Concerning your last statement about using something other than board state to determine who wins, do you mean that you can't determine winners base off information elsewhere in the game such as the hand, life totals, poison counters, graveyard sizes ect.? If so I'd like to ask if you could provide the EXACT line of text in the AIPG which it states these are improper ways of determining a winner. From my 6th or 7th read over of section 4.3 I can only see reference to one type of improper way to determine the outcome of a game and that's if it's an outside-the-game method (including using illegal actions within the game), meaning other in-game information should be an appropriate way to determine a winner.
The board or game state includes all of those things. It isn't simply whats on the battlefield it is everything visible in the game.
The board or game state includes all of those things. It isn't simply whats on the battlefield it is everything visible in the game.
Gotcha. I've only ever used it to mean how strong my position on the board is, like when I'm facing down an aggro deck and have a bunch of cards in hand I'll say something like "Man, I really need to get a board state going." so that's why I was confused.
I don't know who Uncle Scott is, but I don't think a quote from an unrelated topic can be said to apply here. I don't know the context of this quote (i did some quick google searches but didn't find this) but even if it was relating to the game of magic, I don't imagine unless published in an official format that it actually has any bearing on the official rules. I believe I asked earlier if judges were trained to follow the letter of the IPG or the spirit, which you replied saying that they're not trained to be subjective and that they follow the philosophy of the IPG and AIPG. That statement seems contradictory of what you're implying here. Can you clarify which you mean? Are judges trained to follow the letter or spirit of the law?
"Uncle" Scott is only (one of) the most senior Judge(s) in the program, and he is the one whose posts in the judge forum are Official answers.
So this quote is literally what you've been asking about, currently happening: Judges being trained to follow the spirit of the rules, and not the letter of the law, when players try to construct obscure corner cases.
I can only see reference to one type of improper way to determine the outcome of a game and that's if it's an outside-the-game method (including using illegal actions within the game), meaning other in-game information should be an appropriate way to determine a winner.
It comes down to how we interpret "outside-the-game method." If you are using the components of the game, the objects in game, actions you take during the game, etc. and attribute to them context, abilities, consequences that they do not and should not have within that game of magic, then those abilities, consequences, etc., that you and your opponent have agreed to imbue them with, are outside-the-game. The fact that drawing and revealing a land/non-land is something that can happen legally within the context of a game is not relevant. The ramifications you have assigned to that action are not part of the game of magic.
"Uncle" Scott is only (one of) the most senior Judge(s) in the program, and he is the one whose posts in the judge forum are Official answers.
So this quote is literally what you've been asking about, currently happening: Judges being trained to follow the spirit of the rules, and not the letter of the law, when players try to construct obscure corner cases.
So then judge rulings are subjective. This raises some interesting ethics questions for me, like if players should play according to what they interpret these subjective guidelines to be, or what they believe the judge will interpret them as. In either case this is good information to know.
It comes down to how we interpret "outside-the-game method." If you are using the components of the game, the objects in game, actions you take during the game, etc. and attribute to them context, abilities, consequences that they do not and should not have within that game of magic, then those abilities, consequences, etc., that you and your opponent have agreed to imbue them with, are outside-the-game. The fact that drawing and revealing a land/non-land is something that can happen legally within the context of a game is not relevant. The ramifications you have assigned to that action are not part of the game of magic.
I see what you're saying, but when you take that stance to its logical conclusion, one would then determine that using game states to determine the winner of a game is an outside-the-game method. We can prove this isn't the case from one of the last sentences in the AIPG section 4.3:
That said, if a player asks his or her opponent to concede because he or she has an overwhelming board position when time is called, that is not Improperly Determining a Winner, because nothing outside the game has actually been introduced into the scenario.
So this view is logically inconsistent with the AIPG.
[...] like if players should play according to what they interpret these subjective guidelines to be, or what they believe the judge will interpret them as.
I don't see how you can think that trying to find a way to randomly determine the winner of a game of magic that is somehow legal within the rule that states the winner shall only be determined by playing the game to be either.
I see what you're saying, but when you take that stance to its logical conclusion, one would then determine that using game states to determine the winner of a game is an outside-the-game method.
No, I disagree. A conversation and discussion about the current game state, likely future game states, who needs it more, and any number of other considerations are all possible and legal. The bright and clear line gets crossed when you and your opponent conspire to determine the winner by mutual deferment to a chance event.
Speaking of logical conclusions, though, the line of this thread is only remotely a discussion in game three, time called, neither player can afford a draw scenarios. Consider if these methods were instead used to determine match wins for game one, round one, of a GP. Instead of playing out their games say half the matches decided to do land/non-land or some other method and go get more breakfast. What if they all did? That's no longer a magic tournament. That's a problem.
I don't see how you can think that trying to find a way to randomly determine the winner of a game of magic that is somehow legal within the rule that states the winner shall only be determined by playing the game to be either.
By reading the actual IPG & AIPG rules. Is there some other method I should be using?
[..]The bright and clear line gets crossed when you and your opponent conspire to determine the winner by mutual deferment to a chance event.
Gamestates are the result of chance events. Some skill can be used to have better chances at getting ahead in one aspect or another before time is called, but the same can be said for deciding based off a legally drawn card (such as fetching to thin). These two scenarios contain the exact same elements.
The chance events that result in the game state only result in the game state. Discussing and agreeing on who will concede based on that game state is a step of separation that, in my view, matters. Remember, it's not actually the game state that determines the winner in these cases, it's the discussion between the players and a concession.
Your proposals, while they contain the same elements of chance events and an agreed upon concession, are distinguishable from legal methods in that your discussion and agreement does not determine who will concede, it determines which chance event will be instilled with the gravity to not just change the game state according to the rules of magic, but to determine the winner directly.
I grant it's a muddy distinction, but muddy is your best case scenario, I think. Any conclusion that "Method X for determining the winner of a match of magic at random is unequivocally legal" flies in the face of the spirit of the rules and you will always, I think, be at risk for disqualification if you try such a thing, based on the view of the particular judge in charge.
Perhaps you could consult the head judge before the event to get their stance as players do with altered cards and the like.
Your proposals, while they contain the same elements of chance events and an agreed upon concession, are distinguishable from legal methods in that your discussion and agreement does not determine who will concede, it determines which chance event will be instilled with the gravity to not just change the game state according to the rules of magic, but to determine the winner directly.
How I've been envisioning this scenario isn't actually tying the result of the revealed card to winning the game, but as an alternative to asking your opponent to concede if you have an overwhelming board presence. Sorry if I was unclear, I didn't mean to say that players could tie the result of a game state to an actual game effect of winning, just make a gentleman's agreement that the other concede if chance didn't favor them. Like you mentioned earlier, the opponent could change their mind after seeing and still want to draw and there would be no way to enforce the agreement you made.
Perhaps you could consult the head judge before the event to get their stance as players do with altered cards and the like.
That sounds like good advice. If I find myself in this corner case scenario I'll probably do that before attempting to make an agreement with my opponent.
That sounds like good advice. If I find myself in this corner case scenario I'll probably do that before attempting to make an agreement with my opponent.
It should go without saying, but if you do this do not to it in front of your opponent - talk to the judge away from the table.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Gotcha. I've only ever used it to mean how strong my position on the board is, like when I'm facing down an aggro deck and have a bunch of cards in hand I'll say something like "Man, I really need to get a board state going." so that's why I was confused.
"Uncle" Scott is only (one of) the most senior Judge(s) in the program, and he is the one whose posts in the judge forum are Official answers.
So this quote is literally what you've been asking about, currently happening: Judges being trained to follow the spirit of the rules, and not the letter of the law, when players try to construct obscure corner cases.
It comes down to how we interpret "outside-the-game method." If you are using the components of the game, the objects in game, actions you take during the game, etc. and attribute to them context, abilities, consequences that they do not and should not have within that game of magic, then those abilities, consequences, etc., that you and your opponent have agreed to imbue them with, are outside-the-game. The fact that drawing and revealing a land/non-land is something that can happen legally within the context of a game is not relevant. The ramifications you have assigned to that action are not part of the game of magic.
So then judge rulings are subjective. This raises some interesting ethics questions for me, like if players should play according to what they interpret these subjective guidelines to be, or what they believe the judge will interpret them as. In either case this is good information to know.
I see what you're saying, but when you take that stance to its logical conclusion, one would then determine that using game states to determine the winner of a game is an outside-the-game method. We can prove this isn't the case from one of the last sentences in the AIPG section 4.3:
So this view is logically inconsistent with the AIPG.
I don't see how you can think that trying to find a way to randomly determine the winner of a game of magic that is somehow legal within the rule that states the winner shall only be determined by playing the game to be either.
No, I disagree. A conversation and discussion about the current game state, likely future game states, who needs it more, and any number of other considerations are all possible and legal. The bright and clear line gets crossed when you and your opponent conspire to determine the winner by mutual deferment to a chance event.
Speaking of logical conclusions, though, the line of this thread is only remotely a discussion in game three, time called, neither player can afford a draw scenarios. Consider if these methods were instead used to determine match wins for game one, round one, of a GP. Instead of playing out their games say half the matches decided to do land/non-land or some other method and go get more breakfast. What if they all did? That's no longer a magic tournament. That's a problem.
By reading the actual IPG & AIPG rules. Is there some other method I should be using?
Gamestates are the result of chance events. Some skill can be used to have better chances at getting ahead in one aspect or another before time is called, but the same can be said for deciding based off a legally drawn card (such as fetching to thin). These two scenarios contain the exact same elements.
Your proposals, while they contain the same elements of chance events and an agreed upon concession, are distinguishable from legal methods in that your discussion and agreement does not determine who will concede, it determines which chance event will be instilled with the gravity to not just change the game state according to the rules of magic, but to determine the winner directly.
I grant it's a muddy distinction, but muddy is your best case scenario, I think. Any conclusion that "Method X for determining the winner of a match of magic at random is unequivocally legal" flies in the face of the spirit of the rules and you will always, I think, be at risk for disqualification if you try such a thing, based on the view of the particular judge in charge.
Perhaps you could consult the head judge before the event to get their stance as players do with altered cards and the like.
How I've been envisioning this scenario isn't actually tying the result of the revealed card to winning the game, but as an alternative to asking your opponent to concede if you have an overwhelming board presence. Sorry if I was unclear, I didn't mean to say that players could tie the result of a game state to an actual game effect of winning, just make a gentleman's agreement that the other concede if chance didn't favor them. Like you mentioned earlier, the opponent could change their mind after seeing and still want to draw and there would be no way to enforce the agreement you made.
That sounds like good advice. If I find myself in this corner case scenario I'll probably do that before attempting to make an agreement with my opponent.
It should go without saying, but if you do this do not to it in front of your opponent - talk to the judge away from the table.