It is my opinion that the single biggest reason, under judges' control, that both players' and judges' tournament experiences are degraded, is through deck check time extensions. Unlike things like receiving an incorrect judge call or being a victim of undetected cheating, time extension-related tournament delays affect everyone, and so there is a multiplicative effect of inducing long and unpredictable delays on hundreds of people.

Problem Statement #

Over my last few events, including MTG and FAB, but especially FAB, I have noticed routine deck check extensions (without any issues needing investigation) in the 15-20 minute range. At one event, I heard of a nearly 30 minute time extension for a deck check that led to an investigation, which ultimately resulted in no more than a warning. This includes multiple Team Leads, Head Judges, and Tournament Organizers - this is not a deficiency in any specific Deck Checks team but rather a systemic issue. As an extension gets longer, it becomes exponentially more likely that the game in question will at some point be on the critical path for the tournament, and every minute we are waiting after time has been called is a minute lost for each player and staff member in the room.

This is even a problem at local events: I recently heard a judge authoritatively instructing candidates that ProQuest events require deck checks, that they should be conducted every round, and that a solo head judge should fully check one deck and briefly review a second deck before returning them to the players, keeping a table paused the whole time. Doing all this solo takes even longer than pairs of judges working deck checks at large events.

This is particularly egregious because most of these deck checks accomplished absolutely nothing, and even in the best case, most deck checks discover clerical errors, issues with a decklist that a player can’t exploit because they didn’t even know about them, or marked cards without a pattern and again due to the player’s carelessness. According to most judges, the main purpose of conducting deck checks is to be seen conducting deck checks, so that players will be less likely to attempt to cheat because they will know that it is possible that they will be detected.

It doesn’t make any sense to risk adding 15 minutes or more, each and every round, solely out of the one in a thousand chance that you actually randomly check and detect someone who has intentionally committed a violation, or out of the abstract and unmeasurable deterrent benefit that is supposedly gained from visibly conducting deck checks.

Moreover, both of those benefits can also be achieved with no or minimal time extensions by conducting limited and less intrusive checks. It’s even possible to check more players overall (and therefore increase the deterrent effect by increasing player awareness of deck checks) because of these checks being faster and because they don’t have to be done at the start of the round prior to any play.

SCG CON Indianapolis 2023 Case Study #

At The Calling in Indianapolis, I recorded the deck check extensions issued during four adjacent rounds. R4: +19/+20, R5: +18/+18, R6: +15/+16, R7: +14/+15. It should come as little surprise that multiple of these extensions did go to time, with at least one of them being the only match still playing for over a significant portion of their extension. The drop between 5 and 6 is because the team was instructed to start doing deck checks near the tournament, instead of on the other side of the hall. A combination of issues kept the extensions averaging 15 minutes even after that was corrected.

The next day, we ran an event where the cumulative impact of time extensions on round turnover over the 8 round day could be measured in fewer than 10 minutes total. We started round 1 sometime after 9:35 and started round 8 at 2:10, running seven 35-minute rounds in less than 275 minutes, for an average turnover from time being called to the next round starting of four minutes and seventeen seconds. The difference is that this event’s Deck Checks team got their hands and eyes on significantly more decks, without issuing a single time extension aside from cases where they either discovered a problem, or, gave a minute or two to compensate for the time during which the judges explained what they were doing.

Why Extensions Are This Long #

We can enumerate a few reasons for deck check extensions being quite long:

  • Larger Decks - A Flesh and Blood Classic Constructed deck is 81 cards, compared to Magic constructed formats using 75 cards.
  • More Unique Cards - Classic Constructed players may only use three copies of each distinct cards, compared to four copies in Magic, resulting in a CC deck having at least 25 unique cards and often more, and a Blitz deck having at least 20 unique cards plus 11 equipment, while a Magic deck may have only 19 unique cards.
  • Less Even Sorting - A Flesh and Blood decklist is organized by pitch value, meaning that most decks will be sorted by that first, but most decks will mostly be made of reds and blues, so this only splits the deck in half. Magic decks are usually sorted by Mana Value which results in more, smaller, piles after the first sort.
  • Tournament Hall Layout - It seems common for tournaments to have only a small deck checks area which may be far away from the main event. Even at The Calling: Indianapolis, the Calling Main Event was on the far side of the room from the judge work area.
  • Multiple Decklist Locations - When decklists are submitted both in-person and online, judges need to take an extra step to consult an index list of which lists are in each location.
  • Multiple People Needing Decklists - At large events, normally the decklists need to be kept by the Scorekeeper to allow heroes to be entered into GEM.
  • Pairings Access - While judges typically use PurpleFox to access pairings, this requires that the judges have data access, and that the scorekeeper remembered to enter the pairings information at the start of the round.
  • Decklists Access - When lists are submitted online, judges may also separately need to gain access to the system where the decklists are being stored.
  • Incorrect Time Calculation - Because players often present their decks after the round timer has already started, judges may incorrectly calculate the time extension by subtracting the current time from 55 minutes, instead of from the time when the decks were collected.
  • Unnecessary Extra Time - Judges may add additional time for players to shuffle to their time extension, even though judges frequently re-shuffle the deck as part of inspecting for marked cards, and the time given is usually much more than is needed to shuffle a deck.
  • More Complex to Collect/Return Decks - Between heroes, weapons, equipment, and cards starting in play, FaB has a lot more cards that need to be collected and then returned separately from the deck and sideboard.

While there are some specific technology challenges in here, and some things that can be sped up with practice, ultimately this is a pretty long list of challenges which all add up to result in long time extensions.

I also want to reiterate that this is a pattern that has been observed at many different events, and so it is ultimately not a training or planning issue with any specific event, but rather a major process problem that Head Judges need to address systemically.

Tournament Impact from Deck Check Time Extensions #

Longer time extensions are significantly more likely to impact the length of the tournament than shorter extensions. If a table receives a 5 minute time extension, that extension will only be used if the match would have taken 50 minutes anyway, which is probably going to happen to less than half of matches. On the other hand, a table with a 15 minute time extension will still be playing at time if their match would naturally have lasted longer than 40 minutes, which is very common in CC. Since there are a lot more matches that last at least 40 minutes, than there are matches that last at least 50 minutes, a 15 minute time extension is a lot more likely to still be playing when time is called.

Quantifying exact tournament impacts would require having an accurate model of how long a normal game of CC lasts. This is hard to determine. However, even without hard numbers, hopefully it is clear that longer extensions are much more likely to be used. Moreover, since we only play one extra turn, we can focus much more on the time extension than on the extra turns.

Take for example a match that would normally last 50 minutes. Even with a 5 minute extension, this match will have reported when time was called. However, with a 15 minute extension, this match would extend your round by 10 minutes. With a 20 minute extension, it would extend 15 minutes past your round end time.

And of course this adds up over the rounds. Having 10 extra minutes between rounds of a 7 round event is roughly equivalent to adding a whole extra round. It also means that saving that much time means we can add a real extra round without significantly changing how long the tournament runs, which is important because currently many of our events are just below a round threshold - Indy would have been 8 rounds with only about 20 more players. We are quickly approaching player counts that risk uncomfortably long days, but 8 rounds at 65 minute turnovers is under 9 hours. Keeping turnover times reasonable is very important at these large events.

Impact at Smaller Events #

However, it isn’t just big events that would benefit. Small events may have fewer players impacted by annoying time extensions but they also have fewer judges. Solo judges often take longer for deck checks because in addition to fully checking one deck, it is advisable to at least check for marked cards or obvious issues with the other player’s deck from the chosen table.

There are also issues when another judge call comes up during your deck check. You will have to abort the deck check, but this still will take some time while packing up the decks and returning them to the players, lengthening the time extensions of both tables.

However, many of these techniques are well-suited to solo judges, because you never commit yourself to babysitting players' decks for more than a minute or so at a time. You can always stop what you’re doing and take a judge call, and even if you never get back to the verifications, you’ve still been seen doing deck checks and therefore achieved the deterrent.

What We Should Do Instead #

So, what are these other types of deck checks? There are a range of techniques that can be used separately or together.

Sideboard checks #

(Mostly for FAB CC and Magic Game 1.)

The judge starts at a chosen table, uses a tablet to look up the players' names, open their decklists, waits for a pause in the game actions, and asks the players “may I see your sideboards for a moment?” The judge verifies that the cards in the sideboard match the list (Magic) or are somewhere on the list (FAB) and that the sideboard is not stored with additional playable cards. When complete, the judge moves to the next table in the row, and continues until many players are starting game 2 (Magic) or a desired number of checks have been completed (FAB). Helpful to have a partner, so that you can scoop and check both players' sideboards simultaneously.

  • Catches: Extra cards in the sideboard, cards not on the list
  • Does not catch: Anything to do with the presented deck
  • Time Extension: None
  • Number per Round: As many as you have time for
  • Judges: Ideally two, but can be done solo

Board State Checks #

(Mostly for FAB.)

The judge starts at a chosen table and takes a photograph of the board state, such that equipment, weapons, and perhaps a few cards on the chain, graveyard, or banish are visible. The judge continues down the row until a desired number of photos have been taken. Then, the judge uses a tablet to verify that the seen cards are on each player’s decklist.

  • Catches: Weapon, equipment, and some cards not on the list
  • Does not catch: Most issues in the actual deck
  • Time Extension: None
  • Number per Round: As many as you have time for
  • Judges: One or two

Marked Cards Checks #

The judge starts at a chosen table, waits for a pause in the game actions, and asks the players “may I see your deck for a moment? I’ll give it back to you without changing the order.” The judge turns away from the table, keeps the deck face down, preserves the order of the deck, but checks that the cards and sleeves are not marked. Then, the judge returns the deck, and continues down the row until a desired number of checks have been completed. Again, helpful to have a partner.

  • Catches: Marked Cards, including mid-game issues like backwards pitching
  • Does not catch: Anything to do with the decklist
  • Time Extension: Minimal
  • Number per Round: As many as you have time for
  • Judges: Ideally two, but can be done solo

End of Round Checks #

When a match ends, the judge collects the decks and conducts a traditional deck check on the cards that were used in the match. Has a difficult enforcement question of when any penalties are issued and the resulting equity of that decision.

  • Catches: Mostly the same as traditional checks
  • Does not catch: N/A
  • Time Extension: None, but does force players to stay after their match
  • Number per Round: Typically only one per two judges
  • Judges: Two
  • Challenges:
    • Issuing penalties is ambiguous, there’s an argument that you shouldn’t issue any penalty except if the list is being changed, since the game is over at the time you do the check.
    • This forces players to stay after their match is over which has customer satisfaction issues, they may want to get food or even leave.

Photo Checks #

The judge selects a table for a start of round deck check, and collects the decks as usual. However, instead of conducting a deck check, they check for marked cards, lay out the cards on a table, take a photo, and return them to the players. Then, they use the photo to check everything that would be involved in a normal deck check.

  • Catches: Mostly the same as traditional checks
  • Does not catch: N/A
  • Time Extension: 5-10 minutes
  • Number per Round: One per two judges
  • Judges: Two
  • Challenges:
    • Issuing penalties potentially has the same issues as above, with the added problem that if they are still playing and you have to issue an IP2, doing so immediately may be much more impactful as we may be at a much more critical point in the game.
    • I’ve often seen players waiting at their table after the match was complete because the judges told them not to report their result until the judge came back, and then the judge completed the check, didn’t see any problems, and never came back.

Continuing to do Some Traditional Deck Checks #

If the idea of doing zero full deck checks makes you very uneasy, it is worth noting that you can still gain a significant advantage by doing traditional deck checks in one or two rounds. I don’t think this is necessary, as choosing a combination of low-time-extension strategies will still result in being visible doing deck checks, and will catch most of the same things, but if it would make the transition more comfortable, choose one or two rounds to do your traditional deck checks in. This will limit the total time impact while still allowing you to be seen performing traditional deck checks.

By comparison, if you have an 8-round event, and a 4-judge deck checks team, and spend one round on each of the first three strategies above, each pair of judges may complete 6 tables for each strategy over a total of only three rounds. With normal checks, round 1 spent checking for missing lists, round 2 spent issuing missing list penalties, and one other round spent on break, each pair of judges would normally only check 5 tables total over all 8 rounds. So we have more than tripled the number of players experiencing some type of deck check, while slightly increasing our chances of detecting things like marked cards with a pattern and equipment not on the list. We can even detect pitched cards upside down, which is Marked Cards Major but currently there is no procedure done that can detect this at all.

Continuing to do Top 8 Courtesy Deck Checks #

Another concern may be that not doing full deck checks will mean that you haven’t deck checked the top 8 competitors during Swiss, and that is supposedly bad because it means that there may be deck problems during top 8.

I don’t think this is a big deal, because most of the time we aren’t checking all of the top 8 players during swiss anyway. With single-game matches we can only do one set of traditional deck checks per round (while the techniques described above allow you to do many more), and hopefully Deck Checks teams aren’t by rule focusing only on players who are live for top 8, as many other players are live for prizes, playing for XP or Elo, or just having fun, and these players should be protected from cheating as well.

When we do announce top 8, it is not totally unreasonable to do “courtesy” deck checks for verification only and without issuing any penalties. Notably this is only to prevent being forced to issue penalties during top 8 - illegal deck lists or mismatches where the deck list needs to be corrected to match the deck will still result in penalties, but nothing else will.

Technology Challenges #

The main challenge with these types of Deck Checks is now actually the judges' ability to easily and quickly find decklists from the pairings. This is actually something that Melee does better than any other software, as long as you have a laptop, since you can hover on a name on the pairings to see the list. Unfortunately Melee is nearly unusable on mobile devices.

On GEM, you’ll have at least one extra step of first looking up the players' names and then looking for their lists. It would be interesting if Purple Fox were able to store a link to a decklist, so that online lists at least could be accessed. Maybe also an index number for paper lists. This could allow judges to much more easily view the lists for a specific table.

However the easiest gain would be to get to 100% online decklists. Currently with about half being paper and half online at big events this adds an extra step and extra challenges both to verifying that we have all the lists, as well as to performing deck checks. With how common it is to use FaBDB to store decklists, and how easy it is to export them, there should be no reason not to require that players use online decklist submission at all major events.

It’s important for organizers to provide judges with wi-fi access, or with sufficient tablets, for all teams who need them. Most organizers aren’t doing this, because they underestimate the number of needed devices by a lot, since they’re also used by End of Round and Side Events, and there may be multiple main events using them as well.

At least with this process, looking up lists is no longer on the critical path for the tournament, but more efficent tools would still increase throughput.

Strategy #

An important point with this is to vary what you do. If you do the same thing, at the top tables, every round, then the perceived value of it will decrease over time because you’re checking the same things for the same players, and each of these deck checks has certain blind spots. However, doing a few different types of checks, with a few rounds of nothing in between to focus on floor coverage during break rounds, will allow you to check more decks, probably be more visible about it, and without the time extension disaster of traditional deck checks.

At local events, you might prime players to be aware of this, so they aren’t confused, surprised, or worried that they’ve done something wrong, when you come up to their match and ask to see their deck or whatever. (I probably wouldn’t do this at a large event because room noise and questionable PA system quality makes it very important to keep your announcements as short as possible.)

At this event, I will be conducting a variety of types of Deck Checks to ensure that your decks are legal and match what is on your Registration Lists. If I come to your table and ask to see your deck, or ask to see your sideboard, or take a photo of the board state, or something else, that’s why. My goal for this event is to run Deck Checks without significant delays to the tournament, and so if I do one of these things at your table it’s because of random checks and not because you’ve done anything wrong. Please continue playing as normal, I won’t stop your match unless I think there’s a problem.

Conclusion #

Events of all sizes should use some combination of sideboard checks, board state checks, and marked cards checks, for all or a majority of their deck checks, in order to decrease time extensions while improving awareness and effectiveness of deck checks.