Welcome to magicthegathering.comNew to Magic? Click here!
Return to Magicthegathering.com front page





Return to Magicthegathering.com front page

PTQ Yokohama (Denver) - Head Judge Report

Simeon Smilack


The event was held on February 22, 2003 at the Mile High Comics Store. The judges for the event were myself, Brian Rider, and Brian Tucker. There were 67 competitors - three were turned away for both tardiness and lack of play space. This meant seven rounds of Swiss with a cut to top eight (tie breakers mattered). The top two players after the Swiss portion were Steven Ho and Jason Shickli. They met in the finals with Jason taking a smaller prize but the invitation.

Penalties and Rulings:

There were several penalties handed out during the course of the day. They ranged from simple penalties for accidentally seeing the second card while drawing to more difficult penalties - including severe procedural errors and slow play. The more interesting ones are listed here:

A player failed to draw after cycling a card, and then proceeded to attempt to draw later in the turn. After having both attacked and played a land. It was ruled that the player had committed a procedural error, and since both players agreed that he should have drawn the card, he was penalized for Failure to Draw.

During deck registration, a player recorded a card in the 'played' column that was not registered in his card pool. Upon inspection of his deck, it was found that he had not marked a card that he was playing. It was assumed that he had simply marked the incorrect space during registration, and after a short conversation, the judges were satisfied that had in fact been the case. He was given a game loss for an illegal deck list. The penalty was on the harsh side, but was warranted due to the disruption it had caused. It was also less than the suggested match loss that could have been enforced.

A player cycled Krosan Tusker and drew a card. After having drawn, the player went to search his library for a land card. It was ruled that at the Rel 3 level he had implicitly declined to search for the land since that 'may' triggered ability would have had to resolve before drawing. No penalty was assigned as the failure to search seemed to be penalty enough.

Player A played Crown of Suspicion on a morph creature. The player the sacrificed Crown of Suspicion, and with the effect on the stack morphed a 1/1 creature. Player B believed that the Crown would not affect any other creatures as a morph has no creature type. Player B was correct that morph had no creature type, but since the Crown's effect checks on the resolution of the effect, it still ended up killing his insects (the morphing creature's type).

A player drew 7 cards after a first mulligan. They were forced to take a second mulligan.

A player failed to pay upkeep on Krosan Cloudscraper. He then attacked with it (as anyone with a Krosan Cloudscraper should) and did damage.

The game then progressed to the next players turn, and during the turn it was noted that the upkeep had not been paid the previous turn. Because the game could not be restored, a game loss was issued to the player. A caution was also issued to the second player for failing to keep the game state correct.

One player failed to reveal a morph card at the end of the game. His opponent noticed it and called him on it. He revealed all of the cards that had been in his graveyard, in play, and in his hand - since he still had the pile separated - but his opponent wasn't satisfied. I issued a warning for procedural error severe to the player, but I issued a warning only since it was my opinion that he had done all he could to show the player the card after having 'muffed' showing it.

And the penalty that was the most difficult was a player having played a morph creature that really was not a morph. This was discovered after Game 2 had ended. Player A revealed the card he had morphed, and it was not a morph. Both players called a judge, and I issued a game loss for the infraction. Since Game 2 was the game during which the infraction had occurred, I gave a game loss for Game 2. This is noteworthy because Player A had won Game 1. This meant that the players had to play Game 3. Player A asserted that he thought that the penalty should have been applied to either Game 3 (which would have been meaningless) or to Game 1 of his next round. I stood by my ruling that it would be enforced in the second game. Appling the penalty to the later round would set a precedent that I was unwilling to set. It would have opened the door to the possibility of the same infraction happening in the final round(s) or in the top eight where any win by any means would have advanced the player to the next round. In the end a Procedural Error Severe (game loss) was assigned. The player was not disqualified for cheating because we believed that the morph card in his hand had been there when he 'did not play it.'

ESRB Privacy Certified - Click to view our privacy statement