A few weeks ago, we held a pair of PTQs at the Star City Game Center in Roanoke. Happily enough, I was able to judge both of them — head judge on Day 1, and then floor judge on Day 2 — and I would like to make particular note of the zero disqualifications issued over the weekend. Of course, there were warnings, and game losses, but no disqualifications.
Nonetheless, something interesting happened. I was engaged in a discussion with Jason Reedy, Virginia’s newest Level One Judge (Congratulations, Jason!) on the way players shuffle their decks. Personally, I prefer a combination of a seven-card pile shuffle and a few overhand shuffles, but that’s mostly because I’ve not managed the dexterity required to work a good riffle shuffle. I just end up bending cards in uncomfortable ways and, in decks with judge foils, that’s rather suboptimal.
But I digress.
Anyhow — Jason and I were having a discussion on shuffling techniques. Of the various methods players use to shuffle their decks, the most insidious is the backwards riffle shuffle. Surely you’ve seen this — maybe you do it — but it’s a riffle shuffle where the player’s cards are facing the player. While I’ve heard some players excuse this away as a means of ensuring that their opponent doesn’t see what’s in their deck, there is some faulty reasoning being applied here. If you don’t want your opponent to see the contents of your deck, and if you must riffle shuffle, do so with your cards facing the table. Players have definitely received game losses during Feature Matches at Worlds for doing this very thing.
After coming to a mutual agreement on backwards riffle-shuffling being a Bad Thing, Jason posed the question of how we would deal with a player performing a backwards riffle-shuffle on their opponent’s deck. At the time, I conjectured that such an act might be considered Cheating — Manipulation of Game Materials (assuming, of course, that the player performing the shuffle was doing so in order to gain some advantage over their opponent), which would lead to a disqualification. What happened next surprised me: the immediate inquiry of some players within earshot to whether somebody had been disqualified or not. Their demeanor implied interest, as though disqualification is scandalous.
To an extent, I suppose it is. Disqualifications are infrequent — in almost five years of judging, I’ve issued less than ten — and their impact is both significant and visible. A disqualified player can become the Hester Prynne of their local community or, conversely, can continue their participation with minimal impact on their reputation (the former, I would imagine, being the more common occurrence). However, it occurs to me that there may be some serious misconceptions about what a disqualification means, what it entails, and why they happen in the first place.
The first misconception I’d like to address is this: judges do not enjoy issuing disqualifications to players. I’ll readily concede that there may be some judges — certified or otherwise — who find gratification in the unparalleled power of removing somebody from a tournament but, as I’ve stated before, they’re definitely doing it wrong. A good judge understands that the primary goal of any tournament is to ensure that everybody’s having a good time, and that everyone is being treated fairly – by their opponents, by the event staff, and by the rules of the game. Neither of these goals is achieved by a judge mismanaging the responsibilities borne by their position.
Besides, the process of disqualifying a player is relatively labor-intensive: first, a judge must perform the investigation. This process may take a considerable amount of time between talking to the players involved, the judges involved, the spectators involved, and then re-interviewing any of the above parties as necessary. Then, if the head judge decides on disqualifying a player, the player must be informed.
If you are being disqualified from a tournament, the best advice that I can give you is to act politely and professionally (even if you’re upset, which is completely understandable). Do not lose your temper, do not issue threats, and handle the situation with as much composure and grace as you can muster. A player who cooperates fully with a DQ investigation stands a greater chance of not being severely punished. If you feel that the judge disqualifying you is making a grievous error, you are well within your rights to ask said judge for their name and contact the DCI with a complaint about their behavior.
Once the head judge has disqualified a player (and remember — the head judge of a tournament is the only person who can issue a disqualification), then statements have to be taken from all involved parties. (Some of these parties may be hostile, which makes the process all the more pleasant.) After all of the above is finished, the head judge has to enter all the statements into the Judge Center. If there is any investigative work to be done after the fact, surely the head judge could be involved in that. In short: judges looking to amuse themselves at a tournament need not resort to disqualifying players. EDH is easier, and far more enjoyable.
There also seems to be an assumption in the player community that a disqualification will immediately lead into a suspension of some kind. While it is true that a player can receive a suspension as the result of a disqualification, there is no guarantee that this will happen. Without getting into an in-depth theoretical discussion on the purpose of disqualifying a player, suffice it to say that sometimes the simple act of being disqualified from a tournament will sufficiently correct a player’s behavior. Other times, the DCI might feel that it is in the better interest of the game for a certain player to not be allowed to play for a period of time. It is in precisely these situations that a suspension may be issued.
While it’s true that a disqualification is the most serious penalty that can be handed out at a tournament, I would like to strongly emphasize that it is not the worst thing that can happen to a player at an event. It signifies the end of a player’s involvement in that particular tournament — nothing more, nothing less. Hopefully, that’s where it will stop. Being disqualified from a tournament definitely does not mean that you won’t be able to play in sanctioned tournaments anymore. Keep in mind that players have been inducted into no less than the Magic Hall of Fame with disqualifications on their records. It is not the end of the world.
On a tangent, I’d like to address the perception of game losses as functional disqualifications. Anybody who has judged long enough has heard stories about players who would receive a game loss at a moment where said penalty decides the outcome of a match. This gets even worse if the penalized player is, say, in the third game of their quarterfinal match. Some players might argue that the judge giving out that game (or match) loss is effectively disqualifying that player from the tournament. It’s an emotional argument intended to provoke sympathy in the judge giving the penalty and, while I can sympathize with any player unfortunate enough to receive such a penalty at such a sensitive time, please understand that penalties are — and must be — given without consideration to how they’ll impact the tournament.
A Word on Chapin
Anybody who watched The Magic Show this past Friday has heard about the play Patrick Chapin made at our recent $5,000 Standard Open in Indianapolis. Essentially, Patrick announced a Profane Command in a manner that allowed him to turn an unfavorable board position into a victory. Much like the interaction between Demigod of Revenge and Cryptic Command that I described in my first article, there’s nothing illegal about what Patrick did. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using deliberately unclear language in an attempt to gain an advantage. Note that this is different from using deliberately dishonest language in an attempt to gain an advantage.
Had Patrick opted to say something along the lines of “give my Colossus fear,” this would be a completely different matter. We do not allow players to intentionally misrepresent the rules in order to gain an advantage. Had Patrick’s opponent asked for clarification on whether the Chameleon Colossus had fear or not, and had Patrick answered anything other than “no,” that would also have been a completely different matter. I understand that some of you may find this kind of behavior distasteful, and I can relate, but make no mistake: the DCI is okay with players having an advantage due to their rules knowledge or understanding of card interactions. It seems reasonable to expect that this extends to policy knowledge, and a player who stays inside the rules — even if operating very close to the border of legal and illegal play — is not to be penalized.
… and a few words on Elder Dragon Highlander
I’d like to take a minute to touch a card that, while relatively innocuous in its appearance, may rank among my favorites in EDH: Vedalken Orrery.
While it’s not an insanely powerful card on its face, the kinds of plays it enables are simply ridiculous. Everybody’s heard about the ridiculous play sequence in which Player A controls Orrery, Player B plays some massive card-drawing effect, and A responds by flashing in Chains of Mephistopheles. This may, in fact, be the defining broken-play story of EDH, and it wouldn’t have even happened if not for the Orrery.
You can bet that I definitely run an Orrery in my EDH. It helps me do things like sneak Survival of the Fittest in on the end of an opponent’s turn — thus reducing my chances of getting it countered — or flashing in Nekrataal as instant-speed creature kill. I hope to someday utter the words “in response, Violent Ultimatum targeting…” The possibilities make me absolutely giddy. Extrapolated further, my previous EDH deck (with Momir Vig, Simic Visionary as its general) ran Orrery alongside Seedborn Muse; Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir; and Arcanis the Omnipotent. Playing Time Walk is one thing. Having an effective Time Walk each time one’s opponents take a turn? You’ve got to play it to believe it.
And that’s all for this weekend, friends. Thanks for reading!
Nicholas Sabin
DCI Certified Judge
nicholas dot sabin at starcitygames dot com