Hello members of the MTG Salvation community! I have a bit of an odd question to those people, that began playing Magic: The Gathering right when it just came out in 1993 (Limited Edition Alpha or Beta or Unlimited).
Recently, due to curiosity, i've found the Limited Edition Alpha rulebook online and read it carefully, and have noticed that the rulebook states nothing about conceding or surrendering. Moreso, if the rules within the rulebook are followed very narrowly, one can always disagree about something during a game and take his cards and leave, and the game will be considered a draw. Technically, a player can always find something to disagree about (especially if he is losing the game and does not want to lose his ante). What further caught my attention is the card "Demonic Attorney" which states that "If opponent doesn't concede the game immediately, each player must ante an additional card from the top of his or her library". So a concept of "conceding" was present on one of the cards, but was not present in the rulebook. Why would a player concede if (given that the rules within the rulebook are being followed precisely) he can disagree with something and take his deck and ante, thus ending the game in a draw? So in general i have two questions, how did people play back in those days, when the rules were somewhat more vague? And what was the first rulebook that included conceding as an option to the conditions of the game. I do understand that when MTG just came out, it could not have been completely clear and accurate in terms of some more minor details, after all, it is the first CCG out there, and time was needed to get it polished. But still, for me it is interesting to read the memories of players that played MTG when it just came out! Thanks for your time and comments guys!
My friends and I never played for ante, and I dont know that I ever bothered to look at any rule books post 4th Edition. But I do remember playing LOTS of Black.....
Your question is not a good fit for this forum, which generally deals with current rules, not issues on how the oldest rules in the game worked or how players might have played under those rules. Try asking this question in the Magic General forum instead.
Your question is not a good fit for this forum, which generally deals with current rules, not issues on how the oldest rules in the game worked or how players might have played under those rules. Try asking this question in the Magic General forum instead.
Understood. My apologies, perhaps a moderator will move this thread to an appropriate place.
The original intent was always to be played for ante, so conceding by it's nature is counterproductive. Demonic Attorney forces the player to give up on the ante card, or up his ante and play on. Conceding in a game for ante is much less likely to happen than in today's magic.
Also, while Anteing cards sounds pretty brutal by todays standards, back then the cards had no where near the worth they are at today and the game was way more casual. A lot of players in their 30s like myself started playing around the period Ante was a thing or was being slowly phased out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
I'm a former judge (lapsed), who keeps up to date on rules and policy. Keep in mind that judges' answers aren't necessarily more valid than those of people who aren't judges; what matters is we can quote the rules to back up our answers. When in doubt, ask for such quotes.
In the end, nobody can "force" you to give another player a card.
Ante is a game rule for some kind, but you are still doing it willingly, or you just dont do it at all.
In a lot of countries its just illegal to play for ante and the concept got completly removed.
----
I understand, i just find it a bit odd that conceding was written as an idea on one of the ante cards but yet was not written in the rulebook as one of the losing conditions. I guess what i am trying to say is that when a card is at stake (regardless of how unimportant it seemed back in 1993), the winning/losing conditions could have been written a bit more clearly in the rulebook. Again, i do understand that for the first edition of the first CCG ever made, grasping every little rule within the rulebook would have been impossible. Does anybody know when conceding was first mentioned in MTG rules?
I understand, i just find it a bit odd that conceding was written as an idea on one of the ante cards but yet was not written in the rulebook as one of the losing conditions. I guess what i am trying to say is that when a card is at stake (regardless of how unimportant it seemed back in 1993), the winning/losing conditions could have been written a bit more clearly in the rulebook. Again, i do understand that for the first edition of the first CCG ever made, grasping every little rule within the rulebook would have been impossible. Does anybody know when conceding was first mentioned in MTG rules?
I remember people going crazy with Mindslaver and the option to simply say "I concede" for the players choice (ofcourse even commonsence will tell you that wont work, and judges simply overruled it right away , and they later made it much clearer that this is not a option you have).
It wasnt that super clear that you couldnt do that , as conceding isnt really a game action at all, its just something you can do every time, more like a meta-action (like you can rip cards in pieces, the game doesnt really have a "rule" for that, the card is just gone etc.).
So for some crazy actions, the game doesnt give super specific rulings, especially as its very clear that you "can" do that, just concede go away and thats it.
----
I cant remember an actual "tournament" that used Ante even in the very beginning i played.
And even in casual games super early, Ante was never really used, nobody ever did play with it (but i am from Germany, maybe others actually did).
Moreso, if the rules within the rulebook are followed very narrowly, one can always disagree about something during a game and take his cards and leave
What do you mean with this? What would make you be able to use a disagreement to avoid losing your ante?
"During the course of a game, a dispute that you cannot solve by referencing the rules may occur. If both players agree, you can resolve the difference for the current game with a coin toss. After the duel, you can come to a decision about how you want to play such a situation in the future. If the players don't agree to a coin toss, both players retrieve their ante and the duel is a draw."
The way i see it, this paragraph can be used as an excuse for a player that is losing the game (or feels that he will lose it) but does not want such an outcome. If two players don't agree with something, they take their decks and antes and leave, and the game is a draw. The excuse itself can be pretty much anything (again, given that the players are playing strictly along the rules of the rulebook without any alteration).
Obviously, people played for fun, and as TheOnlyOne652089 mentioned, i do understand that most of these lesser terms (like conceding) were present during matches between people, even though they were not present as an official part of the rules. But still, what i am saying is that if there was a match where one player did not want to lose his ante or just felt that the game is not fair (it was a new game at that point after all, not everyone quickly grasped all the concepts and rules), he could have found a reason to end a match in a draw.
"During the course of a game, a dispute that you cannot solve by referencing the rules may occur. If both players agree, you can resolve the difference for the current game with a coin toss. After the duel, you can come to a decision about how you want to play such a situation in the future. If the players don't agree to a coin toss, both players retrieve their ante and the duel is a draw."
The way i see it, this paragraph can be used as an excuse for a player that is losing the game (or feels that he will lose it) but does not want such an outcome. If two players don't agree with something, they take their decks and antes and leave, and the game is a draw. The excuse itself can be pretty much anything (again, given that the players are playing strictly along the rules of the rulebook without any alteration).
This was more about the fact that they knew the rules at the time wouldn't be all inclusive of any situation that may occur. And they were looking for ways that players could resolve situations that might spring up that hadn't been covered before.
Additionally, these rules came out back before there was the internet. There wasn't really a good communication tool that WotC could let players know about rule changes that might take place. The Duelist Magazine didn't start getting published until the Fall of 1993 and even then it was quarterly for while. These days, with instant access to information, these types of rulings get addressed immediately and are published via various resources.
I've played many, many games through the years, and I don't recall any of them specifying that you could just concede the win to your opponent. Why would they even include a rule saying you could give up? Every game has that option.
I started in 93 also and we never even considered playing for ante (other than a brief time where we playing the 250 format in the early 2000s). It never even crossed our minds that we weren't allowed to quit whenever we wanted.
Also turn 1 Swamp -> Dark Ritual -> Sol Ring -> Juggernaut for life.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH playing competitive Magic cast away
Current Decks GTitania midrange RGThromok tokens/goodstuff | UB Grimgrin zombie tribal GW Sigarda enchantress | R Godo voltron U Braids aggro | WR Kalemne punisher RU Mizzix storm | BUG Mimeoplasm competitive reanimator | UG Ezuri infect
Honestly, I never played a game that was that serious back then. People weren't as competitive and didn't scrutinize the rules nearly as much as they do today. I have never seen a card lost to ante that wasn't immediately given back out of good sportsmanship...except to my older brother (because that's what brothers do!). So, I think the answer to your question is: this level of rules hawking was unprecedented and frankly would have been decided by players, spectators, and "judges" (who kind of also didn't exist back then) entirely by commonsense and decency.
The original intent was always to be played for ante, so conceding by it's nature is counterproductive. Demonic Attorney forces the player to give up on the ante card, or up his ante and play on. Conceding in a game for ante is much less likely to happen than in today's magic.
lol... I've always thought the original intent was playing for ante too.
Actually, deep down inside my dark mind, I believe a good portion of the game was inspired from an 'Simon and Simon' episode that took place inside a collectible baseball card convention. Sorry, I'm not sure what the episode was called but I do remember two collectors flipping cards off a wall and took whatever the card landed on. Sort of reminded me of chaos orb.
@Cardster
I know a lot magic players don't want to believe this but the designed of the game did have poker playing in mind. Playing cards like Demonic Attorney made sense if there was money on the table.
The way i see it, this paragraph can be used as an excuse for a player that is losing the game (or feels that he will lose it) but does not want such an outcome. If two players don't agree with something, they take their decks and antes and leave, and the game is a draw. The excuse itself can be pretty much anything (again, given that the players are playing strictly along the rules of the rulebook without any alteration).
Well I can tell you, that excuse would work exactly once on each opponent, and you'd start finding yourself with a lack of people willing to play with you.
There wasnt a need to define Conceding in the rulebook, as it was simply commonly understood to mean you gave up on the game, which would mean you lost whatever Ante you might have put up. But honestly, back in the day, at least in casual Magic, folks usually played till the bitter end.
I'm not sure about other areas, but here in Denver, Ante was rarely used even in the early days. Occasionally people would specifically agree to play for Ante, but otherwise it was usually ignored. I do recall a brief period where people played with 'false Ante', where the top card of your library was removed from the game before play- I wonder if that would be an interesting way to introduce variance today... (Ooops, your Draw-Go Control deck Ante'd it's one wincon, sucks to be you...)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Recently, due to curiosity, i've found the Limited Edition Alpha rulebook online and read it carefully, and have noticed that the rulebook states nothing about conceding or surrendering. Moreso, if the rules within the rulebook are followed very narrowly, one can always disagree about something during a game and take his cards and leave, and the game will be considered a draw. Technically, a player can always find something to disagree about (especially if he is losing the game and does not want to lose his ante). What further caught my attention is the card "Demonic Attorney" which states that "If opponent doesn't concede the game immediately, each player must ante an additional card from the top of his or her library". So a concept of "conceding" was present on one of the cards, but was not present in the rulebook. Why would a player concede if (given that the rules within the rulebook are being followed precisely) he can disagree with something and take his deck and ante, thus ending the game in a draw? So in general i have two questions, how did people play back in those days, when the rules were somewhat more vague? And what was the first rulebook that included conceding as an option to the conditions of the game. I do understand that when MTG just came out, it could not have been completely clear and accurate in terms of some more minor details, after all, it is the first CCG out there, and time was needed to get it polished. But still, for me it is interesting to read the memories of players that played MTG when it just came out! Thanks for your time and comments guys!
Your question is not a good fit for this forum, which generally deals with current rules, not issues on how the oldest rules in the game worked or how players might have played under those rules. Try asking this question in the Magic General forum instead.EDIT (Mar. 4, 2019): Struck out.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Ante is a game rule for some kind, but you are still doing it willingly, or you just dont do it at all.
In a lot of countries its just illegal to play for ante and the concept got completly removed.
----
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
I remember people going crazy with Mindslaver and the option to simply say "I concede" for the players choice (ofcourse even commonsence will tell you that wont work, and judges simply overruled it right away , and they later made it much clearer that this is not a option you have).
It wasnt that super clear that you couldnt do that , as conceding isnt really a game action at all, its just something you can do every time, more like a meta-action (like you can rip cards in pieces, the game doesnt really have a "rule" for that, the card is just gone etc.).
So for some crazy actions, the game doesnt give super specific rulings, especially as its very clear that you "can" do that, just concede go away and thats it.
----
I cant remember an actual "tournament" that used Ante even in the very beginning i played.
And even in casual games super early, Ante was never really used, nobody ever did play with it (but i am from Germany, maybe others actually did).
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
The way i see it, this paragraph can be used as an excuse for a player that is losing the game (or feels that he will lose it) but does not want such an outcome. If two players don't agree with something, they take their decks and antes and leave, and the game is a draw. The excuse itself can be pretty much anything (again, given that the players are playing strictly along the rules of the rulebook without any alteration).
Obviously, people played for fun, and as TheOnlyOne652089 mentioned, i do understand that most of these lesser terms (like conceding) were present during matches between people, even though they were not present as an official part of the rules. But still, what i am saying is that if there was a match where one player did not want to lose his ante or just felt that the game is not fair (it was a new game at that point after all, not everyone quickly grasped all the concepts and rules), he could have found a reason to end a match in a draw.
This was more about the fact that they knew the rules at the time wouldn't be all inclusive of any situation that may occur. And they were looking for ways that players could resolve situations that might spring up that hadn't been covered before.
Additionally, these rules came out back before there was the internet. There wasn't really a good communication tool that WotC could let players know about rule changes that might take place. The Duelist Magazine didn't start getting published until the Fall of 1993 and even then it was quarterly for while. These days, with instant access to information, these types of rulings get addressed immediately and are published via various resources.
- Matt
Also turn 1 Swamp -> Dark Ritual -> Sol Ring -> Juggernaut for life.
Current Decks
GTitania midrange
RGThromok tokens/goodstuff | UB Grimgrin zombie tribal
GW Sigarda enchantress | R Godo voltron
U Braids aggro | WR Kalemne punisher
RU Mizzix storm | BUG Mimeoplasm competitive reanimator | UG Ezuri infect
lol... I've always thought the original intent was playing for ante too.
Actually, deep down inside my dark mind, I believe a good portion of the game was inspired from an 'Simon and Simon' episode that took place inside a collectible baseball card convention. Sorry, I'm not sure what the episode was called but I do remember two collectors flipping cards off a wall and took whatever the card landed on. Sort of reminded me of chaos orb.
@Cardster
I know a lot magic players don't want to believe this but the designed of the game did have poker playing in mind. Playing cards like Demonic Attorney made sense if there was money on the table.
In his Second 100 days - Yawgmoth's Bargain is unrestricted in Vintage.
What is going to happen in the Next 100 days!!!
Well I can tell you, that excuse would work exactly once on each opponent, and you'd start finding yourself with a lack of people willing to play with you.
There wasnt a need to define Conceding in the rulebook, as it was simply commonly understood to mean you gave up on the game, which would mean you lost whatever Ante you might have put up. But honestly, back in the day, at least in casual Magic, folks usually played till the bitter end.
I'm not sure about other areas, but here in Denver, Ante was rarely used even in the early days. Occasionally people would specifically agree to play for Ante, but otherwise it was usually ignored. I do recall a brief period where people played with 'false Ante', where the top card of your library was removed from the game before play- I wonder if that would be an interesting way to introduce variance today... (Ooops, your Draw-Go Control deck Ante'd it's one wincon, sucks to be you...)