I am going through my study guide and notes and would like further information on exactly what is "Improperly Determining a Winner." IIRC, rolling dice to determine a winner. Bribery. what others?
Also, are there legal ways to determine a winner (besides playing out the game or a player conceding)?
[Note, this is for Competitive REL event (unsporting conduct)]
Improperly Determing a Winner is: Determining a winner using any method other than A) playing a match of magic of the format your tournament is being held in, B) one person conceding to the other, or C) choosing to intentionally draw.
Improper methods include:
Playing a match of Commander to determine the outcome of your Standard match.
After you've taken your 5 extra turns and no one has won, deciding each player will flip the top few cards of their library and whoever would have the better draws gets the win.
Running a foot race around the venue.
Flipping a coin.
Holding an impromptu beauty contest.
etc.
Improperly Determing a Winner is: Determining a winner using any method other than A) playing a match of magic of the format your tournament is being held in, B) one person conceding to the other, or C) choosing to intentionally draw.
Improper methods include:
Playing a match of Commander to determine the outcome of your Standard match. After you've taken your 5 extra turns and no one has won, deciding each player will flip the top few cards of their library and whoever would have the better draws gets the win.
Running a foot race around the venue.
Flipping a coin.
Holding an impromptu beauty contest.
etc.
Source: Am Level 2 Judge.
I have a question about the example I bolded. Can the players use that information to make a decision to concede? I understand that you can just flip cards and use some arbitrary value on the cards to "win" but can they influence the decision?
Improperly Determing a Winner is: Determining a winner using any method other than A) playing a match of magic of the format your tournament is being held in, B) one person conceding to the other, or C) choosing to intentionally draw.
Improper methods include:
Playing a match of Commander to determine the outcome of your Standard match. After you've taken your 5 extra turns and no one has won, deciding each player will flip the top few cards of their library and whoever would have the better draws gets the win.
Running a foot race around the venue.
Flipping a coin.
Holding an impromptu beauty contest.
etc.
Source: Am Level 2 Judge.
I have a question about the example I bolded. Can the players use that information to make a decision to concede? I understand that you can just flip cards and use some arbitrary value on the cards to "win" but can they influence the decision?
You are not allowed to flip cards off the top at all. Best case scenario, you each get hit for drawing/looking at extra cards. More likely is that any judge will realize why you're actually flipping them and then things will get far worse.
This is tied in to another and very little known prohibited way of determining a winner: you are not allowed to theorycraft how the game would have played out. This is perhaps the grayest of areas, but it does come up (especially at GPs), and worse still, it essentially changes how the match functions when you're in the middle of the round verses up against time/extra turns. This is the kind of thing that you will have a judge step in and say "don't finish that sentence" or "I need you to stop talking now", because the line between noting your onboard position "I'm representing lethal" and explaining the hypothetical course of the rest of the game can be super-fine at times.
Really, it all boils down to this: If you are thinking of any way that is not strictly playing magic of the prescribed format with your presented decks or deciding to stop the game (by concession/draw), the method you're thinking of is not okay.
Just got to say, you've definitely earned distinction as an MTGS hero
Quote from Stardust »
Because he's the hero MTGS deserves, and the one it needs right now. So we'll global him. Because he can take it. Because he's not just our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. An expired rascal.
Quote from LuckNorris »
ExpiredRascals you sir are a god-like hero.
Quote from Lanxal »
ER is a masterful god who cannot be beaten in any endeavour.
This is tied in to another and very little known prohibited way of determining a winner: you are not allowed to theorycraft how the game would have played out. This is perhaps the grayest of areas, but it does come up (especially at GPs), and worse still, it essentially changes how the match functions when you're in the middle of the round verses up against time/extra turns. This is the kind of thing that you will have a judge step in and say "don't finish that sentence" or "I need you to stop talking now", because the line between noting your onboard position "I'm representing lethal" and explaining the hypothetical course of the rest of the game can be super-fine at times.
So, by way of example, does this principle mean that a player who is playing a combo deck and is going off - specifically a combo that involves a continuing element of randomness like Eggs rather than a simple series of repeated on-board actions like Twin - isn't allowed to explain the combo to their opponent and indicate that carrying out the necessary sequence will inevitably result in a win? If so, does that mean that Mike Long's famous Cadaverous Bloom / Drain Life bluff was technically illegal?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat." - Theodore Roosevelt
To be able to perform a shortcut, you need to be able to tell us two things: how many iterations it will take to get to your desired game state, and what the game state will be. Pestermite/Splinter Twin fits this: you say "I'm going to cast the Twin on Pestermite, then use the ability from the Twin to make a copy, and have the copy's enter the battlefield trigger untap the Pestermite with the Twin attached. I'm going to do that a million times, and have a million Pestermites". And the Long situation is also legal: his opponent was unaware that he discarded his only Drain Life, but Long demonstrated the loop and asked his opponent if they wanted to concede. Had the opponent asked to see the Life, Long would not have been able to (and they probably would not have conceded), but the opponent decided to concede, rather than making Long play it out.
Which isn't really what's being described in your quote. It is not ok to say "Ok, time's up in the round, and we're on the last turn, but no one has won. Let's look at the top 5 cards of our library to determine who would have won". Because nothing in the game is letting you look at the top 5 cards of your library while the game is still going on.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI Level 2 Judge
Scientists have calculated that the chance of anything so patently absurd actually existing are millions to one. But magicians have calculated that million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten.
This is tied in to another and very little known prohibited way of determining a winner: you are not allowed to theorycraft how the game would have played out. This is perhaps the grayest of areas, but it does come up (especially at GPs), and worse still, it essentially changes how the match functions when you're in the middle of the round verses up against time/extra turns. This is the kind of thing that you will have a judge step in and say "don't finish that sentence" or "I need you to stop talking now", because the line between noting your onboard position "I'm representing lethal" and explaining the hypothetical course of the rest of the game can be super-fine at times.
So, by way of example, does this principle mean that a player who is playing a combo deck and is going off - specifically a combo that involves a continuing element of randomness like Eggs rather than a simple series of repeated on-board actions like Twin - isn't allowed to explain the combo to their opponent and indicate that carrying out the necessary sequence will inevitably result in a win? If so, does that mean that Mike Long's famous Cadaverous Bloom / Drain Life bluff was technically illegal?
Amusingly, it doesn't. It's totally fine to say "look, I'm doing this and you will die this way" to save time in a turn, and you'll notice that even if that happened in extra turns, there would be no issue if the person instead played it out.
Conversely, to use another real world example, I had some friends at GP San Jose earlier this year who achieved a board state where through a combination of Kheru Bloodsucker and Palace Siege (set to khans), tricks, and the like, they had lethal in about six different ways if the game were to go longer. They were interrupted by a judge (the HJ actually iirc) to prevent them from explaining in detail all the ways by which they had their opponent dead.
This is the most difficult part of "improperly determining a winner" for me even as a judge, and for each player I know. The best (and admittedly still poor) way that I can characterize it is that the rules of table talk shift when you're nearing the time limit so as to prevent people achieving by theorycrafting that which would be achieved by another prohibited means (in this case, flipping cards off the top).
Just got to say, you've definitely earned distinction as an MTGS hero
Quote from Stardust »
Because he's the hero MTGS deserves, and the one it needs right now. So we'll global him. Because he can take it. Because he's not just our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. An expired rascal.
Quote from LuckNorris »
ExpiredRascals you sir are a god-like hero.
Quote from Lanxal »
ER is a masterful god who cannot be beaten in any endeavour.
I have a question about this. Say you and your opponent are playing in a midnight prerelease, it's the final round, and you're both undefeated. You've agreed to split the packs, and don't want to play the game out because you're both tired or you want to enter another draft or sealed. However at this store, prizes are awarded based on total points, so if one player concedes to the other, you both get more prize because three points from a win is worth more than two points from a draw.
The question is, how do you decide who concedes to whom? As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no legal way for you and your opponent to determine this. In fact, it's not even legal to communicate with them about it in any way. You can't flip a coin. You can't agree that the person with the lower DCI rating or worse overall tournament tiebreakers will concede. You can't offer to buy him breakfast if he takes the concession. After someone points out that you will both get more prize if one player concedes to the other, all you can do is have a weird Orwellian staring match where neither of you are allowed to say anything and the first person to speak up and offer the concession loses.
I have a question about this. Say you and your opponent are playing in a midnight prerelease, it's the final round, and you're both undefeated. You've agreed to split the packs, and don't want to play the game out because you're both tired or you want to enter another draft or sealed. However at this store, prizes are awarded based on total points, so if one player concedes to the other, you both get more prize because three points from a win is worth more than two points from a draw.
The question is, how do you decide who concedes to whom? As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no legal way for you and your opponent to determine this. In fact, it's not even legal to communicate with them about it in any way. You can't flip a coin. You can't agree that the person with the lower DCI rating or worse overall tournament tiebreakers will concede. You can't offer to buy him breakfast if he takes the concession. After someone points out that you will both get more prize if one player concedes to the other, all you can do is have a weird Orwellian staring match where neither of you are allowed to say anything and the first person to speak up and offer the concession loses.
The awkward orwellian staring match is unfortunately the way it often goes. There are some ways that can work, but they're very awkward in that they function off the gray area of what is prizes verses match results (For example, in GPTs asking if the other person wants the byes, or on MTGO agreeing who receives the QP) - the problem here is that you can include those in the prize split but potentially still find yourself in the problem position that you are stuck hoping that both players know what's going associated with that split. The biggest thing to remember is that you can talk about concession and you can talk about prize splits, but they can never be linked to eachother (note the awkwardness here with the gray area prizes).
This is such a land mine-laden discussion that I strongly advise people who are at all uncertain to call a judge, ask to speak to them away from the table, and then ask if the exact proposition and words about to be used would be okay. It protects everyone involved from some extreme bad feels from something as simple as poor word choice.
Just got to say, you've definitely earned distinction as an MTGS hero
Quote from Stardust »
Because he's the hero MTGS deserves, and the one it needs right now. So we'll global him. Because he can take it. Because he's not just our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. An expired rascal.
Quote from LuckNorris »
ExpiredRascals you sir are a god-like hero.
Quote from Lanxal »
ER is a masterful god who cannot be beaten in any endeavour.
I have a question about this. Say you and your opponent are playing in a midnight prerelease, it's the final round, and you're both undefeated. You've agreed to split the packs, and don't want to play the game out because you're both tired or you want to enter another draft or sealed. However at this store, prizes are awarded based on total points, so if one player concedes to the other, you both get more prize because three points from a win is worth more than two points from a draw.
The question is, how do you decide who concedes to whom? As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no legal way for you and your opponent to determine this. In fact, it's not even legal to communicate with them about it in any way. You can't flip a coin. You can't agree that the person with the lower DCI rating or worse overall tournament tiebreakers will concede. You can't offer to buy him breakfast if he takes the concession. After someone points out that you will both get more prize if one player concedes to the other, all you can do is have a weird Orwellian staring match where neither of you are allowed to say anything and the first person to speak up and offer the concession loses.
The awkward orwellian staring match is unfortunately the way it often goes. There are some ways that can work, but they're very awkward in that they function off the gray area of what is prizes verses match results (For example, in GPTs asking if the other person wants the byes, or on MTGO agreeing who receives the QP) - the problem here is that you can include those in the prize split but potentially still find yourself in the problem position that you are stuck hoping that both players know what's going associated with that split. The biggest thing to remember is that you can talk about concession and you can talk about prize splits, but they can never be linked to eachother (note the awkwardness here with the gray area prizes).
This is such a land mine-laden discussion that I strongly advise people who are at all uncertain to call a judge, ask to speak to them away from the table, and then ask if the exact proposition and words about to be used would be okay. It protects everyone involved from some extreme bad feels from something as simple as poor word choice.
The point is in this case you haven't linked the prize split to the concession. You've already agreed to split whatever prizes you both receive, it's not a case of, "I'll scoop to you if you agree to split." The issue is, after you've agreed to split the prize, one player is inevitably going to say, "Well, if one of us concedes, (instead of IDing) we'll have more prize to split." That's not an illegal thing to say, it's 100% true. But at that point, there's no way to further communicate about the concession without breaking the rules. Someone has to concede, but there's no legal way in this situation to determine who will. Even if both of you are friends and already had this conversation to determine who will concede in such a situation before the tournament began, it's STILL a violation of the rules, just harder to catch.
This isn't some random corner case either. In any case where the prize payout is based on total points (very common, in my experience) and two players have already agreed to split the prize, it is always in both of their interests to have one of them concede to the other. In my opinion, the current situation of, "You're allowed to do it, but you're not allowed to communicate about it." is utterly absurd.
Is intentionally drawing or conceding not allowed? This is a surprise to me as I have seen many other people ID in large tournaments.
Of course those are allowed. Bribery and similar communications to encourage that are forbidden, but no one is claiming that the draw or concession is disallowed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Why bother with mere rulings when so many answers can be found in the Rules?
I have a question about this. Say you and your opponent are playing in a midnight prerelease, it's the final round, and you're both undefeated. You've agreed to split the packs, and don't want to play the game out because you're both tired or you want to enter another draft or sealed. However at this store, prizes are awarded based on total points, so if one player concedes to the other, you both get more prize because three points from a win is worth more than two points from a draw.
The question is, how do you decide who concedes to whom? As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no legal way for you and your opponent to determine this. In fact, it's not even legal to communicate with them about it in any way. You can't flip a coin. You can't agree that the person with the lower DCI rating or worse overall tournament tiebreakers will concede. You can't offer to buy him breakfast if he takes the concession. After someone points out that you will both get more prize if one player concedes to the other, all you can do is have a weird Orwellian staring match where neither of you are allowed to say anything and the first person to speak up and offer the concession loses.
The awkward orwellian staring match is unfortunately the way it often goes. There are some ways that can work, but they're very awkward in that they function off the gray area of what is prizes verses match results (For example, in GPTs asking if the other person wants the byes, or on MTGO agreeing who receives the QP) - the problem here is that you can include those in the prize split but potentially still find yourself in the problem position that you are stuck hoping that both players know what's going associated with that split. The biggest thing to remember is that you can talk about concession and you can talk about prize splits, but they can never be linked to eachother (note the awkwardness here with the gray area prizes).
This is such a land mine-laden discussion that I strongly advise people who are at all uncertain to call a judge, ask to speak to them away from the table, and then ask if the exact proposition and words about to be used would be okay. It protects everyone involved from some extreme bad feels from something as simple as poor word choice.
The point is in this case you haven't linked the prize split to the concession. You've already agreed to split whatever prizes you both receive, it's not a case of, "I'll scoop to you if you agree to split." The issue is, after you've agreed to split the prize, one player is inevitably going to say, "Well, if one of us concedes, (instead of IDing) we'll have more prize to split." That's not an illegal thing to say, it's 100% true. But at that point, there's no way to further communicate about the concession without breaking the rules. Someone has to concede, but there's no legal way in this situation to determine who will. Even if both of you are friends and already had this conversation to determine who will concede in such a situation before the tournament began, it's STILL a violation of the rules, just harder to catch.
This isn't some random corner case either. In any case where the prize payout is based on total points (very common, in my experience) and two players have already agreed to split the prize, it is always in both of their interests to have one of them concede to the other. In my opinion, the current situation of, "You're allowed to do it, but you're not allowed to communicate about it." is utterly absurd.
Look, Xlapus noted how it works. "One person conceding to another person." There is no determining of who will concede. In your case one or the other player in a match would have to choose to concede in exchange for the prize split. If one of you will not willingly concede, then you must play out the match. If I am in the situation you mentioned with another player, I will just normally concede and that solves the problem. I am not sure I have ever heard of a situation where two players agreed to split the prizes where one of them didn't just offer to concede.
Also, are there legal ways to determine a winner (besides playing out the game or a player conceding)?
[Note, this is for Competitive REL event (unsporting conduct)]
I buy HP and Damaged cards!
Only EDH:
Sigarda, Host of Herons: Enchantress' Enchantments
Jenara, Asura of War: ETB Value Town
Purphoros, God of the Forge: Global Punishment
Xenagos, God of Revels: Ramp, Sneak, & Heavy Hitters
Ghave, Guru of Spores: Dies_to_Doom_Blade's stax list
Edric, Spymaster of Trest: Donald's list
Improper methods include:
Playing a match of Commander to determine the outcome of your Standard match.
After you've taken your 5 extra turns and no one has won, deciding each player will flip the top few cards of their library and whoever would have the better draws gets the win.
Running a foot race around the venue.
Flipping a coin.
Holding an impromptu beauty contest.
etc.
Source: Am Level 2 Judge.
I have a question about the example I bolded. Can the players use that information to make a decision to concede? I understand that you can just flip cards and use some arbitrary value on the cards to "win" but can they influence the decision?
You are not allowed to flip cards off the top at all. Best case scenario, you each get hit for drawing/looking at extra cards. More likely is that any judge will realize why you're actually flipping them and then things will get far worse.
This is tied in to another and very little known prohibited way of determining a winner: you are not allowed to theorycraft how the game would have played out. This is perhaps the grayest of areas, but it does come up (especially at GPs), and worse still, it essentially changes how the match functions when you're in the middle of the round verses up against time/extra turns. This is the kind of thing that you will have a judge step in and say "don't finish that sentence" or "I need you to stop talking now", because the line between noting your onboard position "I'm representing lethal" and explaining the hypothetical course of the rest of the game can be super-fine at times.
Really, it all boils down to this: If you are thinking of any way that is not strictly playing magic of the prescribed format with your presented decks or deciding to stop the game (by concession/draw), the method you're thinking of is not okay.
Body Count: GRRRUUUUUUUUUUU
إن سرقت إسرق جمل
Level 1 Judge
My Cube for use with 6th ed. Rules
So, by way of example, does this principle mean that a player who is playing a combo deck and is going off - specifically a combo that involves a continuing element of randomness like Eggs rather than a simple series of repeated on-board actions like Twin - isn't allowed to explain the combo to their opponent and indicate that carrying out the necessary sequence will inevitably result in a win? If so, does that mean that Mike Long's famous Cadaverous Bloom / Drain Life bluff was technically illegal?
Which isn't really what's being described in your quote. It is not ok to say "Ok, time's up in the round, and we're on the last turn, but no one has won. Let's look at the top 5 cards of our library to determine who would have won". Because nothing in the game is letting you look at the top 5 cards of your library while the game is still going on.
Scientists have calculated that the chance of anything so patently absurd actually existing are millions to one. But magicians have calculated that million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten.
Amusingly, it doesn't. It's totally fine to say "look, I'm doing this and you will die this way" to save time in a turn, and you'll notice that even if that happened in extra turns, there would be no issue if the person instead played it out.
Conversely, to use another real world example, I had some friends at GP San Jose earlier this year who achieved a board state where through a combination of Kheru Bloodsucker and Palace Siege (set to khans), tricks, and the like, they had lethal in about six different ways if the game were to go longer. They were interrupted by a judge (the HJ actually iirc) to prevent them from explaining in detail all the ways by which they had their opponent dead.
This is the most difficult part of "improperly determining a winner" for me even as a judge, and for each player I know. The best (and admittedly still poor) way that I can characterize it is that the rules of table talk shift when you're nearing the time limit so as to prevent people achieving by theorycrafting that which would be achieved by another prohibited means (in this case, flipping cards off the top).
EDIT: nathed by Natedogg
Body Count: GRRRUUUUUUUUUUU
إن سرقت إسرق جمل
Level 1 Judge
My Cube for use with 6th ed. Rules
The question is, how do you decide who concedes to whom? As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no legal way for you and your opponent to determine this. In fact, it's not even legal to communicate with them about it in any way. You can't flip a coin. You can't agree that the person with the lower DCI rating or worse overall tournament tiebreakers will concede. You can't offer to buy him breakfast if he takes the concession. After someone points out that you will both get more prize if one player concedes to the other, all you can do is have a weird Orwellian staring match where neither of you are allowed to say anything and the first person to speak up and offer the concession loses.
The awkward orwellian staring match is unfortunately the way it often goes. There are some ways that can work, but they're very awkward in that they function off the gray area of what is prizes verses match results (For example, in GPTs asking if the other person wants the byes, or on MTGO agreeing who receives the QP) - the problem here is that you can include those in the prize split but potentially still find yourself in the problem position that you are stuck hoping that both players know what's going associated with that split. The biggest thing to remember is that you can talk about concession and you can talk about prize splits, but they can never be linked to eachother (note the awkwardness here with the gray area prizes).
This is such a land mine-laden discussion that I strongly advise people who are at all uncertain to call a judge, ask to speak to them away from the table, and then ask if the exact proposition and words about to be used would be okay. It protects everyone involved from some extreme bad feels from something as simple as poor word choice.
Body Count: GRRRUUUUUUUUUUU
إن سرقت إسرق جمل
Level 1 Judge
My Cube for use with 6th ed. Rules
The point is in this case you haven't linked the prize split to the concession. You've already agreed to split whatever prizes you both receive, it's not a case of, "I'll scoop to you if you agree to split." The issue is, after you've agreed to split the prize, one player is inevitably going to say, "Well, if one of us concedes, (instead of IDing) we'll have more prize to split." That's not an illegal thing to say, it's 100% true. But at that point, there's no way to further communicate about the concession without breaking the rules. Someone has to concede, but there's no legal way in this situation to determine who will. Even if both of you are friends and already had this conversation to determine who will concede in such a situation before the tournament began, it's STILL a violation of the rules, just harder to catch.
This isn't some random corner case either. In any case where the prize payout is based on total points (very common, in my experience) and two players have already agreed to split the prize, it is always in both of their interests to have one of them concede to the other. In my opinion, the current situation of, "You're allowed to do it, but you're not allowed to communicate about it." is utterly absurd.
Look, Xlapus noted how it works. "One person conceding to another person." There is no determining of who will concede. In your case one or the other player in a match would have to choose to concede in exchange for the prize split. If one of you will not willingly concede, then you must play out the match. If I am in the situation you mentioned with another player, I will just normally concede and that solves the problem. I am not sure I have ever heard of a situation where two players agreed to split the prizes where one of them didn't just offer to concede.
New to Commander? Read the Above article.