argue that Player J was trying to gain a psychological advantage and that we were doing nothing about it. Nat (who had just wandered over) told him we did do something about it, we gave him a warning and told him how to mulligan correctly. If anything you were the one who got the advantage out of the situation. Now play the game.

Decklist incidents:

- One player misspelled Contamination on his sideboard list. Badly. With poor handwriting. When Nat came up to me for my opinion on what the card listed to me was I said it looked a lot like Contagion. Evidentially, I wasn't the only judge to read it that way so the player was cited for a illegal sideboard list.

- When deck checking the sideboards of the top 8, we discovered that one player had listed 3 of card A and 4 of card B. His sideboard contained 4 of card A and 3 of card B.

Incidents that required more than five minutes to resolve:

- Player K is at one life, has no creatures in play, two Treetop Villages, a Worship, and three other lands (one enchanted with a fertile ground). Player L is at three life has one blocker available and at least three mana available. The winner of this match is one win away from top 8, the loser can't make it in.

Player K taps his land and says, pointing to one of his Treetop Villages "Make it a 3/3." He then taps his remaining land and points to his other Treetop Village and said "Make it a 3/3." In response to that Player L played a one point Fault Line. Player L said the Fault Line killed Player K before he had a creature. Player K said that he activated each individually and let the first resolve before activating the second.

Nat ruled that Player K did not show that he was passing priority after announcing the first Treetop Village's ability, therefore the activation of the second Treetop Village was played in response to the first one. As such, the stack looks like this (top to bottom): Fault Line, Treetop Village #2, Treetop Village #1. Both players pass, Fault Line resolves, check for state based effects, player K is at zero life, game ends - Player L wins.

- On my way back to the judges station after the previous incident, I was called to a match between Player M and Player N. Player M was playing a Bargain deck and was in the process of "going off." The discrepancy was weather or not he had played a land this turn. If he hadn't, he would be able to win, if he had, he would lose. Both players had missed multiple land drops, so we couldn't tell by looking at that. We also couldn't count cards since Player M had drawn so many cards with the Bargain. Nat determined by looking at what was cast when (simplified version, I had to answer several other questions while this was going on and didn't see the whole resolution of it) that he had played a land.

Later,
Matt Villamaino
DCI Level II Certified Judge
MadMage682@aol.com



WHAT'S NEW WHERE TO BUY HELP
ESRB Privacy Certified - Click to view our privacy statement