Hello!

Competitive REL Team Events are quickly becoming one of the most popular formats for large events. Casual players who aren't normally drawn to large events are coming out of the woodwork to spend a day (or two!) playing their favorite game with their best friends, and the novelty of playing in a team event draws players from a further radius than a normal event.

This new format is creating some interesting challenges for judges as we need to adapt rules that are meant for a 1v1 environment for an environment that has new lines of acceptability for communication and play between teams and opponents. I have worked 2 Team Events in the last few months, and each time there were new unexpected questions brought up which needed answers from the HJ. The day before GP San Antonio, I had a few questions about the format for one of the HJs. When I approached and asked them, I saw the HJ pull out a lonnnng list of questions that had been asked by other judges that he wanted to confer with his AHJ about before answering. With several Team Opens and GPs on the horizon, I think it'd be helpful to start pooling information about what we've learned from the first few of these kinds of tournaments to help judges of all levels navigate these new waters.


Primer:

The most complicated aspect of a team event is the increase in the number of players you need to handle and communicate with on each call. Instead of hearing 2 sides to a story as you would in a normal event, when taking a call at a Team Event you need to be prepared to hear 3 or even 4 slightly different versions of reality when taking a call. Additionally, all judges on hand should be prepared for a much higher number of appeals than a normal event. Because players are playing in front of their friends, they will appeal more often either to save face, to show their teammates they did everything within their power to avoid an adverse ruling that negatively affects their team, or because they are encouraged to appeal by their teammates.

On Day 1 of GP San Antonio I was appealed a personal record of 6 times. Of those, 2 were teammates appealing my ruling on behalf of their teammate that they would not be able to communicate with their team after going to the bathroom in the middle of the match; despite the fact that this had been communicated several times in the beginning of the tournament.

For another of the appeals, I made a ruling for Player C and explained the ruling to teammate Player B who had a few questions about the ruling I made. I took the time to explain it to both Players B and C, and brought up the relevant rules text on my phone and showed it to them to answer their questions. Just before I walked away from the table, teammate Player A turns from his ongoing match and says, “Was that a ruling against us? I don't know what it was, but you should appeal it!” Player C then requested an appeal.

Due to the higher number of appeals, I consistently found Appeals judges to be in shorter supply than other events. Most of the time spent on my appeals was spent finding an Appeals judge, and even then I often had to wait while they finished another appealed ruling. If I have one piece of advice for HJ's running large Team Events, it is to designate an one or two additional appeals judges in addition to the number you would normally assign for this size event.




FAQs for Judges to Consider before working a team event.

1) If a player leaves the match area and then returns they are not allowed to communicate with their teammates for the rest of the match. One of the primary purposes for this rule is to prevent the player leaving the area to scout his teammates' opponents' hands and then return to communicate information to their teammates. Does this same communication restriction apply to players who are tardy to their match?

2) In a Team Trio event, Players A + B are on a serious winning streak. They've both gone 5-0 in matches on the day to carry their team to an undefeated record. Player C is not having a great day and is 0-5. After some teasing from their teammates, Player C decides to go home before round 6. Players A + B report their missing teammate as tardy from their 6th round, and tardy again in the 7th round. How many rounds can Player C miss before the team is deemed incomplete and unable to compete? Is this something judges should actively look for, or is it not a concern?

3) Missed trigger policy becomes much more complicated when there are more than one player with an interest in a trigger being remembered. For example: Player A controls Oath of Liliana and plays a Planeswalker, makes some other plays for the turn and says “Go.” Teammate Player B wordlessly takes a Zombie token and puts it on the battlefield shortly after Player A said “Go.” Is this trigger missed?

4) A match is running low on time and both teams wants the final match in their trio to go as quickly as possible. In the match between Player As, Player A fetches for a land, puts it into play, and hands the deck to his teammate Player B who then shuffles the deck and presents for cutting while Player A finishes his turn. No one calls a judge, but this is observed by a judge watching the match. Is this activity allowed, and if not - does it result in a penalty?



Commentary and feedback on the format:

In addition to my suggestion that HJ's should be prepared for a higher than average number of appeals when running a Team Event, I want to suggest a change to the current rules for Unified Team Events. Currently decklists are considered to be separate for Players A, B and C. If a team is found to have copies of the same card in multiple teammates' decks in Unified constructed, current policy allows the team to chose which deck the card belongs to. I believe this provides an advantage to the team who made the decklist error because they can chose the current matchup where having the duplicate card would be more advantageous.

I propose that Unified Team Format decklists should be considered one “team” decklist in A-B-C order. If a duplicate card is found among multiple teammates' decks, the illegal card should be removed from the list in “bottom-up” order. So first from Player C's sideboard and mainboard, then Player B's sideboard and mainboard. I believe this would be more congruous with current policy and would not allow the team to make the decision of which deck should have the illegal cards removed.


In Closing…

Although I may have typed up a lot of information, I don't want this thread to be a one-sided conversation. If you have any suggestions, quirky questions, or commentary on Team Format events please post them here so we can start to gather information to help our community learn how to best handle this new and fun type of event.

For another perspective on how different a Team Format event is from a normal one, I encourage you all to read this well written Tournament Report from GP San Antonio: https://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/34621/

Warmest Regards,
Russell D.

Edited Russell Deutsch (May 21, 2017 08:44:38 AM)