This is a Tournament Report covering a series of five ProQuests that I judged during the Winter 2022 season. I’m hoping to document both any interesting rules and policy questions, as well as the evolution of my judging procedures, over the course of the three-week season.

Background #

The 2022 Winter ProQuest season came shortly after the release of Everfest, which significantly shook up the Classic Constructed metagame. A new Bravo initially emerged as the dominant deck, with Chane, the other Runeblades, Prism, and Oldhim also picking up some new cards.

Most of these ProQuests is capped at 32 players, meaning we will play 5 rounds and then cut to Top 8, with a few events bleeding into 6 rounds. Top 8 receive a variety of promo cards, with the winner receiving an invite to the upcoming Pro Tour.

As ProQuest season started, I was only planning on working 3 of these events. I had reached out to the area stores hosting ProQuests, and of those who did not respond, I had information suggesting that they already had other judges staffed. However, as the season went on, two more stores reached out looking for a judge, bringing my total up to 5 events.

Event Planning #

Prior to the event, I made sure each TO was aware of the decklist requirement, and had the decklist form. I also printed out a few spares and threw them in my bag just in case.

I also planned to cover a few common items during the opening announcements of each event:

  • Welcome, tournament level and structure (number of rounds, top 8)
  • Decklists required, raise your hand if you don’t have one yet
  • 55 minute rounds, play quickly, play accurately, communicate clearly
  • Can concede during the round, can not concede after time is called, can not ask for a concession after decks have been presented
  • Any questions or concerns, call for a judge
  • Report results in GEM, to me if you cannot access GEM
  • If you leave the store, be back when the round is scheduled to end to avoid tardiness penalties
  • Collect decklists

Top Line Calls #

This section will cover a few of the issues over the course of the season that came up multiple times, and that are still unsettled. I’ll also talk about some more event-specific calls in the section for each event.

Can I Concede? #

The common rules questions are the same across all these events, and so I will generally stop mentioning them. I had another Lexi player get stuck with a Lightning Press in arsenal, and a lot of questions about Tunic and additional costs.

In round 5 of one event, after I called time, a player called me over to ask if they could concede. I explained to them that the recent tournament policy update effectively prohibits concessions after time has been called, unless there is a legitimate outside the game reason why they can not continue playing.

Once we had the Top 8 announced, I had a chance to catch up with this player and walk through the current state of the rules with them. While they ultimately agreed that the ruling in this case was correct, they felt that the change to concession policy was more of a step backwards than an improvement, citing that it is now legal to do any sort of match fixing by conceding early in the round when paired against a teammate, but players cannot choose to give their opponent the win in the case where they would have clearly earned it a few more turns down the line.

In another tournament, two players at X-1 were playing. It was late in round 3, and a draw would knock both out of top 8 contention. However, in this situation, one of the players wanted to concede. Unfortunately, they waited to do this until after time was called and the extra turn was played. The opponent - understanding the concession rules as well as the asking for a concession policy - tried to hint to this player that if either player was to remain live for Top 8, a concession would be needed before time was called. However, the other player simply did not understand this and instead planned to wait until after the extra turn, and then asked to see the opponent’s next four cards before deciding. This is the point where I stepped in and confirmed that the result is a draw.

This led to another conversation with a player who was dissatisfied with the new concession policy. Whether it is due to experience from other games or just assumptions about how the game should work, players expect to be allowed to concede at any time. Prohibiting this leads to situations where a player who is clearly behind at the end of turns feels bad because their opponent will not receive any match points from the game even though they played better, and where the leading player can be knocked out of contention due to a judge ruling rather than due to their performance in the event. Further iteration on this policy is required.

Slow Play Remedies #

I also had a conversation with a player about what they believed was a chronic slow player over the course of the event. This meta is certainly conducive to slow play, with several decks that frequently take a lot of time to make decisions. This event, it was also particularly difficult to police slow play owing to the very limited space in the back - it was virtually impossible to walk through the aisles.

While I have given cautions for slow play, I think we are lacking a real mechanism to remedy slow play. In Magic, players receive extra turns after time if a slow play warning is issued, however we have no such remedy yet in FaB. In theory you could use head judge discretion to create such a fix anyway, however I haven’t yet had a case so severe that I wanted to do that - it would take a pretty serious infraction, in my opinion, before I could invent a brand new penalty.

This is something that I saw regularly over the course of the season, and it ties into (and exacerbates) the problem above. While the Concession rules do need further iteration - perhaps allowing a judge-mediated concession by a player who is able to present an argument that they are clearly in the weaker board position - a true Slow Play remedy would also allow players more time to bring their matches to a fair conclusion.

On the other hand, 55 minute rounds are already on the longer side, and allowing two more untimed turns may be too extreme without some other rule or game design change that would speed up matches. I hope that writing about these issues will help to spur constructive discussion within the judge community and LSS.

Prize Splits #

One other area in which policy is currently lacking or unclear is the topic of prize splits, as evidenced by significant difference of opinions on the judge discord. This is an area where clear guidance is important, due to the rather severe penalty for violations. For the ProQuest season, this mostly came up in the Finals. My players who chose to split all eventually settled on an even split, however policy is unclear on whether a split is required to be even. Is it possible to “redistribute” prizes, for example, by saying that the loser will receive all of the cash / store credit on offer? The last two paragraphs of TR 5.2 seem to be redundant, except that one specifies even splits and the other does not. Under what circumstances does a split need to be even?

Another discussion area was that some judges believe that since an even split is “not possible” when an invite or promo card is on the line, that it is impossible to split in a ProQuest. I don’t agree with this argument, but it is an example of a position that judges arrive at due to the above ambiguity.

Finally - this issue may be unique to FaB due to the propensity to offer high value cards to tournament winners - are players allowed to agree to sell a prize cards and split the earnings?

Event Summaries #

Feb 19 - Philly #

My first event was at Redcap’s Corner in Philadelphia, PA. With a 1PM start, I arrived in town shortly after 11 in order to grab lunch before the tournament. The event easily hit the cap of 32 players, so I projected about 8 hours for the scheduled 5 rounds + top 8. We had a few players running late due to the downtown traffic, but (after some announcements from the TO and I, and after collecting decklists) we were able to get round 1 underway around 1:15.

Stalagmite, Bastion of Isenloft #

Here’s a slightly trickier rules question. Player A attacks with a card with Phantasm. Player B defends with a 6+ attack card, and with Stalagmite, Bastion of Isenloft. What happens, and in what order?

Solution below.

Arsenal, Draw, … Wait! #

Within the first few minutes of the tournament I received a call from two players who seemed to be confused about where they were in the game state. Player A had stated “Pass priority?”, waited a few seconds, and received no response. They arsenaled and drew, and then the opponent said they wanted to use Seeds.

This is a fairly routine case of players not moving through the game at the same speed. I confirmed that Player B had not given any verbal indication that Player A could start their end phase, and ruled that Player B was free to act in Player A’s action phase. Player A didn’t like this - we discussed the topic at the table and again after the match - and he felt that Player B’s silence should be interpreted as Player A being “good to go” with his end phase.

I pointed a few things out. First, that Player B had just drawn his own hand, and was probably still thinking about whether he had anything to do on Player A’s turn. Second, that Player A could ask more explicitly if Player B was ready to proceed, and that clearer communication would help both players stay in sync. Player A did communicate priority passes more explicitly for the rest of the game, however, he still clearly wasn’t happy with the situation.

Parable of Humility #

With all the Prism in this metagame, it is inevitable that there will be some mistakes with Spectral Shield math. In Round 2, a player noticed while defending that on his opponent’s previous turn (1 turn cycle ago), he had missed a -1 Power effect from Parable of Humility and accidentally destroyed a Spectral Shield that should have stayed.

Due to a full turn cycle having passed, there was no fix to this situation, only warnings to both players.

Eye of Ophidia #

During Round 5, I was asked the sequence of operations when a player activates Crown of Seeds' ability, pitching Eye of Ophidia. This is a common area for players to question, due to the trigger event occurring while activating an ability. In the case of Crown of Seeds, the correct sequence is to first finish paying all costs for the ability, then resolve Eye’s trigger, then resolve Crown’s effect.

Solution: Stalagmite, Bastion of Isenloft #

In this scenario, we have two triggered abilities which will be added to the stack at the same time in an order chosen by the attacking player. When Phantasm resolves, it will close the combat chain, however other triggered abilities waiting to resolve will stay on the stack and will resolve in order. So, the Frostbite will still be created, it is just a matter of when.

When the Phantasm trigger closes the combat chain, Temper will trigger and resolve. If the Frostbite trigger is still on the stack at this point, it will resolve after Temper. So, the legal outcomes are:

  • Create Frostbite, then Phantasm closes the chain, then Temper
  • Phantasm closes the chain, then Temper, then create Frostbite

Regardless of ordering, the Frostbite token will be created, and the Temper effect will resolve.

Feb 26 - North Jersey #

This event was the dark horse of the season, since I didn’t know I would even be working it until the week of the event. This is also the only event (that I was aware of at the time) that wasn’t capped at 32 - the organizer has space for 70 players. Even the day before, I didn’t know how many players we would have - there are at least 23 registered online, but I don’t know if there are more players registered in store.

This event also starts at noon, and I have a 9AM event the following day. So I wound up staying overnight at a hotel in north jersey, which would help with the short turnaround time. Sunday morning I’ll have roughly a 45 minute drive and a short walk to get over to the store in Brooklyn, so I definitely don’t want to add an extra hour drive each way by going home between the two events.

We ended up with 40 players, which was lucky because the store had space in the main building for 40 players. The rest of the tables were in a separate space in an adjacent building. That’s the type of information that I generally would prefer to be aware of before I show up the morning of the event, but I’m glad it didn’t wind up causing a problem.

Event Schedule #

In this case, we decided to include a half hour lunch break after round 4. This worked out pretty well, since we otherwise would have had 6 rounds + top 8 all back to back. The store ordered some pizzas which attendees could buy, and there were a number of good places to grab food nearby as well.

Calls by Spectators #

A lot of the judge calls in the early rounds were fairly routine - the usual rules questions that you might expect. Things like Tunic + Frostbite, how does Gloomveil work, Runechants + Rosetta + Spectra, and so on. We did have a Lexi player wind up with a Lightning Press in arsenal, I was called to answer whether they could play it without a legal target.

However, I had a few calls by spectators who believed that they had noticed an error in the game state. In the first instance, a spectator noticed that a player had played a non-attack action, but had not moved previous action cards off the field. There was no apparent advantage to be gained, and in fact it is not uncommon for players to leave extra cards on the field to show the sequence of actions for the turn, even if they technically should be in the graveyard. This is especially helpful for action cards that affect future attacks, so I normally would not intervene solely for this reason. However, since it was pointed out, I stepped in and relayed the spectator’s concern - at which point the player explained that the NAA had been played as an instant, rendering it a moot point.

In a similar case, I had a spectator tell me that a player had failed to place -1 counters on several equipment cards which had been used to defend. I initially asked the players to run through the attacks on the previous turn - enough time had passed that they didn’t fully remember the details right away - so I pointed out what the spectator had noticed. The player immediately pointed out that they had Nerves of Steel in play.

This type of situation presents a dilemma when you first arrive at the table. On the one hand, you want to avoid disclosing too much information about what you are investigating, so that players are more likely to give an honest and complete answer. On the other hand, it may be faster to simply point out exactly what the spectator noticed, and see how the players answer. Is it better to risk wasting some time, or to risk divulging too much information?

Feb 27 - Brooklyn #

The very next day I drove into Brooklyn and paid way too much money for tolls to cross the many bridges between my house and the next ProQuest. This event was hosted by a hybrid cafe/board gaming lounge, which was certainly convenient from the standpoint of food and coffee! The event was capped at 32, but unfortunately the space available was quite limited - the top 9 matches were played in a back room of about 200 square feet. Suffice it to say, some judge calls were difficult to access!

The event was initially announced for 9 AM, but since that was so close to the store’s opening time, and due to some players potentially being delayed, we started at 9:30. Still, we had about 4-5 no shows among pre-registered players, and a few waitlisted players were able to join. Our total size was 30 players, coming to 5 rounds.

Floor Space #

This was the event that spurred the discussion about slow play above, since the space was so limited. The store also rents out tables for parties as well as customers visiting the cafe, and so even as players dropped from the ProQuest, we weren’t able to make additional space due to the tables being given back to the store for other customers. This made it difficult to get to many judge calls, and impossible to address slow play. If I was to judge an event at this store again, I would probably ask for more space per player.

Prize Split in the Finals #

This was my first exposure to the prize split discussion. One of the finalists was only in town for university, and wanted to concede to allow the opponent to use the PT invite. They agreed to split the other prizes, and then the player chose to concede.

Mar 5 - Hamilton #

For my last weekend of the season, I had two relatively local events. One was about 45 minutes west of my home, and the other was about 45 minutes north. Both were also in suburban areas, so it was the first time I didn’t have to pay for parking (hooray!).

The Saturday event was scheduled for an 11 AM start. I initially thought this one was capped at 32, but when I arrived the organizer let me know that the cap was actually 48. We ultimately wound up with 44 players.

GEM issues #

I made a few “interesting” “discoveries” about GEM over the course of this season. First, I had a player arrive late and I needed to assign them a loss. It seems that no one knows how to do this - I thought they needed to be added to Round 1, and GEM allows you to pair them at their own table and assign that table a loss. However, the next time you refresh the pairings, GEM will always give that player a win, as if it was a bye. Apparently the only way to give a player a loss is to not pair them for the round at all.

At this week’s event, I also had a few players who needed to be removed from the event. One was a no-show for Round 1, so I marked that player as a drop. The other was a player who had been registered under the incorrect GEM number, so I added a new player with the correct number, edited Round 1 to replace the wrong player with the correct one, and had the bright idea to pair the no-show against the incorrect player, assign a double loss and double drop.

However, when I un-paired the no show, GEM already had a drop recorded for that player. So, it was not possible to give them a new pairing. However, this left the problem that I had an unpaired incorrect player who needed a loss and a drop. So I paired this player against someone (I don’t remember if I used the match with the no-show, or if I had someone with a bye to use), recorded a match result of a win and a drop for the incorrect player, and then I un-paired the incorrect player again. This allowed the players to be dropped with a round 1 loss, and hopefully didn’t result in any incorrect pairings being recorded for ELO purposes.

Mar 6 - Matawan #

This is another event that I was recruited for about a week in advance. While the store’s event manager is a FaB judge, he wanted to play in the event, so I agreed to judge this 48 player event. After no-shows, we wound up with 46 players.

This event went pretty smoothly as well, with a handful of routine calls each round, a half hour lunch break, and another split in the finals. The two finalists were friends and one already had a ProQuest win. (The other had a PTI, and will likely be in the top 100 of both XP leaderboards as well, but it’s nice to be sure that you’re getting a ProQuest-based invite so you can save your PTI.)

Overall Metagame #

Accounting for differences in local communities' hero preferences, the metagame remained relatively static over the course of the season, with Prism and Viserai being the main contenders against Bravo, Star of the Show’s consistent #1 spot. Bravo also regularly made a strong Top 8 showing, as did Viserai and Prism, with Chane also making an appearance with a quite strong conversion rate.

Statistics #

Feb 19 - Philly #

  • 32 Players
    • 13x Bravo, Star of the Show
    • 6x Viserai
    • 5x Prism
    • 3x Oldhim
    • 2x Briar
    • 1x Chane
    • 1x Dash
    • 1x Dorinthea
  • Top 8:
    • 5 Bravo, 2 Viserai, 1 Briar
  • Top 4:
    • A Bravo mirror and a Viserai mirror
  • Top 2:
    • Bravo vs. Viserai
  • Champion:
    • Bravo
  • Round times:
    • R1: Start 1:15
    • R2: Start 2:16
    • R3: Start 3:14
    • R4: Start 4:07
    • R5: Start 5:02
    • Quarters: Start 6:00
    • Semis: Start 7:06
    • Finals: Start 8:30
    • End: 9:30

Feb 26 - North Jersey #

  • 40 Players
    • 9x Bravo, Star of the Show
    • 7x Prism
    • 6x Viserai
    • 6x Lexi
    • 3x Oldhim
    • 2x Briar
    • 2x Chane
    • 1x Bravo, Showstopper
    • 1x Dash
    • 1x Levia
    • 1x Azalea
  • Top 8:
    • 3x Viserai, 2x Starvo, 1 Chane, 1 Briar, 1 Prism
  • Top 4:
    • 2x Viserai, 1 Starvo, 1 Chane
  • Top 2:
    • Starvo vs Chane
  • Champion:
    • Starvo
  • Round times:
    • R1: Start 12:17
    • R2: Start 1:16
    • R3: Start 2:18
    • R4: Start 3:17
    • Break: 4:12-4:48
    • R5: Start 4:53
    • R6: Start 5:49
    • Quarters: Start 6:50
    • Semis: Start 7:41
    • Finals: Start 8:29
    • End: 9:16

Feb 27 - Brooklyn #

  • 30 Players
    • 9x Bravo, Star of the Show
    • 5x Prism
    • 5x Viserai
    • 3x Lexi
    • 2x Katsu
    • 1x Briar
    • 1x Dorinthea
    • 1x Rhinar
    • 1x Dash
    • 1x Azalea
    • 1x Oldhim
  • Top 8:
    • 4x Starvo, 2x Viserai, 1x Prism, 1x Katsu
  • Top 4:
    • 2x Viserai, 1x Starvo, 1x Prism
  • Top 2:
    • 1x Viserai, 1x Prism
  • Champion:
    • Viserai
  • Round Times:
    • R1: Start 9:34
    • R2: Start 10:39
    • R3: Start 11:42
    • R4: Start 12:44
    • R5: Start 1:45
    • Quarters: Start 2:58
    • Semis: Start 3:55
    • Finals: Split/Concession
    • End: 5:00

Mar 5 - Hamilton #

  • 44 Players
    • 15x Bravo, Star of the Show
    • 7x Viserai
    • 5x Prism
    • 3x Chane
    • 2x Dash
    • 2x Lexi
    • 2x Rhinar
    • 1x Briar
    • 1x Kano
    • 1x Dorinthea
    • 1x Oldhim
    • 1x Azalea
    • 1x Boltyn
    • 1x Levia
  • Top 8:
    • 4x Starvo, 2x Vis, 2x Chane
  • Top 4:
    • 3x Starvo, 1x Chane
  • Top 2:
    • Starvo vs Chane
  • Champion:
    • Chane
  • Round times:
    • R1: Start 11:14
    • R2: Start 12:13
    • R3: Start 1:09
    • R4: Start 2:10
    • R5: Start 3:10
    • R6: Start 4:10
    • Break: 5:15-5:45
    • Quarters: Start 5:48
    • Semis: Start 7:04
    • Finals: Start 8:30
    • End: 9:45

Mar 6 - Matawan #

  • 46 Players
    • 11x Bravo, Star of the Show
    • 9x Prism
    • 5x Viserai
    • 3x Dash
    • 3x Rhinar
    • 3x Oldhim
    • 2x Chane
    • 2x Lexi
    • 2x Boltyn
    • 2x Katsu
    • 1x Kano
    • 1x Azalea
  • Top 8:
    • 3x Starvo, 3x Prism, 1x Viserai, 1x Chane
  • Top 4:
    • 2x Starvo, 1x Chane, 1x Prism
  • Top 2:
    • Starvo vs Starvo
  • Champion:
    • Starvo
  • Round times:
    • R1: Start 12:40
    • R2: Start 1:35
    • R3: Start 2:34
    • R4: Start 3:36
    • Break: 4:31-5:01
    • R5: Start 5:02
    • R6: Start 5:58
    • Quarters: Start 7:08
    • Semis: Start 8:34
    • Finals: Split/Concession
    • End: 9:12