DISCLAIMER: This is an unofficial rules document written by independent judges. This is not official Wizards of the Coast documentation.

Introduction

The Multiplayer Addendum to the Magic Tournament Rules exists to assist Judges who are working at any Rules Enforcement Level in Multiplayer Game Mode Tournaments. This document is written as a supplement to the Magic Tournament Rules and should be used in close conjunction with it.

This document is an extension of the Magic Tournament Rules, and therefore a person using the Multiplayer Addendum should first be familiar with that document. Once a person has reviewed the relevant sections of the Magic Tournament Rules, they can turn to the Multiplayer Addendum to the Magic Tournament Rules to find details on how to proceed in Multiplayer Tournaments.

Framework

Each section within this document mirrors its namesake in the Magic Tournament Rules. Within each section, Policy Additions and Edits can be found. Policy Additions are policies outlined as best practice for handling tournaments procedure. Edits are designed to address the few important removals or additions to this document that differ from the Magic Tournament Rules. Items or sections with italicized text are taken directly from the Magic Tournament Rules.

At the time of original publishing, this document has been published solely in English. If such a time exists that this document be printed, translated, or otherwise ported to another language, tournament participants must refer to the English version to settle disputes concerning interpretations.

This document is updated periodically. Please obtain the most current version here.

1. Tournament Fundamentals

1.1. Tournament Types

Original policy

There are two types of sanctioned Magic tournaments: rated and casual.

Rated tournaments are further divided into two types: Premier and non-Premier. Premier tournaments are run by Wizards of the Coast or select Tournament Organizers. They have unique names and features. Non-Premier tournaments are tournaments that are not explicitly Premier.

There are two major tournament formats: Limited and Constructed. Each has rules specific to its format. In Limited tournaments, all product for play is provided during the tournament. In Constructed tournaments, players compete using decks prepared beforehand. Some Premier tournaments may consist of multiple formats within the same tournament.

Policy Additions

1.1A. There are two tournament modes: Head-to-Head and Multiplayer.

In Head-to-Head tournaments, games are played in such a way that there are only two players or two teams involved.

In Multiplayer Tournaments, each player or team will play against more than one opposing player or team. The mode of a tournament is a characteristic independent from tournament type and format. A tournament can be, for example, Premier, Limited, and Multiplayer.

In Multiplayer Tournaments, players are organized in Pods. A Pod consists of the group of players competing and a seating order.

A Two-Headed Giant team is treated as a single player when determining the tournament mode.

1.10 Players

Original policy

Players are responsible for:

  • Behaving in a respectful manner toward tournament officials, other tournament participants, and spectators and refraining from unsporting conduct at all times.
  • Maintaining a clear and legal game state.
  • Complying with announced start times and time limits.
  • Calling attention to any rules or policy infraction they notice in their matches.
  • Bringing to a judge’s attention any discrepancies in their tournament match record.
  • Accurately reporting the results of their matches in a timely manner.
  • Refraining from enrolling in tournaments in which they are not allowed by policy to participate.
  • Being familiar with the rules contained within this document.
  • Being physically present for the tournament. A player must bring the following items to a tournament in order to participate:
  • A physical, visible, and reliable method to maintain and record game information (tokens, score counters, pen and paper, and so on).
  • Any materials specifically required for a particular tournament format, such as assembled decks and/or decklists for constructed tournaments.

Players retain their responsibilities even if a judge provides them with extra assistance.

The individual members of a team are considered players, and are equally responsible for required tournament procedures, such as accurately reporting the results of their match. Players are only responsible for the games they play themselves and not separate games being played by their teammates but are expected to point out rules violations they observe in their teammates’ matches.

Players who do not fulfill their responsibilities may be subject to penalties and review by the DCI. Wizards of the Coast and the DCI reserve the right to suspend or revoke a player's membership without prior notice for any reason they deem necessary.

Policy Additions

1.10A. For Multiplayer Tournaments, if a Player loses a game during a match, they are expected to act as Spectators for the remainder of the ongoing game.

Example: Alice, Bob, Charles and Dani are playing a Best-of-One Multiplayer match. Bob loses the game to combat damage, but doesn’t leave the table and keeps spectating the game. From this point, until the end of the game, Bob is forbidden from participating in any political or strategic discussions, since at this point it would be advantageous for Bob if the game ended up in a draw.

1.12 Rules Enforcement Levels

Original policy

Rules Enforcement Levels (REL) are a means to communicate to the players and judges what expectations they can have of the tournament in terms of rigidity of rules enforcement, technically correct play, and procedures used.

The Rules Enforcement Level of a tournament generally reflects the prizes awarded and the distance a player may be expected to travel.

The appropriate Rules Enforcement Level for specific programs is listed in Appendix F.

Regular

Regular tournaments are focused on fun and social aspects, not enforcement. Most tournaments are run at this level unless they offer sizeable prizes or invitations. Players are expected to know most of the game rules, may have heard of policy and what is “really bad,” but generally play in a fashion similar to the way they do casually. Players are still responsible for following the rules, but the focus is on education and sportsmanship over technically precise play. Infractions in these tournaments are covered by the Judging at Regular Rules Enforcement Level document, located at http://wpn.wizards.com/document/magic-gathering-judging-regular-rel.

Competitive

Competitive tournaments are usually those with significant cash prizes or invitations awarded to Professional tournaments. Players are expected to know the game’s rules and be familiar with the policies and procedures, but unintentional errors are not punished severely. These are tournaments that protect the interests of all players by providing tournament integrity while also recognizing that not all players are intimately familiar with Professional-level tournament structure, proper procedures, and rules. Infractions in these tournaments are covered by the Magic Infraction Procedure Guide, located at http://wpn.wizards.com/document/magic-infraction-procedure-guide.

Professional

Professional level tournaments offer large cash awards, prestige, and other benefits that draw players from great distances. These tournaments hold players to a higher standard of behavior and technically-correct play than Competitive tournaments. Infractions in these tournaments are covered by the Magic Infraction Procedure Guide, located at http://wpn.wizards.com/document/magic-infraction-procedure-guide.

Policy Additions

1.12A. For Multiplayer Tournaments, there are differences on how to handle infractions when compared to Head-to-Head tournaments. Those differences are covered by the Multiplayer Addendum to the Infraction Procedure Guide, located at https://juizes-mtg-portugal.github.io/

2. Tournament Mechanics

2.1. Match Structure

Original policy

A Magic match consists of a series of games that are played until one side has won a set number of games, usually two. Drawn games do not count toward this goal. If the round ends before a player has won the required number of games, the winner of the match is the player who has won the most games at that point. If both players have equal game wins, the match is a draw.

The Tournament Organizer may change the required number of games to be won for any portion of the tournament as long as this choice is announced before the tournament begins. Match results, not individual game results, are reported at the end of the tournament.

Policy Additions

2.1A. In Multiplayer Tournaments, the usual number of games required to win a match is one. If a game ends in a draw, a new game is started including every player in the Pod.

The winner of a match is the player that won the required number of games, or the player that has won the most games.

In the case of a tie, the match is a draw between the players that participated in that match, with the exception of players that received match loss penalties or players that conceded the match.

Example: Alice is ranked first in the last round of swiss. This rule prevents her from being targeted by all other Pod participants followed by an intentional draw.

2.2. Play/Draw Rule

Original policy

For the first game of a match, a designated player - the winner of a random method (such as a die roll or coin toss) during Swiss rounds, or the player ranked higher at the end of Swiss rounds during playoff matches - chooses either to play first or to play second. They must state this choice before looking at their hand. If they state no choice, it is assumed that they are playing first. The player who plays first skips the draw step of their first turn. This is referred to as the play/draw rule.

After each game in a match, the loser of that game decides whether to play first in the next game. They may wait until after sideboarding to make the decision. If the previous game was a draw, the player who decided to play or draw at the beginning of the drawn game chooses.

Policy Additions

2.2A In Multiplayer Tournaments, both the seating order and first player are defined with a random method. There is no “winner of a random-method” as in Head-to-Head tournaments and therefore no choice to be made in swiss rounds. In single elimination, the player with the highest standing from the swiss portion of the tournament will go first, followed by the player with the next highest, until all player’s order is decided.

2.2B For Multiplayer Tournaments where the number of game wins required to win a match is greater than one, the seating order must be randomized across all games. The starting player is decided using a random method for each game after the first.

2.3. Pregame Procedure

Original policy

The following steps must be performed in a timely manner before each game begins:

  1. If sideboarding is allowed, players may remove cards from their decks and add cards from their sideboards.
  2. Players shuffle their decks. Steps 1 and 2 may be repeated.
  3. Players present their decks to their opponents for additional shuffling. The sideboard (if any) is also presented at this time.
  4. If a companion is being used, it is noted. After the first game, the companion does not need to be noted again; it is assumed to be in use until rescinded.
  5. The appropriate player must decide whether to play first or second at this point, if they haven’t done so already (see section 2.2).
  6. Each player draws seven cards. Optionally, these cards may be dealt face down on the table.
  7. Each player, in turn order, may take mulligans. (Rules on mulligans can be found in the Magic Comprehensive Rules, rule 103.4). If a player takes a mulligan, they shuffle again and repeat the presentation process described above.

The game is considered to have begun once all players have completed taking mulligans. Pregame procedures may be performed before time for the match has officially begun.

Policy Additions

2.3A. Some Multiplayer Tournaments and Formats might introduce changes to the sequence of pregame procedures. Refer to the mode or format specific rules in the Comprehensive Rules.

2.4. End of Match Procedure

Original policy

Once the game is complete, players may not leave the table until the result of the match is recorded unless they are doing so to record the result.

If the match time limit is reached before a winner is determined, the player whose turn it is finishes their turn and five additional turns are played in total. This usually means that one player takes three turns and the other two, but a player taking extra turns may affect this. If the active player has already indicated that they would like to pass the turn when the time limit is reached, that is considered to be in the next turn.

Team tournaments featuring multiple players playing together (such as Two-Headed Giant) use three turns instead of five.

Once time is called, no new games should begin.If the game is incomplete at the end of additional turns, the game is considered a draw.

If a judge assigned a time extension (because of a long ruling, deck check, or other reason) the end-of-match procedure does not begin until the end of the time extension.

In single-elimination rounds, matches may not end in a draw. If all players have equal game wins at the end of additional turns, the player with the highest life total wins the current game. In the event all players have equal life totals (or are between games and the game wins are tied), the game/match continues with an additional state-based action: if a player does not have the highest life total, they lose the game. Two-Headed Giant teams are treated as a single player for determining a game winner.

Policy Additions

2.4A. In Multiplayer Tournaments, use N turns instead of five, where N equals the number of remaining players. The number of extra turns is determined as time in the round is called. Once this number is determined, players leaving the game have no impact.

Example: Alice, Bob, Charlie, and Daniel are playing in a Multiplayer match. Alice is the active player when time in the round was called. Alice finishes playing turn 0, and since there are 4 remaining players in the Pod, 4 extra turns will be played. Bob takes his turn, then Charlie takes his. However, during Charlie’s turn, Alice and Daniel both lose the game. Bob and Charlie will take the remaining turns, since the number of extra turns was determined as time in the round was called and is not impacted by players leaving the game during extra turns.

2.4B. In Multiplayer Tournaments, even with the extra turns, it is possible that the individual turns take up too much time if players are playing slowly and debating strategic decisions as a group.

In order to enforce a fast pace during extra turns, an extra turns time limit is applied. If the extra turns time limit is reached before a winner is determined, the active player can still finish their turn without the match ending abruptly.

Example: Arnold, Benjamin, Cam, and Durbin are playing in a Multiplayer Match. Time in the round has been called and Arnold and Benjamin played their extra turns. Cam is the active player when the overtime limit is reached. Cam finishes their turn and passes. Since no winner has been declared, the match must be reported as a draw.

2.4C. In Multiplayer Tournaments, in the case a Single Elimination Match results in a Draw, the Player with the highest Standing from the Swiss Portion of the event should be considered the Winner.

2.4D. Check Appendix B - Time Limits for the recommended time limits in Multiplayer Tournaments.

2.5. Conceding or Intentionally Drawing Games or Matches

Original policy

Until the result of a match has been recorded, players may concede or mutually agree to a draw in that game or match. If the conceding player won a game in the match, the match must be reported as 2-1. Intentional draws where no games were played are always reported as 0-0-3 in EventLink.

Players may not agree to a concession or draw in exchange for any reward or incentive. Doing so will be considered Bribery (see section 5.2).

If a player refuses to play, it is assumed that they have conceded the match.

Policy Additions

2.5A. In Multiplayer Tournaments, the decision to Intentionally Draw a Game must be unanimous among the Players that are still playing the Game. This means that players that lost the current Game don’t have a say in this decision.

2.5B In Multiplayer Tournaments, the decision to Intentionally Draw a Match must be unanimous among the Players that are still playing the Match. This means that players that lost the current Game in the current Match, still have a say in this decision. In the situation where a Player left the play area and a new Game is about to start, that Player will be subject to potential tardiness penalties.

2.5C In Multiplayer Tournaments, when Intentionally Drawing a Game during a Single Elimination or otherwise untimed round, there may be some restrictions in place to prevent the repetition of this process from extending the Tournament indefinitely. Check Appendix B - Time Limits for the recommended restrictions.

2.5D In Multiplayer Tournaments, it is encouraged for players that wish to concede a Game, to do so at any time they could play a sorcery.

2.5E In Multiplayer Tournaments, Players may not concede in order to directly affect the game being played after they leave, or in order to affect the Tournament outcome for themselves or their Opponents. The Head Judge will evaluate the if it can be considered Collusion or Spite Play (see section 5.4. Unsporting Conduct). Knowingly breaking this rule to gain an advantage is Unsporting Conduct - Cheating.

3. Tournament Rules

3.1. Tiebreakers

Original policy

The following tiebreakers are used to determine how a player ranks in a tournament:

  1. Match points
  2. Opponents’ match-win percentage
  3. Game-win percentage
  4. Opponents’ game-win percentage

Definitions of these tiebreakers can be found in Appendix C. Not all of these tiebreakers may be used in formats with single-game matches.

Policy Additions

3.1A. In Multiplayer Tournaments, the following tie breakers are used to determine how a player ranks:

  1. Match points
  2. Match Win percentage
  3. Opponents’ Average Match points
  4. Opponents’ Match Win percentage

3.13. Hidden Information

Original policy

Hidden information refers to the faces of cards and other objects at which the rules of the game and format do not allow you to look.

Throughout the match, a draft, and pregame procedures, players are responsible for keeping their cards above the level of the playing surface and for making reasonable efforts to prevent hidden information from being revealed. However, players may choose to reveal their hands or any other hidden information available to them, unless specifically prohibited by the rules. Players must not actively attempt to gain information hidden from them but are not required to inform opponents who are accidentally revealing hidden information.

Policy Additions

3.13A In Head-to-Head tournaments, having the permission to look at an opponent’s card that the opponent can also look at is technically the same as that card being revealed. However in Multiplayer Tournaments, that is not true. Being able to look at a card that an opponent can look at doesn’t give a player the right to reveal that card to everyone. According to Head-to-Head Tournament rules though, players are free to reveal cards that they can look at and this clashes with the concept of distinguishing between the Look and Reveal actions as defined in CR 701.16 (a through d).

One of the reasons we want to allow players revealing hidden information they gained access to is to avoid a player accidentally revealing hidden information and either them or the players that gained that information accidentally being penalized. In Multiplayer it is expected that when a player is dealing with hidden information that pertains to one of their opponents, that they are extra careful about not physically revealing it. At the same time we also want to allow players to still be allowed to bluff about hidden information, so in any situation, players are allowed to verbally reveal any hidden information they may have gained.

In Multiplayer Tournaments, the following rules apply to physically revealing card faces in hidden zones:

  • Library: the owner of the cards in the library can choose to physically reveal as long as they have been instructed to look at them.
  • Face down exile: any player with a currently applicable instruction allowing them to look at the cards may physically reveal them.
  • Face down on the battlefield: the controller of the permanent(s) can choose to physically reveal them.
  • Face down on the stack: the controller of the spell can choose to physically reveal them.
  • Hand: the owner of the card(s) in hand can physically reveal them.
  • Any other temporary face down zone: any player with a currently applicable instruction allowing them to look at the cards may physically reveal them.

For the purpose of physically revealing cards, an instruction to look at a card is not transferrable to another player controlling the instructed player. The choice of physically revealing hidden information belongs to the player as described above, which means that player-controlling effects, won’t allow the controller to force the controlled player to physically reveal hidden information.

Example: Alice resolves a Gitaxian Probe, targeting Bob. Alice may look at Bob’s hand but may not reveal or force Bob to reveal their hand to the remaining players. In this example, Alice is being temporarily shared information about Bob’s hand, and as such she cannot transform the permission granted to her by the Look effect into a Reveal effect. Bob however may choose to reveal their hand at any point.

Example: Alice resolves a Praetor’s Grasp targeting Bob. Alice may not reveal cards from Bob’s library while resolving the Praetor’s Grasp, neither may Bob. Alice may reveal the chosen card that she exiled face-down. In this example, Bob doesn’t know the identity of the cards in their library, and Alice is not the owner of the cards. Also, Alice gained a permission to search Bob’s library, not to reveal it, therefore she will be able to only physically reveal the face down exiled card after she chooses one.

Example: Alice controls an Opposition Agent and is currently controlling Bob while Bob is searching their library. Although Alice can freely talk about cards in Bob’s library with the remaining players, Alice cannot physically reveal the cards in Bob’s library to them. In this example, Alice is controlling Bob. However, controlling the player doesn’t grant Alice the right to make out-of-game choices or decisions. The choice to reveal hidden information at any time is granted by MTR 3.13, and as such is not an in-game choice or decision.

Example: Alice owns a Bane Alley Broker. She activated its ability exiling a Dark Ritual. At some point Bob gains control or Bane Alley Broker and also activates it exiling a Counterspell. Alice can still look at the Dark Ritual but she can no longer reveal it. Bob can also look at Alice’s Dark Ritual and he can reveal it. If Charlie now gains control of Bane Alley Broker, both Alice, Bob and Charlie will be able to look at Dark Ritual and Counterspell, but now, only Charlie can physically reveal them.

Example: Bob is controlling Alice during her turn, due to resolving the activated ability of a Mindslaver. Alice draws an Ad Nauseam for the turn, then Alice casts and resolves Praetor’s Grasp targetting Charlie, exiling a Lion’s Eye Diamond. Bob has access to all of this hidden information, but Alice still has the choice of physically revealing cards from her hand, and neither Alice or Bob can physically reveal cards from Charlie’s library. Alice will also be the one with the choice to physically reveal the Lion’s Eye Diamond, not Bob.

Example: In a situation where Alice resolved Gather Specimens, Bob controls Lens of Clarity and Charlie is resolving a Reality Shift on a creature controlled by David, both Bob and Alice will gain information about the identity of the Manifested card from David entering the battlefield under Alice’s control. However this was an object that is owned by David, created by an effect from Charlie, but neither of them have the right to look at. In this situation, Alice is the one deciding if she wants to physically reveal the hidden information regarding the manifested card.

3.17 Supplementary Decks

Policy Additions This section was removed in May 13th 2024, and we are bringing it back since some Multiplayer Formats, such as Commander, might make use of Supplementary Decks.

Some mechanics, such as attractions, make use of an additional deck of nontraditional Magic cards. Cards in a secondary deck are not part of the deck or sideboard and do not count against any minimum or maximum deck or sideboard size. They are presented and shuffled alongside the deck during pregame procedures, but do not need to be shuffled again if the player takes a mulligan.

Different supplementary decks must be kept distinct at all times during the game. Opponents may count the number of cards in a supplementary deck at any time.

A player playing a supplementary deck must register the cards if decklists are being used and the contents of that deck cannot change during the event. In an event using continuous construction, players may change the contents of their supplementary decks between matches.

3.18 Stickers

Policy Additions This section was removed in May 13th 2024, and we are bringing it back since some Multiplayer Formats, such as Commander, might make use of Stickers.

Stickers modify cards; they are found on a set of sticker sheets and persist on the cards as they move between public zones. Stickers do not need to be attached directly to cards; they can be attached to card sleeves or associated in any way that makes the function of the sticker clear.

Sticker sheets are identified in deck registration using a combination of the three name stickers on the sheet. Players present their registered sheets of stickers alongside their deck during the pregame procedure and, if necessary, determine the three sheets to be used for that game at that time.

If a player has not registered a set of sticker sheets but is instructed to put a sticker onto a permanent they own due to an effect they have gained control of, they may visit https://magic.wizards.com/en/unresources to generate three sticker sheets for use in that game only. If they do not choose to do so, the part of the ability instructing them to put a sticker onto a permanent is ignored.

Official sticker sheets are not required, provided that the player makes it clear what sheets they are using, which stickers are on those sheets, and represents the stickers in-game with a method that is clear to both players. Only the official 48 sticker sheet combinations may be used; players cannot mix and match to generate their own sheets.

All stickers are returned to their respective sheets between games.

4. Communication

4.1. Player Communication

Original policy

Communication between players is essential to the successful play of any game that involves virtual objects or hidden information. While bluffing may be an aspect of games, there need to be clear lines as to what is, and is not, acceptable for players to say or otherwise represent. This will confirm expectations of both sporting and competitive players during a game.

A player should have an advantage due to better understanding of the options provided by the rules of the game, greater awareness of the interactions in the current game state, and superior tactical planning. Players are under no obligation to assist their opponents in playing the game. Regardless of anything else, players are expected to treat opponents politely and with respect. Failure to do so may lead to Unsporting Conduct penalties.

There are four categories of information: status, free, derived, and private.

Status information is information that must be announced upon change and physically tracked by the affected player. Methods for tracking must be visible to both players during the match. A shared method is acceptable as long as all players in the match have access to it. At Competitive and Professional REL, methods that can easily be accidentally changed (such as dice) may not be used. Status information consists of:

  • Life total.
  • Counters a player has attached to them.
  • Continuous effects with no defined expiration within the game that apply to that player, such as Monarchor City’s Blessing.
  • Unspent mana in a player’s mana pool.
  • Location in a dungeon.
  • How many times the Ring has tempted a player.

Free information is information to which all players are entitled access without contamination or omissions made by their opponents. If a player is ever unable or unwilling to provide free information to an opponent that has requested it, they should call a judge and explain the situation. Free information consists of:

  • Details of current game actions and past game actions that still affect the game state.
  • The name of any visible object.
  • The number and type of any counter that isn’t defined as status information.
  • The state (whether it’s tapped, attached to another permanent, face down, etc.) and current zone of any object or player.
  • The game score of the current match.
  • The current step and/or phase and which player(s) are active.

Derived information is information to which all players are entitled access, but opponents are not obliged to assist in determining and may require some skill or calculation to determine. Derived information consists of:

  • The number of any kind of objects present in any game zone that are not defined as free information.
  • All characteristics of objects in public zones that are not defined as free or status information.
  • Game Rules, Tournament Policy, Oracle content and any other official information pertaining to the current tournament. Cards are considered to have their Oracle text printed on them.

Private information is information to which players have access only if they are able to determine it from the current visual game state or their own record of previous game actions.

  • Any information that is not status, free or derived is automatically private information.

The following rules govern player communication:

  • Players must announce any changes to status information about themselves and must represent it with a physical designation.
  • If a player notices a discrepancy in recorded or announced status information, they are expected to point it out as soon as the discrepancy is noticed.
  • Players must answer all questions asked of them by a judge completely and honestly, regardless of the type of information requested. Players may request to do so away from the match.
  • Players may not represent derived, free, or status information incorrectly.
  • Players must answer completely and honestly any specific questions pertaining to free information.
  • At Regular Rules Enforcement Level, all derived information is instead considered free.

Judges are encouraged to help players in determining free and status information but must avoid assisting players with derived information about the game state.

Policy Additions

Status information consists of:

  • … (existing items)
  • Amount of damage a player received from a Commander.

Free information consists of:

  • … (existing items)
  • The number of times a Commander has been cast from the command zone.

In Multiplayer Tournaments, in order to prevent Collusion (see section 5.4. Unsporting Conduct), players cannot secretly exchange information with each other.

4.2. Tournament Shortcuts

Original policy

A tournament shortcut is an action taken by players to skip parts of the technical play sequence without explicitly announcing them. Tournament shortcuts are essential for the smooth play of a game, as they allow players to play in a clear fashion without getting bogged down in the minutiae of the rules. Most tournament shortcuts involve skipping one or more priority passes to the mutual understanding of all players; if a player wishes to demonstrate or use a new tournament shortcut entailing any number of priority passes, they must be clear where the game state will end up as part of the request.

A player may interrupt a tournament shortcut by explaining how they are deviating from it or at which point in the middle they wish to take an action. A player may interrupt their own shortcut in this manner. If part of the shortcut is discovered to be or becomes illegal, the shortcut stops at that point. A player is not allowed to use a previously undeclared tournament shortcut, or to modify an in-use tournament shortcut without announcing the modification, in order to create ambiguity in the game.

A player may not request priority and take no action with it. If a player decides they do not wish to do anything, the request is nullified and priority is returned to the player that originally had it.

During the resolution of one of their spells or abilities, a player may not assume their opponent has taken a shortcut. They must seek confirmation that a choice with no visible impact was taken.

Certain conventional tournament shortcuts used in Magic are detailed below. They define a default communication; if a player wishes to deviate from these, they should be explicit about doing so. Note that some of these are exceptions to the policy above in that they do cause non-explicit priority passes.

  • If the active player passes priority with an empty stack during their first main phase, the non-active player is assumed to be acting in beginning of combat unless they are affecting whether a beginning of combat ability triggers. Then, after those actions resolve or no actions took place, the active player receives priority at the beginning of combat. Beginning of combat triggered abilities (even ones that target) may be announced at this time.
  • If the active player passes priority with an empty stack during their second main phase or uses a phrase such as “Go” or “Your Turn” at any time, the non-active player is assumed to be acting in the end step unless they are affecting how or whether an end of turn ability triggers. End of turn triggered abilities that do not target resolve after the non-active player passes priority.
  • Whenever a player adds an object to the stack, they are assumed to be passing priority unless theyexplicitly announce that they intend to retain it.
  • If a player adds a group of objects to the stack without explicitly retaining priority, they are assumed to be adding them to the stack individually and allowing each to resolve before adding the next. If another player wishes to take an action at a point in the middle of this sequence, the actions should be reversed to that point.
  • If a player casts a spell or activates an ability and announces choices for it that are not normally made until resolution, the player must adhere to those choices unless an opponent responds to that spell or ability. If an opponent inquires about choices made during resolution, that player is assumed to be passing priority and allowing that spell or ability to resolve.
  • A player is assumed to have paid any cost of 0 unless they announce otherwise.
  • A player who casts a spell or activates an ability that targets an object on the stack is assumed to target the legal spell closest to the top of the stack unless the player specifies otherwise.
  • A player is assumed to be attacking another player with their creatures and not any planeswalkers that player may control unless the attacking player specifies otherwise.
  • A player who does not scry/surveil when instructed to is assumed to have not looked and chosen to leave the cards in the same order.
  • In the Two-Headed Giant format, attacking creatures are assumed to be attacking the head of the defending player sitting directly across from their controller, unless the creature's controller specifies otherwise.

Policy Additions

4.2A Any references to “non-active player” within MTR 4.2 refer to each non-active player in turn order within Multiplayer Tournaments.

4.2B The following shortcut doesn’t apply in Multiplayer tournament games, as long as there are more than 2 players still participating in said game:

  • A player is assumed to be attacking another player with their creatures and not any planeswalkers that player may control unless the attacking player specifies otherwise.

The reason being that we can’t simply assume a default opponent when there are multiple options. Players will always need to define an opponent / planeswalker / battle when attacking. This also applies to creatures put directly into the battlefield and attacking.

4.2C In Multiplayer Tournaments, if a player requests priority and decides they do not wish to do anything, the request is nullified, priority is returned to the active player and the game state is backed up to the point after the last game action.

This is in contrast to Head-to-Head tournaments, where the priority is returned to the player that had originally it. This is done to prevent abuse where players verbally announce outside of their priority window, that they wish to do something and by not doing anything, they are potentially leading other players into passing priority.

Example: Alice is attacking and Bob is pondering what to do while they have priority. Daniel says they will use a Cyclonic Rift at the end of Alice’s turn. Thus, Bob passes priority and Charles also passes priority, followed by Daniel. Combat ends and during their second main phase, Alice plays a land and says “Pass the turn” - attempting to execute the Tournament Shortcut. Then, Bob and Charles both pass priority saying “OK “ on the Tournament Shortcut, knowing that Daniel would do something. However, Daniel says he changed his mind and doesn’t want to do anything.

If Daniel were to pass priority here, the turn would end and Bob’s turn would start, without Bob having a chance to do anything.

The Head-to-Head fix would allow Charles to have priority at this point, but Charles is fully tapped-out, so they can’t initiate a new round of priority.

With this fix, we allow Alice to have priority back in their second main phase, after they played the land for the turn.

4.4. Loops

Original policy

A loop is a form of tournament shortcut that involves detailing a sequence of actions to be repeated and then performing a number of iterations of that sequence. The loop actions must be identical in each iteration and cannot include conditional actions ("If this, then that".)

If no players are involved in maintaining the loop, each player in turn order chooses a number of iterations to perform before they will take an action to break the loop or that they wish to take no action. If all players choose to take no action, the game is a draw. Otherwise, the game advances through the lowest number of iterations chosen and the player who chose that number takes an action to break the loop.

If one player is involved in maintaining the loop, they choose a number of iterations. The other players, in turn order, agree to that number or announce a lower number after which they intend to intervene. The game advances through the lowest number of iterations chosen and the player who chose that number receives priority.

If two or more players are involved in maintaining a loop within a turn, each player in turn order chooses a number of iterations to perform. The game advances through the lowest number of iterations chosen and the player who chose that number receives priority.

Loops may span multiple turns if a game state is not meaningfully changing. Note that drawing cards other than the ones being used to sustain the loop is a meaningful change. If two or more players are involved in maintaining a loop across turns, each player chooses a number of iterations to perform, or announces their intent to continue indefinitely. If all players choose to continue indefinitely, the game is a draw. Otherwise, the game advances through the lowest number of iterations chosen and the player who chose that number receives priority at the point they stop taking an action to sustain the loop.

A player intervening during a loop may specify that one iteration of the loop is only partly performed in order to be able to take action at the appropriate point. If they do, the final iteration is only performed up to the chosen point.

Non-deterministic loops (loops that rely on decision trees, probability, or mathematical convergence) may not be shortcut. A player attempting to execute a nondeterministic loop must stop if at any point during the process a previous game state (or one identical in all relevant ways) is reached again. This happens most often in loops that involve shuffling a library.

Some loops are sustained by choices rather than actions. In these cases, the rules above may be applied, with the player making a different choice rather than ceasing to take an action. The game moves to the point where the player makes that choice. If the choice involves hidden information, a judge may be needed to determine whether any choice is available that will not continue the loop.

The judge is the final arbiter of what constitutes a loop. A player may not 'opt-out' of shortcutting a loop, nor may they make irrelevant changes between iterations in an attempt to make it appear as though there is no loop. Once a loop has been shortcut, it may not be restarted until the game has changed in a relevant way. Proposing loops as an effort to use up time on the clock is Stalling.

Policy Additions

4.4A In Multiplayer Tournaments, a player intervening during a loop may specify that one iteration of the loop is only partly performed in order to be able to take action at the appropriate point. If they do, the final iteration is only performed up to the chosen point. This process cycles through each player, in turn order, where they may propose a number of iterations and point in the loop where they wish to interrupt.

This process continues until an earliest point in the loop is not proposed, in which case it’s considered that everyone is passing priority on the loop until it reaches the agreed point.

Then, the first player that proposed the earliest point in the loop is considered to be requesting priority to interrupt the shortcut created by the loop.

This process follows the same rules specified in MAMTR 4.2A.

5. Tournament Violations

5.4. Unsporting Conduct

Original policy

Unsporting conduct will not be tolerated at any time. Tournament participants must behave in a polite and respectful manner. Unsporting conduct includes, but is not limited to:

  • Using profanity.
  • Engaging in behavior that could reasonably be expected to create a feeling of being harassed, bullied, or stalked.
  • Arguing with, acting belligerently toward, or insulting tournament officials, players, or spectators.
  • Violating the personal privacy or safety of any participant, including spectators and staff.
  • Using social media to bully, shame, or intimidate other participants.
  • Failing to follow the instructions of a tournament official.

Officials are expected to investigate potential matters brought their attention as soon as possible and take actions to discourage repeat behavior. All incidents of unsporting conduct are subject to further DCI review.

Policy Additions

5.4A In Multiplayer Tournaments, it is also considered Unsporting Conduct:

Coercion: Coercing a player into performing an action over threat of losing the game to another player.

Coercion can happen in non-verbal ways too. It’s not Coercion if actions are discussed within a timing where the affect player is not yet under pressure to perform that action. When proposing intentional draws, players can discuss the terms and reveal hands, but they can’t attempt to coerce players that aren’t in accordance.

Coercion Examples:

  • Alice is presenting a win, Bob has an answer, but passes priority since they see that Diane has untapped lands, and they believe Charles has an answer. Since Charles passes priority to Diane, it’s not acceptable that Bob asks Diane to: “Tap a land so that I get priority back, otherwise we lose!”.
  • Alice is presenting a win, Bob has an answer, but passes priority since they see that Diane has untapped lands, and they believe Charles has an answer. Since Charles passes priority to Diane, it’s not acceptable that Bob reveals the answer from their hand at this point with the expectation that Diane taps a land in order for Bob to get the priority back.
  • Alice is presenting a win, Bob has an answer, but notices that Diane has a Thrasios, Triton Hero, and available mana to activate it. It is acceptable that before passing priority, Bob reminds Diane that they can draw a card to find an answer.
  • Alice is presenting a win, Bob has a win next turn and this is known information. It’s not acceptable that Charles attempts to coerce a player into intentionally drawing: “If you don’t want to draw, then I will cast Silence and you lose to Bob” or “You have to accept the draw, or else we will kill you and we draw anyway”.
  • Alice is presenting a win, Bob has a win next turn and this is known information. It is acceptable that Charles attempts to politely reason with the players, without threatening to hand over the win to Bob: Alice, I have this Silence. Do you want to draw? No? Ok.” - “What about you, Bob and Diane? Are you ok with making a deal to kill Alice and draw afterwards? It would be better if Alice accepted the draw, since Bob can break the deal and we might end up losing the game instead of everyone drawing”.

Collusion: Colluding with an opponent in order to benefit them in the Tournament.

Collusion typically occurs when a player intentionally takes an action that is detrimental to themselves in order to benefit an opponent. It’s not Collusion if the action is a result of a unintentional strategical error.

Collusion Examples:

  • Alice is presenting a win, Bob has an answer and uses it. Charlie uses their answer to stop Bob’s, in order to ensure Alice wins the Match. The Judge’s investigation determines that Charlie is friends with Alice and wants Alice to move to the single eliminatin portion of the tournament, and that’s why they used their answer. Charlie is Colluding with Alice and vice-versa.
  • Alice is presenting a win, Daniel has an answer and uses it. Charlie uses their answer to stop Daniel’s, in order to ensure Alice wins the Match. The Judge’s investigation determines that Charlie is friends with Bob and wants Alice to be penalized by collusion in order to give Bob the chance to try and win against Daniel, and that’s why they used their answer. Charlie is Colluding with Bob and vice-versa.
  • Alice is presenting a win, Bob has a win on their next turn and Charlie has an answer to stop Alice and allow Bob to win the game. In this situation Charlie could conceivably be colluding with Alice or Bob by either not performing an action or by performing an action. However it is also possible that no Collusion is happening. It will be up to the Judge’s investigation to determine if there is Collusion or not.

Spite Play: Performing a detrimental action with the sole purpose of penalizing an opponent out of Spite.

It’s not Spite Play if the action is a result of a unintentional strategical error.

Spite Play Examples:

  • Alice is presenting a win that makes use of Bob’s existing permanents in order to function. Bob feels disgruntled with Alice’s previous interactions in the game and scoops up their cards, conceding, in order to prevent Alice from winning the game. Bob is performing a Spite Play against Alice.
  • Alice is presenting a win that makes use of Bob’s existing permanents in order to function. Bob activates their Necropotence enough times so that they lose the game. Bob hopes that the game ends in a draw, and as such this is not a Spite Play.

In Multiplayer Tournaments, sometimes it will surface the idea that a player is “Kingmaking” another player. This notion of Kingmaking is only problematic if it falls under the category of Collusion or Spite Play. Otherwise, it can be a simple unintentional strategical error, and that’s not regulated by Judges.

When investigating these matters, Judges need to take special attention to not reveal strategic information to players at the table. An opponent can potentially accuse a player of Spite Play or Collusion in order to extract strategically relevant information from the Judge’s ruling, for example:

  • Player A calls a judge because Player B is casting a Pact of Negation, targetting one of their spells, while Player B only seemingly has 3 available mana in their next upkeep. A Judge comes over, sees this and asks to see Player B’s hand, noticing a Dark Ritual, then dismissing the Spite Play / Collusion claim. Player A, C and D noticed this interaction and now think that Player B must have an instant that can provide mana or a way to win at instant speed in their upkeep.

The problem with this situation is that if Player B was actually doing as Spite Play, they must be penalized immediately so that the integrity of the game is not compromised any further. However, investigating this, will leak some information, so Judges need to be careful to minimize these leaks:

  • By asking the player if they are aware of the Spite play rules in the open, without seeing their hand, they are simply reiterating what the player already signaled by casting the Pact of Negation in the first place, minimizing the information leak.

6. Constructed Tournament Rules

6.1. Deck Construction Restrictions

Original policy

Constructed decks must contain a minimum of sixty cards. There is no maximum deck size. If a player chooses to use a sideboard, it may not contain more than fifteen cards.

Except for cards with the basic supertype or cards with text that specifies otherwise, a player’s combined deck and sideboard may not contain more than four of any individual card, based on its English card title.

Policy Additions

6.1A. Some formats have different deck construction restrictions defined in the Comprehensive Rules beginning in section 900.

6.*. Commander Format Deck Construction

This section as whole is an addition from this supplement and should be interpreted as being under the “6. Constructed Tournament Rules” section of the Magic Tournament Rules: After “6.7. Pioneer Format Deck Construction”.

Commander Format introduces changes to the Deck Construction rules as defined in section 903.5 of the Comprehensive Rules.

Refer to the official banlist available at: https://mtgcommander.net/index.php/banned-list/

*. Commander Tournament Rules

This section as whole is an addition from this supplement and should be interpreted as being next to the Format-specific sections of the Magic Tournament Rules: After “9. Two-Headed-Giant Tournament Rules” and before “10. Sanctioning Rules”.

*.1. Match Structure

*.1A. In Commander matches, the required number of game wins to win a match is one. As per 2.1, a Match continues until the required number of game wins is attained by a player or ends in a draw.

*.1B. In Commander matches, players play against each other in Pods. Each Pod should be composed of four players. In the case that the number of participants is not divisible by 4, it is recommended that the minimum possible number of Pods with three players be used in order to not have any Byes.

The reason behind this decision is that the possibility of awarding multiple Byes in an event where the average win percentage is 25% is extremely impactful. In addition to that, multi-day events suffer even more from the high impact of Byes.

*.2. Communication Rules

*.2A. Commander Damage is considered Status Information and therefore subject to the rules defined in section 4.1 Player Communication.

*.3. Play/Draw Rule

*.3A. Due to Commander being typically played in Best-of-One matches, the way the turn cycles are organized in the Pod, and the fact that the first player also draws, the Play-Draw Rule is ignored.

Instead, for the Swiss portion of the tournament, seating order (and thus turn order) will be established by a random method decided by the Tournament Organizer. The turn order cannot be altered except by in-game effects.

For the single elimination portion of the tournament, the seating and play order is defined by the standings from the Swiss portion of the tournament, in accordance with rule 2.2A Play/Draw Rule.

*.3B. If the tournament match structure includes multiple games per match, it is recommended that the seating order is randomized between games, as well as the starting player, because otherwise all the players would continue playing with the same priority order as before.

*.4. Pregame Procedure

*.4A. Before drawing opening hands, players will reveal their Companion (if any) and then their Commander as per Comprehensive Rules 103.2c. All other pregame procedures are performed as normal.

*.5. Time Extensions

*.5A Because Commander decks are 100-card singleton lists, after a Deck Check is performed tournament staff should award extra time to the affected match totaling the time spent on the deck check, plus four (4) extra minutes to account for the additional shuffling time needed.

*.6. Commander Booster Draft

*.6A Refer to the Comprehensive Rules (section 903.13. Commander Draft) for instructions on how Commander Booster Draft works.

*.7 Commander Single Elimination Procedures

*.7A Due to the nature of Commander gameplay, it is strongly recommended that single-elimination rounds be run with no time limit. Any deviation from this recommendation must be communicated to the players before tournament begins and any tiebreaker method should be based solely on information pertaining to the current match.

10. Sanctioning Rules

10.1 Participation Minimums

Original policy

Participation minimums for a tournament to be sanctioned as a rated tournament are as follows:

  • For individual tournaments, a minimum of four (4) players must participate.
  • For team and Two-Headed Giant tournaments, a minimum of four (4) teams must participate.

Certain Premier tournaments (e.g, Regional Championship Qualifiers) require a higher minimum number of players.

If the participation minimum is not met, the tournament is no longer DCI-sanctioned. If participation minimums are not met for any DCI-sanctioned tournament, the Tournament Organizer should report the tournament as “Did Not Occur.”

Policy Additions

10.1A. For Multiplayer Tournaments at Regular Rules Enforcement Level, a minimum of four (4) players must participate.

10.1B. For Multiplayer Tournaments at Competitive Rules Enforcement Level, a minimum of sixteen (16) players must participate.

10.2 Number of Rounds

Original policy

The minimum number of rounds required for a tournament to be sanctioned as a rated tournament is as follows:

  • For individual tournaments, a minimum of three (3) rounds
  • For team and Two-Headed Giant tournaments, a minimum of two (2) rounds

If the minimum number of rounds is not met, the tournament is no longer DCI-sanctioned. If the minimum number of rounds is not met for any DCI-sanctioned, rated tournament, the Tournament Organizer should report the tournament as “Did Not Occur.”

The number of rounds should be announced at or before the beginning of the first round; once announced, it cannot be changed. A variable number of rounds can be announced instead, with specific criteria for ending the tournament. For example, a tournament with 20 players can be announced as five rounds unless only one player has four match wins after four rounds.

The recommended number of rounds for Swiss tournaments can be found in Appendix E.

Policy Additions

10.2A. For Multiplayer Tournaments at Regular Rules Enforcement Level, a minimum of one (1) round should be played.

10.2B. For Multiplayer Tournaments at Competitive Rules Enforcement Level, a minimum of two (2) rounds should be played.

10.4 Pairing Algorithm

Original policy

Unless otherwise announced, tournaments are assumed to follow the Swiss pairing algorithm. Some tournaments may proceed to single-elimination playoff rounds between the top 2, 4, or 8 (or other number) players after the Swiss rounds are over. The Swiss pairing algorithm is modified in booster draft tournaments as explained in section 7.6.

At Pro Tour and World Championship tournaments, competitors are advanced to the playoff rounds before the end of the Swiss rounds (and receive byes for the remaining Swiss rounds) if they have achieved the announced number of match points required to advance to the playoff rounds. In this case, competitors in the Top 8 playoff are seeded in order from 1st through 8th. Seeding is determined by:

  • The round in which a competitor received the required number of match points to advance to the playoff rounds.
  • Their opponents’ match-win percentage, the competitor’s game-win percentage, and their opponents’ game-win percentage as of the round in which they receive the required number of match points to advance to the playoff rounds.
  • Seeding for the Top 8 playoff is locked after each round in which a competitor receives the required number of match points to advance to the playoff rounds.

For constructed tournaments that have a single-elimination playoff (or Sealed Deck tournaments that do not use a Booster Draft for the playoff), the recommended pairing method is to pair the playoff players by the final Swiss standings.

For an 8-player playoff, the 1st place player plays the 8th place player, the 2nd place player plays the 7th place player, the 3rd place player plays the 6th place player, and the 4th place player plays the 5th place player. The winners of the 1st/8th place and 4th/5th place matches play each other in the next round of the playoff. The winners of the 2nd/7th place and 3rd/6th place matches play each other in the next round of the playoff. The remaining players play in the last round of the playoff.

For a 4-player playoff, the 1st place player plays the 4th place player, and the 2nd place player plays the 3rd place player. The remaining players play in the last round of the playoff.

For Limited tournaments that have a single-elimination Booster Draft playoff, it is recommend that only an 8-player playoff is run using the following method described below.

Use a random method to seat players around the draft table and conduct the draft.

After the draft has concluded, the player in seat 1 plays the player in seat 5, the player in seat 2 plays the player in seat 6, the player in seat 3 plays the player in seat 7, and the player in seat 4 plays the player in seat 8. The winners of the seat 1/5 and the 3/7 matches play each other in the next round of the playoff. The winners of the seat 2/6 and the seat 4/8 matches play each other in the next round of the playoff. The remaining players play in the last round of the playoff.

For most Premier Events, the playoff options above are required, not optional.

Premier Events include the following tournaments: Magic: The Gathering World Championship, Pro Tour, Pro Tour Qualifier, Regional Championship, and Regional Championship Qualifier

10.4A. For Multiplayer Tournaments, it is recommended that Tournament Organizers use a tool that implements the following modified swiss pairing algorithm. There are commercial solutions and also open source solutions 1 2 3 4.

In Multiplayer Tournaments, the modified swiss pairing algorithm is as follows:

  • Pairings should be done by sorting players by performance (Match points plus Tiebreakers in order), followed by preferably matching players following the performance order, starting from the highest performing players, by allocating them to Pods. This is referred to as Top-to-Bottom assignment.
  • This matching process must avoid matching between players that have already played against each other during previous rounds.
  • In the case where Players cannot receive any match during the first Top-to-Bottom pass, the process should iteratively attempt to swap the unmatched players with players that can fit into the incomplete Pods (typically the last pods of the tournament, since the first pass happened in a Top-to-Bottom fashion). The swapped players will then become “Paired up” or “Paired down” depending if they ended in a highest rated pod or not.
  • Instead of awarding Byes in case of an uneven distribution of players through the pods, players should be instead matched into one ore more pods of smaller size, always trying to minimize the difference in pod size towards the norm. Examples:
    • In an event with 23 players, pair players using 5 pods with size 4 and 1 pod with size 3
    • In an event with 22 players, pair players using 4 pods with size 4 and 2 pods with size 3
    • In an event with 21 players, pair players using 3 pods with size 4 and 3 pods with size 3
  • It is desirable that players only get matched in smaller size pods at most once per event. Thus if necessary, the pairing algorithm should perform a swap and pair a player in that condition in a pod higher in the standings.

In Multiplayer Tournaments, the single-elimination playoffs are paired according to the following pattern:

top16

Uneven cuts:

  • In the case of a top 40 cut, the top 8 seeded players skip the quarterfinals, with the remaining 32 players being paired in 8 Pods for the quarterfinals, according to the pattern above.
  • In the case of a top 10 cut, the top 2 seeded players skip the semifinals, with the remaining 8 players being paired in 2 pods for the semifinals, according to the pattern above.

In the semi finals, the seeds of the winners from the quarterfinals are taken into account and the same pattern as above is applied for the semi final pairings.

Appendix B – Time Limits

Original policy

The required minimum time limit for any match is 40 minutes.

The following time limits are recommended for each round of a tournament:

  • Constructed and Limited tournaments - 50 minutes
  • Single-elimination quarterfinal or semifinal matches - 90 minutes
  • Single-elimination final matches - no time limit

The following additional time limits are recommended for Limited tournaments:

  • Sealed Deck - 20 minutes for deck registration and 30 minutes for deck construction. For Prereleases and Sealed Deck events that take place on the weekend of a new set release, 15 additional minutes for deck construction is recommended.
  • Draft - 25 minutes for deck registration and construction.
  • Team Sealed Deck - 20 minutes for deck registration and 60 minutes for deck construction. For Team-format Sealed Deck events that take place on the weekend of a new set release, 15 additional minutes for deck construction is recommended.
  • Team Draft - 40 minutes for deck construction and registration.
  • Two-Headed Giant Sealed Deck - 20 minutes for deck registration and 60 minutes for deck construction. For Two-headed Giant Sealed Deck events that take place on the weekend of a new set release, 15 additional minutes for deck construction is recommended.
  • Two-Headed Giant Draft - 40 minutes for deck construction and registration

The Head Judge of the tournament is the final authority on time limits for a tournament. However, any deviation from these recommendations must be announced prior to and during tournament registration.

Magic Premier Tournaments may have different time limits. These time limits can be found in the tournament or tournament series fact sheet.

In timed rounds, players must wait for the officially tracked time to begin before starting their match.

Booster Draft Timing

Individual Booster Drafts have the following default time limits for each pick:

Cards remaining in pack Time allotted
15 cards40 seconds
14 cards40 seconds
13 cards35 seconds
12 cards30 seconds
11 cards25 seconds
10 cards25 seconds
9 cards20 seconds
8 cards20 seconds
7 cards15 seconds
6 cards10 seconds
5 cards10 seconds
4 cards5 seconds
3 cards5 seconds
2 cards5 seconds
1 cardN/A

The time for review after the first booster pack is 60 seconds. Each subsequent review period increases by 30 seconds.

Rochester Draft Timing

The review period for a draft booster after it has been laid out on the table and before the first card is drafted is 20 seconds. Players have 5 seconds for each pick.

Two-Headed Giant Draft Timing

Two-Headed Giant Booster Drafts have the following default time limits for each pick:

Cards remaining in pack
15-Card Booster14-Card BoosterTime allotted
151450 seconds
131245 seconds
111040 seconds
9 8 30 seconds
7 6 20 seconds
5 4 10 seconds
3 - 5 seconds
1 2 N/A

In addition, players receive 60 seconds to review their drafted cards in between booster packs

Policy Additions

The following time limits are recommended for each round of a Multiplayer tournament:

  • For Swiss Rounds at Regular REL - 90 minutes + no extra turns time limit
  • For Swiss Rounds at Competitive REL - 75 minutes + 20 minutes extra turns time limit
  • For Single Elimination Matches - no time limit (with exceptions)

In the situation where players Intentionally Draw a game in a Single Elimination Match, it is recommended to apply the following restrictions:

  • A 150 minutes timer that starts counting since the beginning of the Round comes into effect after the first Intentional Draw.
  • After 150 minutes, pods that had one or more Intentional Draws are only allowed to continue playing as long as there other Pods still playing, that haven’t Intentionally Draw and thus aren’t subjected to the 150 minutes limit.
  • After 150 minutes, if there are no other pods still playing, that haven’t Intentionally Draw, the match follows the standard End-of-Round procedure for the Tournament.
  • It is recommended that the Finals do not impose any time limit, even after Intentional Draws.

Example:

During a Tournament Semifinals, Pod 1 is playing a 3-hour long grindy game. Pod 2 decided to Intentionally Draw a game at the 90 minute mark, hence triggering the 150 minutes timer, thus now having 60 minutes to reach a Match conclusion. After the 150 minutes have passed, they were made aware the Pod 1 is still playing and as such they are allowed overtime to continue playing, but that at any moment the Pod 1 finishes their match, they will have to wrap it up with the standard End-of-Round procedure for the event. As such, they had the chance to play for up to extra 30 minutes and find a Winner through playing a game of Magic. After Pod 1 finishes their Match, and Pod 2 finishes the End-of-Round procedure, if no Winner is found, then the player with the highest standing from Swiss Rounds in Pod 2 is considered the Winner and moves on to the Finals.

20-card Multiplayer Booster Drafts, with 2 picks per booster, have the following default time limits for each pick:

Cards remaining in pack Time allotted
20 cards 60 seconds
18 cards 60 seconds
16 cards 55 seconds
14 cards 50 seconds
12 cards 45 seconds
10 cards 35 seconds
8 cards 25 seconds
6 cards 15 seconds
4 cards 10 seconds
2 cards N/A

Appendix C – Tiebreaker Explanation

Original policy

Match Points

Players earn 3 match points for each match win, 0 points for each match loss and 1 match point for each match ending in a draw. Players receiving byes are considered to have won the match.

  • A player's record is 6–2–0 (Wins–Losses–Draws). That player has 18 match points (6*3, 2*0, 0*1).
  • A player's record is 4–2–2. That player has 14 match points (4*3, 2*0, 2*1).

Game Points

Game points are similar to match points in that players earn 3 game points for each game they win and 1 point for each game that ends in a draw, and 0 points for any game lost. Unfinished games are considered draws. Unplayed games are worth 0 points.

  • A player wins a match 2–0–0, so they earn 6 game points and their opponent receives 0 game points from the match.
  • A player wins a match 2–1–0, so they earn 6 game points and their opponent earns 3 game points from the match.
  • A player wins a match 2–0–1, so they earn 7 game points and their opponent earns 1 game point from the match.

Game points are not used in team tournaments; only the overall result of the match is used for tiebreakers.

Match-win percentage

A player’s match-win percentage is that player’s accumulated match points divided by the total match points possible in those rounds (generally, 3 times the number of rounds played). If this number is lower than 0.33, use 0.33 instead. The minimum match-win percentage of 0.33 limits the effect low performances have when calculating and comparing opponents’ match-win percentage.

Examples:

These three players competed in an 8-round tournament, although only the first player completed all rounds

Tournament Record Match Points Rounds Played Match-win Percentage
5-2-1 16 8 16/(8*3) = 0.667
1-3-0, then withdraws 3 4 3/(4*3) = 0.25, so 0.33 is used.
3-2-0, including a first-round bye, then withdraws 9 5 9/(5*3) = 0.60

Game-win percentage

Similar to the match-win percentage, a player’s game-win percentage is the total number of game points they earned divided by the total game points possible (generally, 3 times the number of games played). Again, use 0.33 if the actual game-win percentage is lower than that.

These two players competed in a four-round tournament:

Game Record by Match Game Points Games Played Game-win Percentage
  • Round 1: 2 wins (6 game points)
  • Round 2: 2 wins and 1 loss (6 game points)
  • Round 3: 1 win and 2 losses (3 game points)
  • Round 4: 2 wins (6 game points)
 21 10 21/(3*10) = 0.70
  • Round 1: 1 win and 2 losses (3 game points)
  • Round 2: 1 win and 2 losses (3 game points)
  • Round 3: 2 losses (0 game points)
  • Round 4: 1 win and 2 losses (3 game points)
 9 11 9/(3*11) = 0.27, so 0.33 is used.

Opponents’ match-win percentage

A player’s opponents’ match-win percentage is the average match-win percentage of each opponent that player faced (ignoring those rounds for which the player received a bye). Use the match-win percentage definition listed above when calculating each individual opponent’s match-win percentage.

Examples:

  • A player’s record in an eight-round tournament is 6–2–0. Her opponents’ match records were: 4–4–0, 7–1–0, 1–3–1, 3–3–1, 6–2–0, 5–2–1, 4–3–1, and 6–1–1, so her opponents’ match-win percentage is:

    $${12 \over 24} + {21 \over 24} + {4 \over 15} + {10 \over 21} + {18 \over 24} + {16 \over 24} + {13 \over 24} + {19 \over 24} \over 8 \text{ opponents}$$

    Translated to the decimal system, this equation is:

    $$0.50 + 0.88 + 0.33 \text{ (raised from 0.27)} + 0.48 + 0.75 + 0.67 + 0.54 + 0.79 \over 8$$

    With the individual match-win percentages added together, this equation becomes:

    $$4.94 \over 8$$

    This player's opponents' match-win percentage is 0.62

  • Another player’s record at the same tournament was 6–2–0. His opponents’ records were: bye, 7–1–0, 1–3–1, 3–3–1, 6–2–0, 5–2–1, 4–3–1, and 6–1–1, so his opponents’ match-win percentage is:

    $$0.88 + 0.33 \text{ (raised from 0.27)} + 0.48 + 0.75 + 0.67 + 0.54 + 0.79 \over 7$$

    With the individual match-win percentages added together, this equation becomes:

    $$4.44 \over 7$$

    This player's opponents' match-win percentage is 0.63

Opponents’ game-win percentages

Similar to opponents’ match-win percentage, a player’s opponents’ game-win percentage is simply the average game-win percentage of all that player’s opponents. And, as with opponents’ match-win percentage, each opponent has a minimum game-win percentage of 0.33.

Byes

When a player is assigned a bye for a round, they are considered to have won the match 2–0.

Thus, that player earns 3 match points and 6 game points. A player’s byes are ignored when computing their opponents’ match-win and opponents’ game-win percentages.

Match Points

Policy Additions

In Multiplayer Tournaments, players earn

\[{n + n \times ( 1 - ({1 \over n}) )}\]

match points for each match win, where n is the standard number of players in a Pod for that tournament.

The winner is the one that by the end of the round time has the most game wins or that before the end of the round time has achieved the required number of game wins.

In the case of a tie, all players in the pod are awarded 1 match point, including players that have fewer game points than the ones tied with most game points. Beware of the exceptions to this in rule 2.1. Match Structure (penalties and concessions).

Players that lost the match are awarded 0 points.

In Best-of-One matches, the match points can coincide with game points, since the required number of game wins is one.

A player who receives a bye in a Multiplayer tournament receives

\[{n + n \times ( 1 - ({1 \over n}) )}\]

match points, where N is the standard number of players in a Pod for that tournament.

For example, in a tournament with a typical pod composition of 4 players, the points per win is 7. This value is also used for any incomplete pods (with 3 players).

Game Points

Policy Additions

In Multiplayer Tournaments, players earn

\[{n + n \times ( 1 - ({1 \over n}) )}\]

game points for each game they win, where n is the standard number of players in a Pod for that tournament.

Each player who began a game that does not end with a winner being declared will earn 1 point.

Match-Win Percentage

Policy Additions

In Multiplayer Tournaments, the Match Win Percentage is defined as follows:

\[{\text{Match points} - (\text{Number of byes} \times \text{Points per win}) \over \text{Number of matches played} \times \text{Points per win}}\]

Opponents’ Average Match Points

Policy Additions

In Multiplayer Tournaments, Opponents’ Average Match Points is defined as follows:

\[{\text{(MP of opponent 1)} + \text{(MP of opponent 2)} + \text{...} + \text{(MP of opponent n)} \over n}\]

Note that Byes do not count towards n.

Opponents’ Match-Win Percentage

Policy Additions

In Multiplayer Tournaments, Opponent Match Win % is defined as follows:

\[{\text{(MW% of opponent 1)} + \text{(MW% of opponent 2)} + \text{...} + \text{(MW% of opponent n)} \over n}\]

When using the MW% of an opponent in the formula above, we don’t minimum-cap it to 0.33 when compared to Head-to-head tournaments.

Instead, the minimum-cap is defined by:

\[{1 \over \text{Points per win}}\]

When a player plays in a smaller size Pod, for example 3-player in a 4-player per pod event, an extra player with the minimum-cap win percentage should be considered as having played in that pod.

Appendix E – Recommended Number of Rounds in Swiss Tournaments

Original policy

The following number of Swiss rounds is required for Premier tournaments (such as Regional ChampionshipQualifiers). It may be used at the Tournament Organizer’s discretion for non-Premier tournaments.

Players (Teams) Swiss Rounds Playoff
4 (Team/2HG Only) 2 Single-Elimination Rounds (No Swiss) None (Run Single Elimination)
5-8 3 Single-Elimination Rounds (No Swiss) None (Run Single Elimination)
9-16 4 (if Limited Format with Booster Draft in Playoff)5 (All Other Formats) Top 8 (If Limited Format with Booster Draft in Playoff)Top 4 (All Other Formats)
17-32 5 Top 8
33-64 6 Top 8
65-128 7 Top 8
129-226 8 Top 8
227-409 9 Top 8
410+ 10 Top 8

Team tournaments consider each team as a single player for this purpose.

In tournaments where awarded byes are used, each player with a 1-round bye should count as 2 players, each player with a 2-round bye should count as 4 players, and each player with a 3-round bye should count as 8 players when using the above chart.

Policy Additions

For Multiplayer Tournaments, in a configuration of four (4) players per Pod, it is recommended to use the following number of rounds:

Players Swiss Rounds Playoff
4 None (Run 1 Single elimination round) None
5-15 2 Top 4
16-24 3 Top 10
25-32 4 Top 10
33-64 5 Top 16
65-128 6 Top 16
129-256 7 Top 40
257-512 8 Top 40
512+ 9 Top 64

In any case, you may want to consider splitting very large events into smaller ones that get merged afterwards, or split the event over multiple days, with cuts based on match points between each day

When the number of players is uneven with the desired Pod size, and smaller sized pods are used, consider that for each smaller size pod, it’s as if an extra invisible player is added to the event. Think of these invisible players as dummies that the players in the smaller size pod played against. So, in a scenario where you have 30 players enrolled in the event, because you will have to pair players into two 3-player pods, you should actually consider using a number of rounds as if you had 32 players, to account for the invisible players.

Credit

Initial document Created by Erin Leonard, Fábio Batista, and Graydon Beadle

Initial Consultation and editing by Landon Liberator, Bryan Spellman, Savannah Beard, Nicholas Hammond, Erin Leonard, Mark Mason, Tyler Bloom, and Ethan Smilg

Subsequent Contributions by the community via the github repository

  1. EDH_matchmaker open source ↩

  2. SquireBot open source, requires Discord ↩

  3. EMP free to use ↩

  4. Brainstorm TMS free to use ↩