Hi !

We are planing on haveing a tournament att our local store.The TO is participateing and there is a 2nd TO.

Is the TO alowed to win prices in the torunament ?

Rumors says TO's cant win prices ?

Sinerly

Kaprylo

For local tournaments, I'd say do as you wish. It also depends very much on the prizes.

it's the game night kit.

Crysis and melenge mostly.

Is there any offical ruleing on this ?

The Tournament Rules are the most official rulings you're likely to get. I don't believe that they address the issue.

Why listen to rumors ? Rules say TO can play as long as there is two doesn't say they are unable to win.

Kaprylo said:

Not against the rules, as long as there is a second TO to judge the matches in which the first participates. Personally, though, I think it's a little unethical sometimes if the TO (usually an employee of the LGS where the tourney is being held) wins prizes that his/her store bought and has complete access to.

But that's just my opinion. By the rules, TOs should be able to win prizes as long as they participate in the tournament.

There are extra copies of Crypsis and Melange in the Game Night Kits specifically for the TO. I don't see why he or she should have access to extra copies of a prize he or she already gets when there may be players who miss out completely.

Khudzlin said:

This. If the TO designed the tournament, then they should not receive any prizes (and should yield first place itself if they would otherwise win it) because they had an unfair advantage. If it's a standard format tournament and there is only one prize, the TO should yield it to the next best player. If there are multiple prizes, then it's OK for the TO to take first prize.

etherial said:

Why ? If the TO gets first place then they get the prize. Why prevent them from doing so ? The only way a TO can play is if there is multiple TOs present so it is not like they have some kind of unfair advantage. If they are the best player and they win they have earned the prize(s) for first place.

Toqtamish said:

Because it discourages people from coming back if they feel they are only playing so the TO can give himself a prize.

Well, the TO participating in his own tournament is a difficult matter. This is why there needs to be at least a second TO, but if the TO actually wins the Turnament it leaves for some people (me included) a bad taste behind. Here is why:

The TO has an advantage no other player has, he knows the decklists of each participant in the tournament and therefore all weapons they have at their disposal. Sure its not typical to remember all the cards of each player but haveing checked all decks for legality he most likely knows some special cards he wouldn´t generaly see in decks of the same type and knows where he has to be careful. He knows exactly who playes Fast advance and who whants to tag a player.

If you personally know the TO and play against him when there are no tournaments, you most likely don´t care that much about this fact then people who came to the turnament and lose against the TO.

I think its a delicate matter, because excluding the TO from winning prizes, would mean that there are less people inclinded to organize a tournament and therefore support the local gaming meta.

The people who check decks or decklists must not play in the tournament (I don't know if this is in the tournament rules, but it's so obvious to me it doesn't even need to be). Additionally, if your tournament is small enough that there is no non-player organizer (like a FLGS tournament with 20 people), I think it's unnecessary to check decks.

Khudzlin said:

I think having your first round opponent check your deck after the match is a practical solution if you have a large/important enough tournament but can't call in outside help. After that first game, sure there are some cards they won't have seen yet, but the chances of your playing against them a second time are minimal.

That's a good solution. Swiss rounds actively avoid repeat matches.

Khudzlin said:

But isn´t it one of the TOs resposibilities to check decks for legality?

sharoth said:

It is, but the rules don't specify the means by which the TO must do this - it's permissible for the TO to delegate this responsbility at his or her discretion.