If both players in the game can't lose, but also can't win will a judge force a draw? Or can one player elect to go to time.
For example if both players have Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir and there is a Knowledge Pool in play, so neither player can cast spells from their hands. And say both players have an Abundance in play as well.
Would a judge force the game to be a draw? Rather would the players start getting Slow Play warnings if they refused to draw?
Also, is a player allowed to count the number of cards in the opponent's library? This happened in the GP coverage this weekend.
In this exact scenario because each player is capable of making actions that would alter the game state, such as attacking or the choice for Abundance, and both are choosing to not do this, a judge would have to issue slow play warnings. They technically can't agree to draw the game and start over. There is no process that allows a judge to simply draw a game that isn't in an infinite loop.
The number of cards in either players' library is free information, at any time during the game you can ask for this information and either your opponent will count it for you, allow you to count or have a judge count them.
I know the number of cards is free information but this came up at one of our events. I believe you have to count the number of cards in play, hand, graveyard, and exile to determine the number of cards in a library. This is because then noone handles the library and no room to make a sneaky move
Public Mod Note
(MadMageQc):
Warning issued for unsure answer.
What if there was a Moat in play as well? Now there are no game choices to make. Just each player cannot lose and each player cannot win. I'm guessing if there is no process that allows a Judge to draw a game the current game has to go to time if one player wants it to. Is that correct?
Also someone would draw their deck at some point in time as well as players could put things under knowledge pool to effect the game state. Its not like the infinite Oblivion Ring loop. You would need to have an Arcane Laboratory in play as well to stop the pool. Somebody would eventually lose to drawing out. And a player could elect to play out their turns anyways.
I know the number of cards is free information but this came up at one of our events. I believe you have to count the number of cards in play, hand, graveyard, and exile to determine the number of cards in a library. This is because then noone handles the library and no room to make a sneaky move
And who can say that the oppnent's deck size is exactly 60? You don't know how many cards are in the deck, you only assume there are 60, but more is possible and legal. So this method doesn't nessessarily get you the correct answer.
Also someone would draw their deck at some point in time as well as players could put things under knowledge pool to effect the game state. Its not like the infinite Oblivion Ring loop. You would need to have an Arcane Laboratory in play as well to stop the pool. Somebody would eventually lose to drawing out. And a player could elect to play out their turns anyways.
Yes, I included Abundance in my question forgetting it was a may ability. So something else would need to be there to prevent losing via drawing. Have both people enchanted with Wheel of Sun and Moon instead. Also, arcane laboratory isn't needed as both players have Teferi in play.
The scenario is tripping people up. But I really just want to know if both players can't win and can't lose and no choices can be made, can one person elect to take the match to time?
I know the number of cards is free information but this came up at one of our events. I believe you have to count the number of cards in play, hand, graveyard, and exile to determine the number of cards in a library. This is because then noone handles the library and no room to make a sneaky move
It's actually derived information.
Quote from MTR »
Derived information consists of:
The number of any type of objects present in any game zone
And while you don't have to help your opponent determine that number, you cannot obstruct them from counting the cards in your library.
Also someone would draw their deck at some point in time as well as players could put things under knowledge pool to effect the game state. Its not like the infinite Oblivion Ring loop. You would need to have an Arcane Laboratory in play as well to stop the pool. Somebody would eventually lose to drawing out. And a player could elect to play out their turns anyways.
The original scenario included Abundance which means no, they won't draw out.
Thank you for that information.
What if there was a Moat in play as well? Now there are no game choices to make. Just each player cannot lose and each player cannot win. I'm guessing if there is no process that allows a Judge to draw a game the current game has to go to time if one player wants it to. Is that correct?
No, there's still a game choice. Abundance is a may ability.
Thank you for that information.
What if there was a Moat in play as well? Now there are no game choices to make. Just each player cannot lose and each player cannot win. I'm guessing if there is no process that allows a Judge to draw a game the current game has to go to time if one player wants it to. Is that correct?
No, there's still a game choice. Abundance is a may ability.
Thank you and understood.
I'm building a deck that could get into a scenario where both players could be in a position where neither could win or lose. If there were really no decisions to make could one of the players ask to take the game to time?
If one player did have the choice (e.g. they kept discarding Emrakul, the Aeons Torn), but the other didn't, the Emrakul player would eventually have to choose to not discard Emrakul, correct?
I know the number of cards is free information but this came up at one of our events. I believe you have to count the number of cards in play, hand, graveyard, and exile to determine the number of cards in a library. This is because then noone handles the library and no room to make a sneaky move
This is incorrect.
401.3. Any player may count the number of cards remaining in any player's library at any time.
And who can say that the oppnent's deck size is exactly 60? You don't know how many cards are in the deck, you only assume there are 60, but more is possible and legal. So this method doesn't nessessarily get you the correct answer.
a) You get to count their deck, so it doesn't matter, (b) since you get to count their deck, you know what the total number of cards they run is.
Thank you for that information.
What if there was a Moat in play as well? Now there are no game choices to make. Just each player cannot lose and each player cannot win. I'm guessing if there is no process that allows a Judge to draw a game the current game has to go to time if one player wants it to. Is that correct?
No, there's still a game choice. Abundance is a may ability.
The important part is to answer the spirit of the question, which is what the poster is really asking abut. The scenario described can still be reached by replacing both Abundances with Shared Fate.
In the hypothetical situation that a game is unable to be won by either player, with no player able to perform any actions or make any choices, can the players accept a draw?
My reading of 2.4 in the MTR indicates that conceding or intentionally drawing can be done at the game as well as match level. Doing so requires agreement between both players however, so if one player wishes to continue playing the game in question, they may do so.
Doing so requires agreement between both players however, so if one player wishes to continue playing the game in question, they may do so.
Your reading of the MTR is correct, but my reading of the Infraction Procedure Guide makes it so that if I'm judging this, if a player chooses to keep playing, he will get a slow play warning, and if he keeps at it, that will be escalated to a game loss, which solves the issue. I will explain this to the players and strongly advise them to agree to draw that game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
Your reading of the MTR is correct, but my reading of the Infraction Procedure Guide makes it so that if I'm judging this, if a player chooses to keep playing, he will get a slow play warning, and if he keeps at it, that will be escalated to a game loss, which solves the issue. I will explain this to the players and strongly advise them to agree to draw that game.
I dont believe this is appropriate, the definition of slow play is:
A player takes longer than is reasonably required to complete game actions
If the player spends his turn going untap, draw, land, pass/discard. They are completing game actions in the shortest time possible. Nothing in the IPG indicates that the player must be trying to win the game, only that they give their opponent the opportunity to win if they can.
No matter the game state, as long as there is not an infinite loop going on, nothing can force a draw, there is no ruling to resolve the situation. Both players can agree to ID the match, which they may do if they decide continuing is a waste of time, but there is nothing in the game or tournament rules which make the game a draw in the event that both players cannot meaningfully impact the game state. The players will still have choices to make, they can attack with their teferi, even if it is pointless, they cast cast a spell into the knowledge pool even if doing so does actually achieve anything. Even if there is some situation in which the players have literally no relevant choices to make, with moat and some combination of things preventing spells being cast and lands being played, the game has no way to know that the players cannot make any choices. Due to this the game continues indefinitely.
You may, at any time, count your opponents library, you must maintain the order of the cards when you do so, and you must not accidentally look at any of the cards in it in the process, so you should be careful when doing so. Also this is an action which generally takes some time to complete so overuse of this is likely to result in a slow play warning. Once you have counted once, you should be able to maintain the count on your own for most of the game in my opinion.
Doing so requires agreement between both players however, so if one player wishes to continue playing the game in question, they may do so.
Your reading of the MTR is correct, but my reading of the Infraction Procedure Guide makes it so that if I'm judging this, if a player chooses to keep playing, he will get a slow play warning, and if he keeps at it, that will be escalated to a game loss, which solves the issue. I will explain this to the players and strongly advise them to agree to draw that game.
I don't see how you can, or why. If they have no in-game decisions that prevents them from repeating the state, nothing they are doing is slow play as long as they take their actions in a reasonable amount of time.
Slow Play decision making should never apply to out-of-game decisions, such as conceding or agreeing to a draw.
Doing so requires agreement between both players however, so if one player wishes to continue playing the game in question, they may do so.
Your reading of the MTR is correct, but my reading of the Infraction Procedure Guide makes it so that if I'm judging this, if a player chooses to keep playing, he will get a slow play warning, and if he keeps at it, that will be escalated to a game loss, which solves the issue. I will explain this to the players and strongly advise them to agree to draw that game.
I don't see how you can, or why. If they have no in-game decisions that prevents them from repeating the state, nothing they are doing is slow play as long as they take their actions in a reasonable amount of time.
Slow Play decision making should never apply to out-of-game decisions, such as conceding or agreeing to a draw.
Hmmmm, I've had this interpretation of mine for a while, but reading the IPG again, I admit I don't have much ground for it. I remember people justifying it with this part of the Slow Play section of the IPG : "It is also slow play if a player continues to execute a loop without being able to provide an exact number of iterations and the expected resulting game state", saying that players passing without doing anything potentially meaningful should be considered a loop of non-mandatory (or mandatory?) actions, but that is admittedly far-fetched (or is it, considering that the rules that force a player to choose not to use Abundance when that's the card keeping them alive are the loop rules?) I may not have the grounds to give slow play warnings or game losses, but I will still strongly advise the players to do the intentional draw, so to avoid wasting everyone's time, at least provided that they're tied in games. If a player has the lead, it would be in their interest to refuse the intentional draw and make the game go to time so that they win the match, if they're allowed to do so. Maybe the system allows that.
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.
If you can argue that not accepting a draw in this situation is choosing to engage in a loop of non-mandatory actions, they you could equally argue that not conceding the game is also engaging in a loop of non-mandatory actions. Which would mean slow play warnings to both players, which defeats the philosophy of the infraction, both players cant be slow playing, since slow play is against the rules because it prevents one player from playing the game.
Additionally, as the judge you have no way of knowing for sure that the player does not have an out, without knowing on hand every card in the format and giving consideration to every possible interaction. Even if you could narrow your considerations to only the cards in both players deck lists, which i don't believe is correct, you would have to be able to say categorically that the loop cannot be broken, and if you get it wrong it would be very bad. Strategic decisions are not the domain of the judge, and requiring the player to explain, even in private, their potential "out" gives strategic information to the opponent. If the opponent thinks the game is locked, and the judge comes back and says it's not, that triggers a need for the opponent to rethink and prepare for what the out could be.
Long story short, having a judge decide when a game is or is not unwinnable would lead to far too many contentious decisions and the fact that there is no game rule and very limited tournament procedure to back it up suggests to me the judge cannot make a ruling.
If you can argue that not accepting a draw in this situation is choosing to engage in a loop of non-mandatory actions, they you could equally argue that not conceding the game is also engaging in a loop of non-mandatory actions. Which would mean slow play warnings to both players, which defeats the philosophy of the infraction, both players cant be slow playing, since slow play is against the rules because it prevents one player from playing the game.
Additionally, as the judge you have no way of knowing for sure that the player does not have an out, without knowing on hand every card in the format and giving consideration to every possible interaction. Even if you could narrow your considerations to only the cards in both players deck lists, which i don't believe is correct, you would have to be able to say categorically that the loop cannot be broken, and if you get it wrong it would be very bad. Strategic decisions are not the domain of the judge, and requiring the player to explain, even in private, their potential "out" gives strategic information to the opponent. If the opponent thinks the game is locked, and the judge comes back and says it's not, that triggers a need for the opponent to rethink and prepare for what the out could be.
Long story short, having a judge decide when a game is or is not unwinnable would lead to far too many contentious decisions and the fact that there is no game rule and very limited tournament procedure to back it up suggests to me the judge cannot make a ruling.
That's a given if there are any cards left in libraries, what I'm talking about is when there are truly no potential outs because the players do not get any new material to work with (Shared Fate on the battlefield, empty libraries).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
"Truly no potential outs" is a strategic understanding which takes into consideration not just no cards in libraries/hands, but every card in every zone. The ruling works if there actually are no outs, but you have to also consider the precedent being set. If you call a game a draw because there are no outs, you may also be asked to call a game in which a player has an on board out they have not considered. You cant call it a draw, because there is a way to break the loop, you cant call it slow play because the person is unaware of their choice, and you cant tell them they have a choice because that provides strategic advice.
By making a ruling on a genuine draw where no player can do anything, you are setting a precedent in which a game which "looks" like a draw but isn't must be allowed to continue and in doing so telling the players to re-evaluate the game state.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
For example if both players have Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir and there is a Knowledge Pool in play, so neither player can cast spells from their hands. And say both players have an Abundance in play as well.
Would a judge force the game to be a draw? Rather would the players start getting Slow Play warnings if they refused to draw?
Also, is a player allowed to count the number of cards in the opponent's library? This happened in the GP coverage this weekend.
The number of cards in either players' library is free information, at any time during the game you can ask for this information and either your opponent will count it for you, allow you to count or have a judge count them.
Standard- Esper Control
Commander- Mishra, Artificer Prodigy
Intet, the Dreamer
Jhoira of the Ghitu
What if there was a Moat in play as well? Now there are no game choices to make. Just each player cannot lose and each player cannot win. I'm guessing if there is no process that allows a Judge to draw a game the current game has to go to time if one player wants it to. Is that correct?
Standard- Esper Control
Commander- Mishra, Artificer Prodigy
Intet, the Dreamer
Jhoira of the Ghitu
And who can say that the oppnent's deck size is exactly 60? You don't know how many cards are in the deck, you only assume there are 60, but more is possible and legal. So this method doesn't nessessarily get you the correct answer.
Former Rules Advisor
"Everything's better with pirates." - Lodge
(The Gamers: Dorkness Rising)
"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
(Girl Genius - Fairy Tale Theater Break - Cinderella, end of volume 8)
The scenario is tripping people up. But I really just want to know if both players can't win and can't lose and no choices can be made, can one person elect to take the match to time?
It's actually derived information.
And while you don't have to help your opponent determine that number, you cannot obstruct them from counting the cards in your library.
The original scenario included Abundance which means no, they won't draw out.
No, there's still a game choice. Abundance is a may ability.
I'm building a deck that could get into a scenario where both players could be in a position where neither could win or lose. If there were really no decisions to make could one of the players ask to take the game to time?
If one player did have the choice (e.g. they kept discarding Emrakul, the Aeons Torn), but the other didn't, the Emrakul player would eventually have to choose to not discard Emrakul, correct?
a) You get to count their deck, so it doesn't matter, (b) since you get to count their deck, you know what the total number of cards they run is.
The important part is to answer the spirit of the question, which is what the poster is really asking abut. The scenario described can still be reached by replacing both Abundances with Shared Fate.
In the hypothetical situation that a game is unable to be won by either player, with no player able to perform any actions or make any choices, can the players accept a draw?
My reading of 2.4 in the MTR indicates that conceding or intentionally drawing can be done at the game as well as match level. Doing so requires agreement between both players however, so if one player wishes to continue playing the game in question, they may do so.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
I dont believe this is appropriate, the definition of slow play is:
If the player spends his turn going untap, draw, land, pass/discard. They are completing game actions in the shortest time possible. Nothing in the IPG indicates that the player must be trying to win the game, only that they give their opponent the opportunity to win if they can.
No matter the game state, as long as there is not an infinite loop going on, nothing can force a draw, there is no ruling to resolve the situation. Both players can agree to ID the match, which they may do if they decide continuing is a waste of time, but there is nothing in the game or tournament rules which make the game a draw in the event that both players cannot meaningfully impact the game state. The players will still have choices to make, they can attack with their teferi, even if it is pointless, they cast cast a spell into the knowledge pool even if doing so does actually achieve anything. Even if there is some situation in which the players have literally no relevant choices to make, with moat and some combination of things preventing spells being cast and lands being played, the game has no way to know that the players cannot make any choices. Due to this the game continues indefinitely.
You may, at any time, count your opponents library, you must maintain the order of the cards when you do so, and you must not accidentally look at any of the cards in it in the process, so you should be careful when doing so. Also this is an action which generally takes some time to complete so overuse of this is likely to result in a slow play warning. Once you have counted once, you should be able to maintain the count on your own for most of the game in my opinion.
Slow Play decision making should never apply to out-of-game decisions, such as conceding or agreeing to a draw.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
Additionally, as the judge you have no way of knowing for sure that the player does not have an out, without knowing on hand every card in the format and giving consideration to every possible interaction. Even if you could narrow your considerations to only the cards in both players deck lists, which i don't believe is correct, you would have to be able to say categorically that the loop cannot be broken, and if you get it wrong it would be very bad. Strategic decisions are not the domain of the judge, and requiring the player to explain, even in private, their potential "out" gives strategic information to the opponent. If the opponent thinks the game is locked, and the judge comes back and says it's not, that triggers a need for the opponent to rethink and prepare for what the out could be.
Long story short, having a judge decide when a game is or is not unwinnable would lead to far too many contentious decisions and the fact that there is no game rule and very limited tournament procedure to back it up suggests to me the judge cannot make a ruling.
By making a ruling on a genuine draw where no player can do anything, you are setting a precedent in which a game which "looks" like a draw but isn't must be allowed to continue and in doing so telling the players to re-evaluate the game state.