There's a thread on reddit's /r/MagicTCG subreddit about prize splits that's got me confused. In this comment thread, Toby is saying that events like GPTs or PPTQs that offer tangible prizes that aren't cash or sealed product (Byes or Invites) can't have a top 8 split of the other prizes. That stance agrees with the MTR, which he quoted there.

But at the same time, in this post from March 2014, Uncle Scott specifically says:

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

It's OK for the Top 8 of a GPT or PTQ to agree to evenly split all cash and/or unopened product, and then play to determine a winner. (I have long advocated awarding product prizes based on final Swiss standings, and only having the Top 8 play for the byes or invite.)

It's not OK for the Top 8 of a GPT or PTQ to agree to split everything but the byes/invite, and then manufacture a winner in any fashion other than playing it out.

This stance matches what I've seen in practice, which is every event offering a hidden ballot prize split to the top 8, and then playing for the unsplittable prizes. However, based on Toby's comments, it seems like that isn't allowed and we shouldn't be offering that split at all.

So the question is, what's the ‘O’fficial policy on facilitating a prize split in the top 8 of a PPTQ? Are we allowed to do that, or should we just be telling the players to play and not allowing them to come to a group decision about a split?

Toby is correct; my post unfortunately combines some concepts that shouldn't be - mea culpa.

The current wording of the MTR does specifically disallow prize split arrangements when a prize that is neither cash nor unopened product has yet to be awarded.

Once again, I encourage TOs to award product prizes (at their GPTs or PPTQs) at the end of Swiss, then have a Top 8 for those players who wish to win the Byes or RPTQ Invite. Having those product prizes at stake during the Top 8 really enables the kind of behavior we need to discourage - some players might even feel we're encouraging it. (They'd be wrong, but that doesn't change their impression of the prize structure.)

d:^D

I want to make sure I am understanding everything correctly as I will be one of the judges on staff for one of the SCG Regionals this weekend, and have a feeling the question will come up, but it looks like a split would be allowed at this event as the only things that are not monetary in the prize payout are trophies, open points, and an invite to an Invitational that all of the top 8 receive anyways. Would this be correct?

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

The current wording of the MTR does specifically disallow prize split arrangements when a prize that is neither cash nor unopened product has yet to be awarded.

Is this really true? I grant that the wording of the MTR specifically allows the even split for events which offer only product or cash as prizes, but does it really prohibit all splits in tournaments which have invites on the line (except in the finals)?

For instance: if, as you suggest, prizes are awarded based on standings after swiss, are two players in the final round of swiss prohibited from agreeing to a prize split simply because there is an invite which has yet to be awarded?

Matthew - nope, no split in those examples. Trophies and Open points are not in the allowed classification of “cash and/or unopened product”.
Robert - yes, that is the correct interpretation of the MTR's wording. (And yes, I missed that subtlety, at first.)

d:^D

I believe Toby has said that the finals have rules of their own for splits that supersede these rules. So, in the finals, when only two players are left, the invite does not prohibit a split from happening.

So wait, we're saying two players can't agree to a prize split between just
themselves at all if the tournament is for more than just cash or product?

Doesn't this directly contradict the first part about prize splits being
allowed:
“Players are allowed to share prizes they have not yet received in the
current tournament as they wish and may
agree as such before or during their match, as long as any such sharing
does not occur in exchange for any game
or match result or the dropping of a player from the tournament.”

Toby also addressed this in his comments. That phrase you quote is a reference to teams / friends who make agreements prior to events and do not impact tournament results. It does not apply to splits in the quarter finals or semi finals and isn't subject to the special rule for the finals. That rule is just to cover how players might behave normally and outside of the interest and jurisdiction of judges.

So just to boil this down I want to verify the two points that I think I
was confusing:
1. Players can't agree to overall top 8 or top 4 prize splits in events
with something more than cash or product on the line.
2. Players can still agree to one-on-one even prize splits with other players at
any time so long as those splits don't influence the outcome of a
game/match/tournament (save in the finals).
Are these both correct or not?

Edited Charlotte Sable (July 30, 2015 04:48:51 PM)

Thanks Scott. I wanted to verify it before the event happened this Saturday and the questions that will most likely arise from it.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Matthew - nope, no split in those examples. Trophies and Open points are not in the allowed classification of “cash and/or unopened product”.
Robert - yes, that is the correct interpretation of the MTR's wording. (And yes, I missed that subtlety, at first.)

d:^D

From a recent Reddit thread:
http://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/3ewbcx/proper_way_to_propose_a_split_without_fear_of_a_dq/ctjj2j1

Toby Elliott
Secret ballot is fine. We tend to ignore points (same for planeswalker points). But an invite is a tangible single thing that can't be split.

Could we get a clarification on whether points (Open Points, Planeswalker Points) matter?

As far as SCG Regionals having Open Points and Trophies… this seems exactly the same as the SCG Opens themselves. We frequently see Top8 cash prize splits with the players playing only for points and the trophy. Will SCG Opens have to stop this practice? Is this one of the cases of SCG having sought and received special permission to do things?

So that actually means if I were to organize a big Legacy event, where Boosters are a downright terrible prize to advertise, so I decide to have singles as prizes - say, 120 fetch lands for the top 8 - and these duals happen to be evenly splittable by 8, the players actually are not allowed to split them 15 duals each, because they are not ‘unopened product or cash prizes’? Same (technically) goes for store credit Vouchers then?

I completely understand the rule for unsplittable prizes, like invites and byes, but if the prizes are fully splittable, prohibiting a split because the prizes that are given out do not happen to be hard cash (problematic in the first place in some countries - such as germany) or specifically unopened product seems unreasonable, and tbh neither in the TOs, nor the players interest - and thereby possibly not in wizards best interest as well.

To be more specific: Should this be the official stance, that would probably mean that we will decide to not sanction any of the major german tournament weekends aside from the WMCQ/PPTQs in order to not inconvenience ourselves or our players.

Edited Philip Ockelmann (July 30, 2015 07:35:59 PM)

SCG Opens May be changing, that discussion is on-going.

The term “cash and/or unopened product” was written by corporate legal staff, it means what they want it to mean.

d:^D

Originally posted by Philip Körte:

To be more specific: Should this be the official stance, that would probably mean that we will decide to not sanction any of the major german tournament weekends aside from the WMCQ/PPTQs in order to not inconvenience ourselves or our players.

Not to pick on you, Philip, but will German players really not play at all if they can't split single-based prizes? This seems a little extreme - alternatives include:

– Just playing the tournament and players who win receive more prizes
– Deciding that product isn't so bad after all - you can draft with it, or sell it to friends to draft with it.
– Holding more Standard or Limited events where players won't mind sealed product
– Paying prizes based on swiss standing, with the unsplittable stuff in the playoffs
– Edit: If they always split anyway, just make all Top 8 (or 1-4/5-8) prizes the same

I know that there are a lot of folks who feel that this interpretation of policy is problematic - I fully expect to get complained at this weekend at my PPTQ when I tell players that they've got to play Magic to figure out who gets how much cash. But let's not by hyperbolic about our reactions - tournament organizers are smart folks, and I'm sure they'll find a way to attract players to events even if players can't split non-cash, non-booster prizes in events with an unsplittable component.

Edited John Brian McCarthy (July 30, 2015 10:44:09 PM)

It mostly means that the downsides to not awarding splitable prizes
based on swiss are very when there also non-splitable prizes.


Is it correct to immediately DQ a player who suggests splitting the
playset that is meant to go to first equally amongst the top4?