ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ก.พ. 2024
- (2*) What is or is not allowed when trying to get your opponent to concede to you?
Support Judging FtW on Patreon at / judgingftw
Suggest a question: forms.gle/YTK2qrQqTL18rRsJ9
Improperly determining a winner, bribery, and aggressive behavior can get you disqualified - เกม
![[UNCUT] ที่นี่ที่แรก ปู - หาญส์ พูดถึงมหากาพย์หนี้สิ้น I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 10 ก.ค.67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KDNA9DZ0p4U/mqdefault.jpg)
1:59 During this game, Judge Dave decided to keep hidden the information of what is the text of "Improperly deciding a winner", even though he could have revealed the information if he wanted.
An old pro player shared a story of how he beat an opponent who was playing some combo deck and how he had mulligan'd to a hand with only lands and force of will. At some stage of the game, the combo player was concerned and said "I think I have the win as long as you don't have interaction" and the pro player simply flashed the force of will.
The combo player, thinking he was beat, conceded. The pro player had no way to pitch cast Force. Legendary.
I heard a story about LSV winning a tournament because the players conceded once he cast “burning wish,” but he actually wasn’t running a win-con in his side-board so he’d have the slot for more actual sideboard cards.
He actually forgot to put the win condition in by mistake. It wasn't an intentional gambit for 1 extra sideboard card, but it did work.
Should have just done the combo instead of asking about it, oh well.
@@epsteindidntkillhimself69 just to add a bit more, whenever he comboed, he was casting the wish with 4 open black mana. Opponents always assumed he was grabbing tendrils of agony and conceded.
He couldn't ever say he was grabbing Tendrils or that would be against the rules, but letting Opponents assume was ok
"you have to bolt me if you want to win" - me, showing how to act like a boss.
This is one of the problems of the "concede when you know you're defeated" courtesy. Sometimes you opponent doesn't see the lethal line but you did, and you'd still be expected to concede
@@julianogodoy964 naaaah I'd say you're not "expected to concede", as gambling on the chance your opponent doesn't see the win is a way to win, especially if it's the last game of the round. I've taken home some wins because my opponent didn't see their winning line while I knew they had it. It's there fault, knowing when you have a kill is a crucial part of the game
Make em have it!
A follow up question: in a multiplayer game, can you reveal information to just 1 player, or do you have to reveal it to everyone?
This was covered I think actually a couple days ago but if a card says reveal you reveal it to everyone. If a card says look only the player playing it gets to know that information. So yes for thoughtseize but no for deep-cavern bat.
Either player can say what cards are in your hand but only you can physically reveal them and either can lie.
@@MakeVarahHappen I meant reveal as in "i decide to reveal i have lightning bolt in my hand, just because i can"(like in the example in this video), not "a card says i have to reveal, so i follow game rules and do so"
Of additional note are cards like Glasses of Urza, which says "look at target player's hand".
@@rav5373 you'll note the references in the video are all to MTR entries (magic tournament rules) - they don't apply to regular games. Basically, it's up to your playgroup whether that's ok or not
BoshNRoll recently did a tournament report from a cEDH tournament where this came up. He wanted to reveal cards voluntarily to just one player, and a judge was called. It went all the way to the head judge I think and in the end it was ruled that you're only allowed to reveal cards if you reveal them to the whole table. Doesn't seem like there's a proper ruling or consensus on it though, and Bosh wasn't happy with it.
I always knew a player could always say whatever, but I didn't know that they could just reveal the cards.
It's important to note that this reveal is not part of the game, it's part of the tournament. The game doesn't see it as being revealed, and "controlling" the player does not let the "controller" reveal the player's hand.
@@LibertyMonk A player *is* allowed to reveal cards in their hand at any time, even during a game. Also, if you gain control of a player, you do also gain access to all private information that player has (cards in hand, but also face down cards in exile that only they may look at). You can't make the player reveal that information to other players (in a multiplayer game) directly, because that's not a game action. But you are allowed to tell other players what you see... and you're not allowed to lie about it.
@@Felixr2 Isn't that the opposite? You're allowed to say whatever so you can lie
@@laytonjr6601 I stand corrected, thanks!
Happens a lot in pro play. Players just show each other that card that decides the game without actually playing it out, which leads to a concession.
Even if the MTR 3.13 line wasn't a thing, you could put lightning bolt on the stack, but then fail to pay the mana cost and return it to your hand. 601.2a has the first step be placing the card onto the stack, and then in 601.2e the legality of the spell actually being cast is checked for legality.
The problem is that you would be doing this knowingly, to gain an advantage, and it's an illegal action to put a spell onto the stack without having the ability to cast it. And that's cheating.
I know "intentionally taking an illegal action is cheating" is the established/official position, but I think it's a terrible ruling. You're not breaking any rule in the CR or the MTR, any more than you are when you cause a spell to have an "illegal target" by giving your creature hexproof.
@artemiskearney8019 That's making a different action illegal though, not making an illegal action. And the action that became illegal was not illegal when taken. The issue is in intent, since knowingly taking an illegal action seems like fishing to see if your opponent realizes or not, which is cheating, or as an attempt to obfusticate what you're doing elsewhere, which is also potentially cheating.
@@bluerendar2194the thing is, proposing a spell that you won't be able to cast isn't taking an illegal action. It's perfectly legal to propose Lightning Bolt. Then, you check targets, and notice everything has shroud, which makes casting the spell illegal, and it gets backed up. But it wasn't illegal until the game checked.
Not that this case matters, the "you can just reveal it if you want" rule is basically specifically so that this argument doesn't have to be considered.
I also have no idea why the slippery slope argument of "if you're doing it on purpose, you might be trying to be sneaky" is flying. If we know their intent was to perform an illegal action, why are we assuming their intent was to have it not be noticed? If they explicitly call out "this isn't legal, here's what I'm doing" how can they possibly be trying to trick the opponent or judge?
Small error: 1:54 the text of the rule is black on the black background, making it nearly impossible to read. I assume it was just a small mistake in editing
Thanks for these daily rulings, they are great!
oh i didnt even notice there was text there xD i just assumed he made the grey box around the rule too big
Wait… There was actual text there? 😅
I just assumed he forgot to add it, or the details weren’t important lol
Say you take control of an opponent in Commander with Mindslaver. As you control them, are you allowed to reveal the cards in their hand to the table?
Really good question. Replying to see the answer. (Definitely a dick move either way but I'm curious what the rules say)
Revealing your cards of your own accord is not an in game action, so just like conceiding you can't make your opponent do it
No, but you are allowed to say what you see/don't see. Whether your fellow players believe you is a different case
It's Commander who TF cares.
Follow Up Question: I got this idea from MTG-Arena. Amy casts "Approach of the Second Sun" for the first time in the game. She then places the card (face-up) inside her library face-up 7th from the top. She does this because the location of that card became public knowledge. Are cards allowed to be face-up inside of a library?
On MTG-Arena, if you are in this position and your opponent has casted "Approach of the second sun" the client allows you to browse your opponents deck to see its last known location. If the deck is shuffled this information is lost.
Not an official judge so idk if it's written explicitly somewhere but most judges would probably rule that once the deck has been shuffled the location of the card has become hidden information for *both* players again, which is why Arena does that. You *knew* it was 7th from the top, *neither of you* should where it is after shuffling. You would almost certainly get a match loss at least. Would be akin to marked cards.
Arena doesn't actually flip them up. It's a QOL thing to mark cards previously revealed with an eye mark.
@@kylegonewild Not his query.
Thank you for your ruling as always, Dave. Very helpful. 😊
It baffles me how many people I've run into who believe it is illegal to reveal the cards in your hand. It's such a strange conclusion to draw and I have no idea where it could come from.
It's actual policy in Yugioh. Revealing cards in your hand or face-down on your field is against the rules. You're not even allowed to say what you have without revealing it or do anything that would imply you have specific cards.
It's the idea that revealing information will make your opponent play differently. Ignore feature matches, open decklist events and scouting, those don't count.
To follow up on the Yugioh Comment, the short handed term is, "youre not allowed to give your opponent MORE information than they are allowed to have."
For example, if someone casts a Thoughtseize, the entire hand is revealed and you get to get all information of the hand and revealed cards.
But if you cast a theorical Thoughtseize-like card that ONLY allows you to name a card and an opponent is "honor bounded" to discard it if it exists you arent allowed to directly challenge the player for refusing to prove they do not have the "named Card" but you are allowed to call a judge to look at an opponents hand for you to confirm (double confirm) that they indeed do not have that card. All because you are NOT entitled to "more information"
@@BanditZRaver I'm going to call a judge on the coverage team at the next YCS because I'm sure none of the featured players future opponents are supposed to have that information.
It's also why selective discard says "reveal." Needing to trust a stranger who will actively benefiting from your downfall is not a great situation to be in.
@@randommaster06 its the same shit like when certsi Infernity Players will scam the opponent out by setting a Monster in the S/T Zone to get 0 hand. You cannot call your opponent out on his bluff, you have to call a Judge to check if the Opponent has illegal cards in their S/T zones.
@@BanditZRaver YGO's great in a digital format where you can't cheat and all the effects are automatically tracked, but the irl rules feels like they only punish mistakes and give cheaters too many opportunities.
At this point, the tiny prize support is doing more to keep cheaters away than the actual rules.
These kind of questions are much much more interesting to me than A vs B vc C card effects, though those are also intersting
As long as it wasn't a scenario where I feel like I'd have objectively played differently if I knew the game wasn't about to run out of turns (ie: If I actually believe I both could and would have played around a bolt if I'd to worry about the upcoming turn) then I don't mind conceding moments like that usually. I don't play at super serious tournaments though, usually just pre-release sealed local game store tournaments, with ~20-40 people attending.
I know I have actually conceded matches in those tournaments that were much less obvious than this video's example. Like when I had an opponent who I personally believed was very clearly going to win, but there just wasn't enough turns for it and they were multiple turns off - and I'd already taken a game off them in the match so it wasn't out of the question for my deck to win or stay competitive. A judge approaching the table at that moment might not think the game is clear, but I personally knew I was out of gas and had no hope. (Especially since I'm aware I tend to be a slightly slower player who takes more time per turn relative to most MTG players, and so I feel bad if it's my fault that they couldn't win in time).
There have been two of those same local tournaments which I got first place in though, and while this didn't come up in either, I imagine my being in the running for first might change how I evaluate this -- guess I won't really know what I'd do in those scenarios until it comes up :)
I think that it sometimes saves time instead of going thru the motions.
So I'd allow the lightning bolt scenario or similar.
after saying that everything is allowed, i would argue about the own player's gameplay patterns. a lightning bolt could be played in the next turn, but maybe there are things in the game that make the player change strategies.
from the example given there are two possible scenarios:
1. if the LB player doesn't consider the five turns clock rule, they could cast LB in the next turn, but maybe they could have do it in the turn before but didn't because of fear of counterplay or the next turn ("turn 7") for the same reasoning.
2. if the LB player does consider the five turns clock rule, they could do everything to put the second player on 3 life exactly as a plan for then asking for a win at the end of turn 5
because rules and judges exist for a reason, i would stay on scenario 2 and ask if the two players could reenact turn 4 to see if indeed LB player played in that way (but i also know that a lot of people would be against me because they don't consider emotions logical for the sake of "impartial judgement")
If she feels that gameplay would have been different, Amy is free not to concede. She's actually free not to concede regardless, so there's no issue here.
This is a good one. I've been in this situation.
its interesting when the captions don't line up with what's actually said. i've noticed most of the time the changes are just paraphrasing in an attempt to create more clarity but its odd when entire sentences are missing. anyway, great video, the policy ones are usually most interesting imo
Happened to mo at a GP bologna modern long time ago. Had Splinter Twin combo in hand, showed it to oppo and asked him if he wanted to concede, and he told me "Cast it u'll see". Didnt casted it, he called judge. Wasnt even trying to be shady :o
I feel like asking in that way is trying to coerce them to concede.
So I'm a new player and I feel like I'm missing something, what's the point of doing all this if you can just bolt her at the start of your next turn
the game had gone over time so ends when her turn ends, he shows her the card to say 'i would win if i had the chance to play 1 more turn, will you give me the win?' it's up to you whether you think it's reasonable to give him the win or not, by tournament rules he has lost in overtime, but I think most players would agree he has at least a moral victory in that he had lethal it just took too long.
@@empty5013thank you for explaining this, but I now want to know what would have happened if he did nothing. Would that be a draw game? Sorry for the dumb question, I’m new to formal magic.
@@leovalenzuela8368 Yeah, if they were in game 1 or game 3 the drawn game would also draw the entire match, giving them each 1 point instead of the winner 3 points. Which can make a huge difference in the final prize distribution.
At 1:55 , the rules text for improperly determining a winner is black, and the contrast of the background makes it illegible. :(
If I was the judge I would rule that the reveal was allowed but also remind the players that no one is ever under any obligation to concede and that the opponent showing they could have cast lightning bolt next turn if the game hadn't ended to time isn't any different to if they did the same after the game had ended because they lost as in both scenarios the game still ended before they could win.
If this is a tournament with multiple prizes I would also remind them that the difference in a draw Vs a loss can absolutely matter in the final rankings and be the difference between prizes.
isn't the game already over once Amy ends her turn in this example? how could she concede even if she wanted to?
A player can't unilaterally decide that a turn is over. This is just like how if Amy says "pass turn", Nick can still crack a fetchland at the end of that turn. And in that case, Amy could then decide to do some other stuff on that turn even though she originally said she was done.
At MKM prerelease, i got 2 about equally good decks out of the sealed (RWg Aggro, UB control). Naturally, I couldn't decide for one of those, so I kept switching, prefering Aggro on the play and control on the draw.
For game 1, would I be able to choose my deck after knowing which player goes first? The local judge couldn't get a definitve answer through policy research.
... isn't that functionally sideboarding 40 cards? at an event, you only have your deck and your sideboard with you. and you can't sideboard once (or by the time) people have decided to play or draw
@@someguy1ification100.4b: "In limited play involving individual players, all cards in a player’s card pool not included in their deck are in that player’s sideboard." So it's perfectly fine to have a 40-card sideboard in a sealed event at any REL. But indeed you have to do your sideboarding before the die roll.
You have to present your deck before deciding play or draw.
In a prerelease, where there aren't decklists, the tournament uses continuous construction rules for limited. So you still get to decide to play either deck game 1 (but again, you have to pick before deciding play/draw).
In a higher REL event where you have to register a decklist, you have to de-sideboard after every match and present that decklist for each of your game 1s.
In multi-player, can you reveal/show cards to only one opponent? As in I want player B to know how I cann help them stop player C's win attempt. Do I have to reveal my interaction piece to the entire table? Or can I exclusively show only one opponent? Thanks
I think it's fair to say you can't force someone to reveal hidden information right? So if it came down to someone revealed a card to one person but not everyone the solution wouldn't be to break the same rule two more times? Although muligans let you know what's on the bottom of your library and that's bannanas so I'm pry off base there.
Anyone knows the implications for multiplayer-formats like commander? Am I allowed to reveal cards to only one opponent or is it either revealed or not?
You can reveal any hidden information you know that is not being explicitly restricted by some rule however you want. Example, you can't just whip out the 57th card in your library and show it to the opponents. Neither you nor your opponents are supposed to know that information (unless you scried several dozen I guess). You *can* lean over to one of the players and show them the perfect answer to some other person's major threat and propose a quid pro quo or just because you find it hilarious/poetic/ironic/whatever. It is SUPER obvious you're scheming if you're only showing your cards to a subset of the players though, unless it's one of those classic "look at this fuckin hand man I'm so out of this game right now."
@@kylegonewild Well, scheming isnt against the rules either^^
Thanks a lot!
I think these rules have such high penalties because the stakes are just so high. If someone cheats somehow and misrepresents hidden information to try to get someone to concede, that should absolutely result in them getting a loss or DQ as it's basically the only punitive escalation of what they were trying to do.
The stakes are way higher than that, improperly determining a winner doesn't just cheat someone out of their prize, it undermines the integrity of the tournament, and the competitive environment as a whole (to a lesser degree). If you roll a die to decide who wins, you're not playing Magic, or the game of Magic didn't matter to your match results. Any other way you determine it besides "who won the game" is the same thing, the game isn't what mattered.
For a player, draws are typically not much better than a loss. For a tournament, avoiding a draw by picking a random winner is an existential threat to its legitimacy.
I think the wrong word may be being used here, as reveal is an actionable word a card asks you to do, and showing a card to someone wont cause other cards that affect the reveal mechanic to trigger, if that makes sense
This was my first thought as well.
I think it is also part of why some players might assume this sort of thing would be an illegal action.
What about multiplayer games? In commander it can happen cards are shown to certain opponents, but not the entire table (as a means of showing they have the removal they promised or something). I would say that is unfair, but if its allowed then sure.
In draft what is the appropriate amount of attention to call to double faced cards?
I know that the most recent card drafted is revealed if it's DFC but should I say what I pick out loud?
Imo letting your neighbors know the color of your picks can be beneficial
I may be wrong, but I believed they retired the requirement to indicate if you drafted a DFC sometime in the last few years. The ruling shown just says you CAN.
So in the most recent PT Streams, the feature drafters revealed all double-sided cards to the whole table upon pack opening. Some amount of time was given for the players to look around and try to remember the cards, but after that no declarations were made when those cards were drafted.
I do think those drafts are more strict than those some have in their LGSs though, as they are not allowed to even refer to their drafted cards while looking through a pack that was passed to them. Only between packs were they allowed to have a quick look at their draft piles, and once a new pack was opened, they could not touch that pile until the pack was done.
I'm only an L1, so take this with a grain of salt, but: the current version of the MTR doesn't require that anyone announce or reveal anything, but since DFCs have no standard card back, players _may_ (i.e. they are allowed to) reveal DFCs at any time.
When a player drafts a card, they _must_ place it face-down _on top_ of the rest of their pool. In this way, it is generally impossible for a player to conceal their act of drafting a DFC, because the back face will be visible to all players. As above, you do not need to announce the drafted card. At Regular REL, this is often not enforced, and it is often difficult to see all players' face-down pools anyway, because players usually don't draft at circular tables like they do at the Pro Tour feature match area.
The original (but no longer current) ruling when DFCs were introduced with the release of _Innistrad_ in 2011, was as follows: When a booster pack pack is _opened,_ all DFCs should be announced/revealed to all players. Once again, at Regular REL, this was rarely enforced.
@@GFreeGamer It is required at Competitive REL that players not look at their picks whilst a pack is being drafted. After pack 1, players get 60 seconds to review. After pack 2, players get 90 seconds to review.
At Professional REL, such as at the Pro Tour, the act of drafting itself is also timed, with a fixed amount of seconds assigned to each particular pick of each particular card in a pack. In this way, an entire draft takes about 18 minutes. See MTR Appendix B1 for the exact durations.
@@JivanPal Thanks for the info, wasn't fully aware of all that!
Couple things i was wondering.
If revealed cards are put into a library, can any player be able to see where those cards are at any given point in the library, or have them be put into the library face-up, and it a player has revealed cards in their hand do they have to keep those revealed until the end of the game?
I don't think there's any effect that reveals cards not on the top of your library and then leaves them there.
If a static effect reveals the cards in your hand, you only keep them revealed for as long as the static effect says.
If a resolving spell or ability that doesn't state a duration reveals cards in your hand, you only reveal it once while that part of the effect is resolving.
Ok, follow up question: if your opponent is struggling to make a decision and you say 'if it helps I have this lightning bolt for the win next turn?' (revealing the bolt and for the sake of this conversation having the mana and everything else they need), does this affect judge calls for slow play?
I was just asking this earlier today
I always assumed that since the assist mechanic specifically allows you to reveal the card with assist and discuss paying the mana cost that you couldnt just reveal any cards. But hey, the more you know
Assist actually doesn't have any inherent rules associated to it that let you 'reveal' the card. It just only does something right after determining the total cost of a spell (as part of the casting process), at which point the card has already been revealed... because that happens when you propose casting the spell.
@@Felixr2 wow, I just checked the comprehensive rules and you're absolutely right. I was going off of the gatherer ruling for cards with assist, which says you may reveal a card with assist and discuss payment before beginning to cast it
@@wombatrepellant9809And the gatherer ruling is correct, specifically because you may reveal the cards in your hand at any time anyway.
So when players offer to draw the final match and chop the prizes is that not offering some sort of value? I never understood how that was legal.
They don't tend to offer a draw. It's usually agreed upon beforehand outside the event that the prize pool is combined and split evenly regardless of who takes the match win, and that's much harder to enforce because both players can play as effectively as they are able and still end up splitting the prize.
There’s an exception written into the rules specifically for the last round. The Magic Judge website says “This exception was carved out for old school PTQs where the winner would get an invite to the event and there were pack prizes for 1st and 2nd place. This allowed the players to work out an agreement where the player who wanted the invite gets the invite, and the player that wanted the packs get the packs.”
… I agree, it’s weird that it’s allowed.
Welp, guess I'm guilty of rule breaking. A few times at prereleases, we were running out of time, so we decided to roll to see who won. We would then split the prize packs, and the "winner" would get the extra pack if there was an odd number.
I have a question with a weird interaction. If I cast mineoplasm, and am trying to have it enter as a copy of tyrranax rex, is mineoplasm still counterable
When you cast the Mimeoplasm, it enters the stack. As long as it is on the stack, it can be countered. You decide what the Mimeoplasm will copy, (if anything), only after your opponent passes priority to let the Mimeoplasm to resolve, after which it can no longer be countered anyways. Tyrranax rex's ability makes no difference to that. So if your opponent for example thinks you can't use the Mimeoplasm's ability because you only have 1 card in your graveyard, but doesn't realize you can use a card from their graveyard, by the time he lets you choose the cards it is too late to counter it. So in some scenarios you might only want to reveal what cards you intend to exile after you have confirmed that the Mimeoplasm resolves.
I'm not 100% sure about this part, I'm not a judge or anything, but it seems the Mimeoplasm's ability modifies the event of it entering the battlefield, which would mean it can't be countered by effects like Stifle either, since the effect doesn't use stack.
Actually, the stifle interaction works exactly like I said. Apparently it is a replacement effect. I thought all replacement effects use the word "instead", and didn't remember hearing about modification effects, but apparently a lot more effects are replacement effects than I thought, including effects that read "As [this permanent] enters the battlefield . . . ,".
This is absolutely not related, however, I'm curious. I once received a match loss in the semi final of a PPTQ. I was nervous going this far in a 64 player tournament. I hadn't realised but I actually was one card short. I'd dropped an Arcbound Ravager at the end of the last match. The judge was given the card but waited until the beginning of the semi-final when I presented my deck to issue me a match loss. He'd had the card for over an hour as my soon to be opponent was playing UW control. Should I have been given the match loss or should the judge return my card immediately?
yes, you should have been given the match loss for presenting an illegal deck of 59 cards. you had every opportunity up to you presenting the deck to your opponent to count the number of cards in your deck and determine that there is a card missing, and the judge would have (hopefully) handed you the missing card that you misplaced. the judges aren't your baby sitter or your parents, it's your responsibility to keep track of your own shit. now, a different question, is the judge being a dick to you? absolutely, handle that as you see fit.
@@jedismasher He knew the card belonged to me, had it in his possession for over an hour and didn't return it to me before the next match? Surely that's outside the realm of reason. At the very least it's fucking shifty behavior
@@vb_blokeboi7251 he's got a job, and it ain't courier
What if you reveal cards In a way to misrepresent what they are. There was a story a few months back of a player flashing a bolt and another 1 red mana spell at their opponents life pad at end step. To which the opponent began scooping their cards up, indicating a concession
There was there was a lot of "interesting" discourse about that one I recall
I should note that Magic Arena lets you look at cards you already looked at off the top of your library using a card like Ponder, so a lot of players who got in through Arena might see nothing wrong with such a seemingly natural course of action
Short answer ... YES.
Long answer : This video.
How about if the finals match is about to begin and the two players decide to split the prizes. And they also agree who gets the 1st place finish technically, even though they never played the match?
This is allowed because there's a callout in the MTR for this specific situation that says it's okay. There are some historical reasons for this, but it basically boils down to if there are only two people left in the event, then whatever they agree to, it doesn't really affect anybody else.
In a Legacy game against Stasis in a semi-friendly tournament at my LGS, the Stasis player was always complaining at the time I took to play my turns (he was also kinda new to the LGS, he recently moved in the city)...
Bitch, you're playing Stasis, don't complain when your opponents have to think about their next five turns each turn because of YOUR cards (Stasis and Back to Basics, mostly) that make mana a very rare commodity.
And even if I took some time to think of my plays, it was still less than the time HE took to play his turns, it was at the time Sensei Divining Top was legal and he spent a LOT of time scrying his cards and thinking his plays...
Anyways, I won the first game because I was playing Goblins and managed to get a hasty Piledriver with a few other Goblins for lethal, and the second game started with 15 minutes left on the timer...
I was heavily behind during the second game, but eventually, it came to active turns, and I managed to survive until the fifth turn. So it was 1-0-1 for me. He told me I was dead next turn on board (it was true), and that if I hadn't stalled he would have won to tie the result, so it would only be fair if I conceded the second game... I said nope, obviously. He was expecting me to concede instead of playing the game, but the thing is, I still had a way to potentially win the game within my deck (I didn't draw it, but I still could have won).
He then called the judge (we never do that at my LGS, we usually resolve rules issues between us), and he wanted to make me lose because of waste of time and unsportsmanship for not conceding. The judge (which is the owner) basically told him what I said in me second sentence of this comment, if you don't want to go to time, don't play Stasis, and he got called out for the time HE took to play his turns, and that HIS actions were lacking sportsmanship...
He immediately yelled that we all were [insert insults], and stormed out of the place without finishing the tournament...
To what you said about improper victors, would you and your opponent agreeing to draw when you're about to go to game 3 with only two or three minutes left on the round clock be acceptable>
If both players acknowledge that they have a negligible chance of winning within the remaining round time and just agree to draw to save everyone's time, that's perfectly acceptable. Unofficially, I can tell you that judges wish more players would adopt this practice, and the only reason we don't actively encourage it is because suggesting it to players in a real match is kinda rude.
how is it looking at extra cards when revealing the top card of their library when in your scenario this is after t5 of turns at the end of the round which means the game is over
It's never a good idea to reveal your card no matter what. Your opponent can have a discard effect or in this example a sorcery that gives you life back etc...
Kinda sounds like the player at 3 life was angleshooting for a game loss to their opponent for revealing the bolt 😂
To turn it around, what if Nick plays a blue/white land on turn one. Amy, not wanting to waste more time than necessary playing against UW control, offers to Nick that if he can show that he is indeed playing UW control by revealing a counterspell or some such card, she will concede on the spot? Is this legal, or is Amy forced to play long enough for her opponent to actually counter one of her spells?
So I could reveal cards from my hand, or my facedown Morph creatures, but can I also reveal e.g. my facedown card exiled with Intet, the Dreamer?
I would assume that works the same as the Sphinx of Jwar Isle example, so you can reveal it if you want to. In both cases the card is hidden, but another card is saying you can look at it at any time.
I think the rule of thumb is that any information that is known to you can be shared if you want, but you can't reveal information that would be unknown to you like showing your opponent the bottom of your deck or something.
@@christopherlundgren1700 or exile face down without the 'you can look at it' text (which is in MKM)
In my group, if for example someone casts Duress on anyone, the player will keep the cards revealed, instead of his/her opponents having to make notes of what cards were revealed - much easier.
easier for everyone else not for me trying to remember what these flipped around cards are in my hand lol
@@LivingWildLive Heh, well, you can just keep the revealed cards on the table.
I'll toss any match if my opponent offers to buy me a pizza! 😛
Just make sure you never let a judge hear you say that (even joking; many judges have zero sense of humor about this topic)
banding
What about timing though?
We've already agreed (from your synopsis) that Amy has already ended her turn. As that was the fifth turn in ET, the game (and the round) is now over for them. Once the turn ends, it's a draw.
Can a player concede after a result has already happened?
A player can't unilaterally decide that a turn is over. This is just like how if Amy says "pass turn", Nick can still crack a fetchland at the end of that turn. And in that case, Amy could then decide to do some other stuff on that turn even though she originally said she was done.
@@JudgingFtW okay. From your description, you said it was done after the turn, not that she had tried to move to the end of turn, so I assumed that they both agreed that the turn was over.
Thanks for the clarification, it's appreciated
So... revealing bolt is ok but asking concede to opponent is a way too much? Am i understanding right?
Why would he even ask if he'd win anyways? Is there any advantage of a concede for either the loser or winner? I guess its just a bad mannered move to assert dominance or maybe if I understanmd right its a weird format that ends on turn 5?
Many times, a win in the last round will give the winning player a slot in the top 8, whereas a draw would knock both players out. In such cases, it's very common for a player in a clearly losing board state to concede, since there's basically no functional difference between a draw and both players losing.
It's not the fifth turn of the game, it's the fifth extra turn after time has run out for the round. After time is called, the current active player is on Extra Turn 1, and the game ends in a draw if neither player has won by the end of Extra Turn 5. So at the end of Amy's turn, the game is a draw, Nick can't untap to cast the Bolt.
Ah that makes sense, I never played outside my friends group
Obviously it'd be a massive douche move in casual multiplayer games, but this would technically allow stuff like "show your hand or I hit you for 10"
wouldn't that be coercion and a game loss on your part? lol
like in tournament or is that already covered in a video on here lol
What about laying out the results of Nic losing vs Amy losing. "If I win, I will get 4 packs and you get 0; If you win I will get a pack and you will get 1 pack. Would you concede to me?
That sounds like either offering a prize split in exchange for a concession (illegal) or like a condescending dismissal of Amy's event results (legal, but fuck you buddy I'll take my pack)
Question: If I use Halsin to turn a food into a bear, then I populate, will the new token revert back into a food and why?
The new token is a Food.
707.2. The copiable values are the values derived from the text printed on the object. Other effects (including type-changing and text-changing effects) are not copied.
I don't care about the question so much, I wouldn't like to see Nick going around telling everybody they should have won after and even worse if he does anything unsporting after while being salty, that's where the big issue might lie.
So it's allowed... ?
Amy? You mean karen?
Not allowed to suck toes to get a match win 😞
Just don't let the judge hear you set up the arrangement (or arrange to suck the judge's toes to ignore it, but that's a slippery slope...)
intentional draws to make top 8 are illegal under the rules but Judges just let people do it
How should MTR:3.13 be applied to the contents of my opponents hand in a multiplayer format - when it is hidden info that I legitimately have access to (i.e., because I cast a Gitaxian Probe)?
I understand that I can verbally share the contents of my opponents hand with the other players, but do I have the power to prove I’m telling the truth by making my opponent reveal their hand to all players? Many EDH tournaments use this as a convention, but I’m not sure if this is just a short-cut / “rule 0” policy or grounded in the comp. rules.
My interpretation here is that I can “reveal” my opponent’s hand to other players because it is “hidden information available to me.”
"Look at" isn't the same as "reveal." I don't think there's anything stopping you from saying what was in the opponent's hand, but there is NO WAY the rules should be able to force that player to reveal their hand to all players when not all players have been given access to that info.
So,,,, a player that says; "Since you can't make top 8 and I can, do you mind losing ?" COULD be DQ'ed, or should be ?
You can certainly ask your opponent to concede, but you can't offer anything or coerce them to do so.
The phrasing of the question matters, though.
what about "Since I make the next PT with this win, do you mind losing?" like Marc Tobiasch hahaha. should be DQ
Jerk move, but are you allowed to reveal hidden information of opponents while you can look to third party players?
Example: You cast Gitaxian Probe targeting a player, and show the uninvolved players the hand.
The rules don't really cover multiplayer outside of 2HG so there's nothing specifically written. General rule of thumb would likely be that you are free to tell other players what cards you see, and they are free to believe you or not, but you could not physically reveal someone else's hand/library even if you are allowed to look at it.
It's wild to me that Konami has the Yugioh rules forbid revealing, or even talking about hidden information.
It's something about influencing your opponent's actions, which makes no sense to me.
"i would have won next turn, do you concede?" "there is no next turn so you wouldnt have. the game is over, no win for you." thats the only rule i need. there's no what ifs..
"should Amy concede" wasn't the question though
Never concede!
So if you are in a competition where let’s say this would be a draw and a draw is basically a loss for both players, there is nothing wrong with this. Also, if a player can make top 8 or some qualification but the other cannot, again there is nothing wrong. I see it all the time and even though you don’t have to concede by any means, let’s be real… you are a douche for holding someone back when you can’t or couldn’t have done better.
Amy is the worst kind of person.
Question: Why doesn't Nick just shut the hell up and cast the Lightning Bolt during his upkeep after he untaps? Is it a pride thing? Does he get more points the fewer turns he takes in a game?
In tournament Magic, the rounds have a time limit; otherwise Magic tournaments probably wouldn't end until 4:30 AM the next morning. After reaching that time limit, the players finish the current turn and take five additional turns. If there is no winner by the end of that process, the game is recorded as a draw, regardless of the board state. Because Magic uses 3 points for a win, but only 1 point for a draw, drawn matches are generally bad, essentially equivalent to a loss for both players in some situations. Therefore, it's a relatively common practice for players who are clearly behind on board, but not enough so to lose in those five turns, to concede as a matter of sportsmanship.
Dave your judgement is correct, but you're mistaken on the rules. MTR are an addendum to the CR, the CR lays the foundations of how to play.
CR rule 402.3 stipulates that you can't view another players hand.
The MTR says "unless it contravenes a rule" meaning any rule within the CR.
Please understand it's the Elder Dragon Highlander players that continually flout this rule, don't let them make you make this mistake.
As a judge you're meant to embody the rules and spirit of Magic, so your judgement is fine, but based on an oversight, that is perpetuated by Judge App and the notorious EDH players!!
Thanks.
I disagree with you that people in Amy's position should always call for a judge, nor could it ever be a DQ (in fact I would say the judge who disqualified someone in that instance should himself have his player and judge cards destroyed and be banned from all Wizard's games for life for such a egregiously wrong ruling) . Given the wording of the situation, he is not saying that she should concede, heck he is not even asking her to concede, he is asking if she would consider conceding. Yes that is a fine line difference, but as is often the case in MtG, fine line differences are important and asking your opponent is never illegal.
The thing is, MTGO allows you to do this too, you can reveal cards in your hand at the end of a match, but you can't show the top of your library, the player can however look at the cards they would have drawn, to see how they could improve if at all.