Suppose I cast Spoils of the Vault and name a card while at, say, 10 life. I reveal the top 10 cards and it's not there. In a tournament, I would obviously have an interest in revealing as little of my deck as possible if we were going to play any additional games in our match. Is it possible for me to concede at that point to prevent my opponent from viewing any more cards, or do I have to finish resolving the spell (and reveal all cards until the named card appears) before I concede?
Under the answer I gave in another thread, whether you can concede in the scenario in comment 1 depends on whether "[r]eveal[ing] cards ... until you reveal" a card with the chosen name is a simultaneous action (see my comments 2 and 4 in that thread). If it is, then as far as the game is concerned and within the meaning of C.R. 104.3a, there would be no "time" between the beginning of revealing those cards and revealing a card with the chosen name (or revealing all cards in the library if no such card is found [C.R. 101.3, 609.3]).
I've never heard of nor seen a player being stopped from scooping (conceding) at any point in any game at any level though i personally make a habit of asking my opponent if they're willing to accept my concession before i actually scoop my table.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
They just couldn't put 7th edition into Modern because of the card borders? Seriously? Count me out.
Under the answer I gave in another thread, whether you can concede in the scenario in comment 1 depends on whether "[r]eveal[ing] cards ... until you reveal" a card with the chosen name is a simultaneous action (see my comments 2 and 4 in that thread). If it is, then as far as the game is concerned and within the meaning of C.R. 104.3a, there would be no "time" between the beginning of revealing those cards and finding (or not) a card with the chosen name.
I think the word "until" in the spoils of the vault instructions strongly indicates that time is passing as the cards are revealed.
You can concede at any time, actually means you can always just end the game.
By law you can at any point demand your property and theres simply nothing that could force you to continue a game you dont want to play.
104.3a A player can concede the game at any time. A player who concedes leaves the game immediately. He or she loses the game.
No matter what the game is trying to do, conceding doesnt use the stack, and if you pack up your stuff, your opponent has to hand over all your cards "immediatly".
In any way, theres no time between these events, conceding is not a game action, the game ends right there on the spot.
If the opponent is in the middle of searching the library or looking at cards, does not matter.
----
You cannot handle it any other way, as you cannot rule over the players property.
If they dont want to play, they can at any point just leave or concede.
So I'm getting some mixed answers here. Does anyone know more definitively? Because in the context of a tournament, seeing more cards from your opponent's deck can definitely make a difference, either within the match (e.g. the Spoils of the Vault situation occurred in Game 1, and having additional information about your opponent's deck can help in Games 2 and 3) or in future matches (if you get paired up against the player again in the Top 8).
I wonder if this is just one of those "up to the discretion of individual judges" things.
Yes, you can concede in the situation described. There is nothing preventing you from picking up your cards, shuffling them together, and going to sideboarding/next match. You have lost the game as soon as you concede and the rules allow you to do that whenever you want.
Again, the answer here depends on whether "[r]eveal[ing] cards ... until you reveal" a card with the chosen name is a simultaneous action. If not, then the answer to comment 1 is yes (as it would be if Spoils of the Vault had said, "Reveal a card from the top of your library, and if it doesn't have the chosen name, repeat this process reveal the next card, and so on"). If it is a simultaneous action, and a player is nevertheless allowed to concede the game, then that would be difficult to reconcile with the answers I gave in the thread I linked to in comment 3.
Yes, you can concede in the situation described. There is nothing preventing you from picking up your cards, shuffling them together, and going to sideboarding/next match. You have lost the game as soon as you concede and the rules allow you to do that whenever you want.
Just conceding the game doesn't mean that. If you have any hidden morphs for example you are still required to show them. Not doing so is a warning and purposely not revealing is cheating and will get someone DQ from the rest of the tournament.
Yes, you can concede in the situation described. There is nothing preventing you from picking up your cards, shuffling them together, and going to sideboarding/next match. You have lost the game as soon as you concede and the rules allow you to do that whenever you want.
Just conceding the game doesn't mean that. If you have any hidden morphs for example you are still required to show them. Not doing so is a warning and purposely not revealing is cheating and will get someone DQ from the rest of the tournament.
Fair enough. There weren't any mention of those in the original question and I didn't feel it necessary to go over every deviation from just conceding. Losing in any manner does not preclude other rules from taking effect. The OP just wants to know if they can concede in the middle of Spoils resolving to prevent revealing more of their library and they can. But yes, they still need to abide by other rules for face-down permanents and anything else the rules care about when a player loses.
In the case of Show and Tell, multiple players have to make choices, so active player/non-active player order (APNAP order) applies (C.R. 101.4). As I explained in the thread from Jan. 30, "if players must make choices due to APNAP order (under C.R. 101.4) (provided the simultaneous action requires choices to be made), players may concede the game while players make those choices." This doesn't apply, though, where Spoils of the Vault instructs a player to "[r]eveal cards" until a certain card is revealed, because no choices involving multiple players are involved.
Ok, how about this: I have cast quarantine field exiling my opponent's telepathy and their courser of kruphix. My opponent destroys the Quarantine field. There is no time at which I can concede when my opponent's top card will be revieled but my hand has not.
I don't think this applies to the OP. "Reveal cards... until.." by the english meaning of the words is precisely to reveal one then another, then a third, etc. To argue that all the cards are, in the eyes of the rules, revealed simultaneously, seems quite the contrarian stance. "Reveal a card from the top of your library, and if it doesn't have the chosen name, repeat this process" would not work as the top card does not change, though more complicated wordings, or exiling as part of the itterative process instead of all at once, could achieve this.
Still, I think the intuitive scenario is the required one. First, the top card is revealed. Then, if it is not the named card, the top two cards are revealed. Then, if the named card is not revealed, the top three, and so on until the named card appears.
If this is not the required execution of the instructions then what prevents the caster from from picking an arbitrary number of cards off the top of the deck and revealing them all at once in search of the named card? Say they have triskaidekaphobia or death's shadow in play.
104.3a A player can concede the game at any time. A player who concedes leaves the game immediately. He or she loses the game.
EDIT: Clarification after comment 6 was posted.
**Legacy**
Grixis Delver
16post
**Standard**
I'll let you know if/when i go back to Standard. I hate pulling cards i can't use.
I think the word "until" in the spoils of the vault instructions strongly indicates that time is passing as the cards are revealed.
By law you can at any point demand your property and theres simply nothing that could force you to continue a game you dont want to play.
No matter what the game is trying to do, conceding doesnt use the stack, and if you pack up your stuff, your opponent has to hand over all your cards "immediatly".
In any way, theres no time between these events, conceding is not a game action, the game ends right there on the spot.
If the opponent is in the middle of searching the library or looking at cards, does not matter.
----
You cannot handle it any other way, as you cannot rule over the players property.
If they dont want to play, they can at any point just leave or concede.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
I wonder if this is just one of those "up to the discretion of individual judges" things.
repeat this processreveal the next card, and so on"). If it is a simultaneous action, and a player is nevertheless allowed to concede the game, then that would be difficult to reconcile with the answers I gave in the thread I linked to in comment 3.EDIT: Edited after comment 14 was posted.
Just conceding the game doesn't mean that. If you have any hidden morphs for example you are still required to show them. Not doing so is a warning and purposely not revealing is cheating and will get someone DQ from the rest of the tournament.
Trying at a guess: my opponent casts show and tell. My opponent an I each select a card from hand to place into play. I have selected spirit of the labyrinth and hold swords to plowshares to answer a potential griselbrand. My opponent revels emrakul, the aeons torn instead and i try to concede without revealing my spirit.
I don't think this applies to the OP. "Reveal cards... until.." by the english meaning of the words is precisely to reveal one then another, then a third, etc. To argue that all the cards are, in the eyes of the rules, revealed simultaneously, seems quite the contrarian stance. "Reveal a card from the top of your library, and if it doesn't have the chosen name, repeat this process" would not work as the top card does not change, though more complicated wordings, or exiling as part of the itterative process instead of all at once, could achieve this.
Still, I think the intuitive scenario is the required one. First, the top card is revealed. Then, if it is not the named card, the top two cards are revealed. Then, if the named card is not revealed, the top three, and so on until the named card appears.
If this is not the required execution of the instructions then what prevents the caster from from picking an arbitrary number of cards off the top of the deck and revealing them all at once in search of the named card? Say they have triskaidekaphobia or death's shadow in play.