Since all but one player will have a Persecutor, no one can lose the game (since there will be an opposing Persecutor preventing it) and no one except the person without the Persecutor can win the game. There are still ways for that one player to win the game (Laboratory Maniac for example) that doesn't cause the others to lose so those still work. But, players will be unable to kill others as long as at least 2 Persecutors exist.
I very much appreciate your efforts to answer the question, but I just can't accept the answer that you've given.
Winning with Laboratory Maniac WOULD cause the other players to lose the game. One player can't win the game without the other players LOSING the game. The critical question for me is how Magic rules deal with contradictory factors. A card with a +1/+1 counter on it that also gets a -1/-1 counter will eventually have no counters when those two cancel each other out. We don't say that the creature is both a 4/4 and a 2/2 at the same time: we say that it's a 3/3.
Tom's "You can't win the game" + Jane's "Your opponent (ie. Tom) can't lose the game" = Tom can't win the game" + "Tom can't lose the game." Do those cancel each other out? If they don't, we would seem to have a problem. The only conventional game outcome where nobody wins or loses that I know of is a draw. Could no one being able to win and simultaneously no one being able to lose mean that the game ends in a draw. It very well could IF all of the players control an Abyssal Persecutor, but they don't.
One of the players has no win or lose contraints placed on them. Would this fact prevent a "draw" outcome? A draw can only result if NOBODY can win and NOBODY can lose, yet one of the players IS free to win and to lose. Again we hit the instrinsic mutually-exclusive binary nature of winning/losing. Even though the player who isn't controling a Persecutor is free to win or lose, they can't win without the other players losing, and they can't lose without the other players winning. This would seem to me to mean that NOBODY can win this game and NOBODY can lose it.
My sense is that there are only two possible outcomes. Either Magic's rules define this situation to be a draw, in which nobody can win and nobody can lose... OR.... Magic's rules don't take this situation into account and the combo SIMPLY BREAKS THE GAME.
If an effect (such as found in Laboratory Maniac) makes a player win the game, the "game ends immediately" (with one exception involving the limited range of influence option) (C.R. 104.1, 104.3h). But nothing in the comprehensive rules explicitly states that a player who would win the game makes all other players lose the game, with the exception of multiplayer games using the limited range of influence option. In such games, an effect that would make a player win the game "instead causes all of that player's opponents within the player's range of influence to lose the game" (C.R. 104.3h). See also this thread.
I very much appreciate your efforts to answer the question, but I just can't accept the answer that you've given.
Winning with Laboratory Maniac WOULD cause the other players to lose the game. One player can't win the game without the other players LOSING the game. The critical question for me is how Magic rules deal with contradictory factors. A card with a +1/+1 counter on it that also gets a -1/-1 counter will eventually have no counters when those two cancel each other out. We don't say that the creature is both a 4/4 and a 2/2 at the same time: we say that it's a 3/3.
Tom's "You can't win the game" + Jane's "Your opponent (ie. Tom) can't lose the game" = Tom can't win the game" + "Tom can't lose the game." Do those cancel each other out? If they don't, we would seem to have a problem. The only conventional game outcome where nobody wins or loses that I know of is a draw. Could no one being able to win and simultaneously no one being able to lose mean that the game ends in a draw. It very well could IF all of the players control an Abyssal Persecutor, but they don't.
One of the players has no win or lose contraints placed on them. Would this fact prevent a "draw" outcome? A draw can only result if NOBODY can win and NOBODY can lose, yet one of the players IS free to win and to lose. Again we hit the instrinsic mutually-exclusive binary nature of winning/losing. Even though the player who isn't controling a Persecutor is free to win or lose, they can't win without the other players losing, and they can't lose without the other players winning. This would seem to me to mean that NOBODY can win this game and NOBODY can lose it.
My sense is that there are only two possible outcomes. Either Magic's rules define this situation to be a draw, in which nobody can win and nobody can lose... OR.... Magic's rules don't take this situation into account and the combo SIMPLY BREAKS THE GAME.
When a player wins the game the game ends immediately (104.1. A game ends immediately when a player wins, when the game is a draw, or when the game is
restarted.) and as far as the game is concerned that's the end of it. There are no losers just a single winner. The only exception is in a multiplayer game with a range of influence.
Thanks for responding, peteroupc. Again, though, I can't accept the answer that I'm being given.
I read the thread that you included. I play commander, and the "limited range of influence" option doesn't apply to my play group. That being the case, you're making the claim that "nothing in the rules explicitly states that a player who would win the game makes all other players lose the game." Well, nothing in the rules of poker explicitly states that two diamonds plus two diamonds makes four diamonds. That's defined by mathematics and the English language. Nothing in the rules of chess states that "white" is the color that reflects visible light and "black" is the color that absorbs it. That's defined by the laws of physics and the English language. It isn't necessary for the game rules to explicitly state that one person winning a game of magic makes the other players lose the game-- that's what WINNING and LOSING mean in the English language.
If, during a game of Commander, I were to "win" the game in the manner that you suggest-- casting Laboratory Maniac, attempting to draw a card, and being unable to draw-- you claim that the other players will not have "lost" the game, even though I "won" the game. THIS MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. The rules of Magic can't override the definition of the word "win" in the English language or the binary logic represented in the concepts of "winning" and "losing" in American societal culture. To "win" is to "not lose" and to "not win" is to "lose." Can you imagine a Superbowl game ending the way you suggest? The New England Patriots win the Superbowl but, fortunately, the Miami Dolphins didn't lose the game, so they're just as happy.
I cannot accept the assertion that the rules of an intrinsically zero-sum card game have the power to redefine what WINNING A GAME and what LOSING A GAME mean, in practical terms, in the real world.
Unfortunately, all that C.R. 104.2b says is "An effect may state that a player wins the game", and doesn't say anything about whether other players lose the game as a result. And it may be a gap in the rules that they don't say whether an effect that makes a player win the game makes other players lose the game, if the game doesn't use the limited range of influence option (review C.R. 104.3h). (Although you may find this aspect of the rules controversial, keep in mind that only the rules manager and Magic R&D have the power to change the comprehensive rules for all games.) If you want confirmation on whether such an effect makes other players lose the game in that case, you should ask the rules manager.
In casual unsanctioned games, the players can agree on modifications to the comprehensive rules ("house rules") to fill this apparent gap. For example, in such games, the players can agree to use a modified version of C.R. 104.2b with the following sentence at the end: "If the player wins the game this way, all other players lose the game unless the game uses the limited range of influence option (see rule 104.3h)."
Thanks for responding, peteroupc. Again, though, I can't accept the answer that I'm being given.
I read the thread that you included. I play commander, and the "limited range of influence" option doesn't apply to my play group. That being the case, you're making the claim that "nothing in the rules explicitly states that a player who would win the game makes all other players lose the game." Well, nothing in the rules of poker explicitly states that two diamonds plus two diamonds makes four diamonds. That's defined by mathematics and the English language. Nothing in the rules of chess states that "white" is the color that reflects visible light and "black" is the color that absorbs it. That's defined by the laws of physics and the English language. It isn't necessary for the game rules to explicitly state that one person winning a game of magic makes the other players lose the game-- that's what WINNING and LOSING mean in the English language.
If, during a game of Commander, I were to "win" the game in the manner that you suggest-- casting Laboratory Maniac, attempting to draw a card, and being unable to draw-- you claim that the other players will not have "lost" the game, even though I "won" the game. THIS MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. The rules of Magic can't override the definition of the word "win" in the English language or the binary logic represented in the concepts of "winning" and "losing" in American societal culture. To "win" is to "not lose" and to "not win" is to "lose." Can you imagine a Superbowl game ending the way you suggest? The New England Patriots win the Superbowl but, fortunately, the Miami Dolphins didn't lose the game, so they're just as happy.
I cannot accept the assertion that the rules of an intrinsically zero-sum card game have the power to redefine what WINNING A GAME and what LOSING A GAME mean, in practical terms, in the real world.
Peteroupc and WizardMN are two of the biggest names in this rules forum. They and one other person are all telling you the same thing. If you want to PM Rezzahan or NateDogg(the later which is at least a Lvl2 Judge if not higher), then go for it.
My credentials: I have been playing since 1995. I graduated with an English degree.
Magic is not just played in English, so the rules of English do not apply. Richard Garfield, creator of the game in question, made it as a way to pass time between D&D sessions. Please not the primary language in D&D is not "English". The primary language is "Common". The rules of magic are not built on the assumptions of the English language. Sure, the King James Bible is written in English, but you can be damned sure the original bible was not.
Let's look at two cards in specific: the very recent Princess Twilight Sparkle and the older Divine Intervention. If one successfully activates Twilight, everyone [MLP verbiage "everypony"="everybody"] would win the game and no one would lose the game. If this was ever allowed play in tournaments, all players would tally a win on their slip. Divine Intervention is very much a legal card. No one loses. No one wins. Everyone draws.
It is possible to end a game of magic without anyone losing.
Take this example as well: Omen Machine and a 1/1 are on the battlefield. I cast Repulse. The casting of Repulse successfully goes on the stack targeting the 1/1. Repulse resolves, one line at a time. First, the 1/1 is returned to the owner's hand. Next, Repulse attempts to make me draw a card, but due to Omen Machine, I cannot. Repulse, having completed as much of its text as it can, is then put into my graveyard. The 1/1 remains in the owner's hand, even though the card could never be drawn while Omen Machine is on the battlefield.
Tom's "You can't win the game" + Jane's "Your opponent (ie. Tom) can't lose the game" = Tom can't win the game" + "Tom can't lose the game." Do those cancel each other out? If they don't, we would seem to have a problem. The only conventional game outcome where nobody wins or loses that I know of is a draw. Could no one being able to win and simultaneously no one being able to lose mean that the game ends in a draw. It very well could IF all of the players control an Abyssal Persecutor, but they don't.
I am not sure if this comment (and the rest of your initial response) has to do with the situation as you described on the whole, or only with the Lab Man interaction I mentioned. I assume this is without Lab Man which perhaps suggests a bit of a misunderstanding about the situation.
While there are indeed 2 effects that are saying opposite things, Magic has no problem with these effects existing together. One effect does indeed prevent a person from winning and another does indeed prevent that player from losing. However, what they don't do is prevent a player from *playing*. That is, even with these effects, the player is still in the game and still gets to do stuff. Presumably, they will work towards getting rid of the effect that says they can't win. But, the existence of the effects don't automatically cause the game to be a draw. In most cases, the game will continue, even with the presence of some sort of combo, simply because players can't lose.
I mention Lab Man simply to highlight that a player does not lose simply because another player wins. Losing is outlined in the rules and on certain cards and is a specific situation that has been described very well above. A player winning on the other hand simply means the game is done. The other players did not lose (in game terms); they just longer have a game to participate in because that game is over.
While this is a bit of a departure from real life since we tend to track winners and losers of things and someone who didn't win is treated as someone who lost. That all makes sense, but Magic structured on a set of rules that dictate *everything* about the game. This includes the definitions of winning and losing. There are a number of ways for a player to lose in the rules. But, according to the rules, another player winning does not make them a loser in game terms. And, since we only care about what the rules dictate, we can be confident that players can still "lose" when someone else wins the game through a "win the game" effect even though they haven't technically lost.
The answer provided is correct as is the reasoning behind it. If you feel this is unintuitive, you can reach out to Wizards to air your grievance with them. But, the rules are the rules.
Note also that a player can concede the game at any time, even if an effect says they can't lose the game (C.R. 101.1, 104.3a). A player who concedes the game loses that game (C.R. 104.3a).
I mention Lab Man simply to highlight that a player does not lose simply because another player wins. Losing is outlined in the rules and on certain cards and is a specific situation that has been described very well above. A player winning on the other hand simply means the game is done. The other players did not lose (in game terms); they just longer have a game to participate in because that game is over.
While this is a bit of a departure from real life since we tend to track winners and losers of things and someone who didn't win is treated as someone who lost. That all makes sense, but Magic structured on a set of rules that dictate *everything* about the game. This includes the definitions of winning and losing. There are a number of ways for a player to lose in the rules. But, according to the rules, another player winning does not make them a loser in game terms.
I wasn't intending to question your extensive knowledge of the game, or the facts that you and peteroupc put forth. Nor am I in any way upset or angry or even frustrated. Your last post is extremely clear and directly addresses the point that I was attempting to make. In it, you use the phrase "in game terms." That expression is quite helpful/useful in terms of clarifying the issue, I think, because the real-world meanings of the words "win" and "lose" are obviously different from the technical terminology of Magic rulings. My original question concerned Commander game play rather than tournament play, and in casual play the gap in meanings is even greater. I can imagine that, in a tournament setting, people might be more inclined to allow official "game terms" to define their personal reality more than they would in a casual kitchen table setting.
I was arguing the point that, outside of tournament settings, Magic is commonly understood to be a zero-sum game in which winning is the opposite of losing. I believe that this is an objective fact-- that's what everyone I know take the words to mean-- in the realm of casual play such as Commander. In my play group, when one person wins, everyone else has lost the game. I can't imagine that this is an uncommon or atypical understanding among casual players of how the game of Magic works. These meanings are fundamentally different from the meanings rigourously spelled out in the game's official rules.
This means that, at the end of a Magic game, there are multiple meanings for "winning" and multiple meanings for "losing." The takeaway of this discussion for me is that language is quite sloppy, and words have multiple meanings at the same time. A "house," to Europeans and Americans, is usually a rectangular wooden or brick structure, but it can also be an igloo, a tee pee, or a round thatched hut. In "game terms," winning and losing have very rigorously-defined meanings, but those meanings don't replace or eradicate the colloquial real-world meanings which have a parallel existence and exist alongside the technical meanings-- at least for non-tournament players.
Clearly, my assertion that the terms "winning" and "losing" can't be re-defined by the rules of a card game was mistaken. They obviously can, as you've all pointed out. I understand now that the formal, official technical meanings of the words can be very different from colloquially understood meanings. I very much appreciate the time you've taken to explain this for me. Thanks!
This means that, at the end of a Magic game, there are multiple meanings for "winning" and multiple meanings for "losing." The takeaway of this discussion for me is that language is quite sloppy, and words have multiple meanings at the same time. A "house," to Europeans and Americans, is usually a rectangular wooden or brick structure, but it can also be an igloo, a tee pee, or a round thatched hut. In "game terms," winning and losing have very rigorously-defined meanings, but those meanings don't replace or eradicate the colloquial real-world meanings which have a parallel existence and exist alongside the technical meanings-- at least for non-tournament players.
Clearly, my assertion that the terms "winning" and "losing" can't be re-defined by the rules of a card game was mistaken. They obviously can, as you've all pointed out.
In this sense, see also C.R. 701.1, which acknowledges the use of certain "specialized verbs" on a card "whose meanings may not be clear" in terms of the game. For example, in terms of the game, the word "destroy" is clearly not taken literally (C.R. 701.7). Other terms with special meanings include "draw (a card)" (C.R. 121), as well as "win the game" and "lose the game" (C.R. 104.2, 104.3). See also this thread, especially its comment 4.
Tom's "You can't win the game" + Jane's "Your opponent (ie. Tom) can't lose the game" = Tom can't win the game" + "Tom can't lose the game." Do those cancel each other out?
C.R.104.3f states, "If a player would both win and lose the game simultaneously, that player loses the game."
The original question concerned the outcome of targeting Abyssal Persecutor with Fractured Identity in a multiplayer game. Since there's one player who wouldn't simultaneously win and lose the game (because their Abyssal Persecutor has been exiled), and everyone else WOULD simultaneously win and lose, it appears that (according to C.R.104.3f) the person who didn't cast Fractured Identity and Abyssal Persecutor wins the game by default, according to the rules. Am I understanding this correctly?
I didn't intend to challenge or question anyone's knowledge of the game in any way. I just couldn't honestly accept the assertions that were being made based on my current understanding at the time. To meekly accept those in spite of their not appearing to make any sense would be obsequious and insincere.
Peteroupc and WizardMN are two of the biggest names in this rules forum. They and one other person are all telling you the same thing... ...My credentials: I have been playing since 1995. I graduated with an English degree.
Sorry, I didn't intend to challenge or question anyone's knowledge of the game in any way. I just couldn't honestly accept the assertions that were being made based on my current understanding at the time. To meekly accept those in spite of their not appearing to make any sense would be obsequious and insincere.
The original question concerned the outcome of targeting Abyssal Persecutor with Fractured Identity in a multiplayer game. Since there's one player who wouldn't simultaneously win and lose the game (because their Abyssal Persecutor has been exiled), and everyone else WOULD simultaneously win and lose, it appears that (according to C.R.104.3f) the person who didn't cast Fractured Identity and Abyssal Persecutor wins the game by default, according to the rules. Am I understanding this correctly?
No, C.R. 104.3f applies only to situations where an event would make a player win the game, and simultaneously, another event would make that player lose the game. (I am not aware of any case in which that rule applies at the time of this writing; see also this thread.) It doesn't apply to this scenario, in which one or more players can neither win nor lose the game, except by conceding the game (C.R. 101.1, 104.3a). Under the rules, a player doesn't win the game merely once the player can win the game and every other player can neither win nor lose the game (review C.R. 104.2).
The Sword's ability triggers. Alice chooses to target the Grizzly Bears
While the Sword's ability is on the stack, Nathan activates Ward of Piety's ability twice: once targeting Alice and once targeting Nathan.
Both Ward activations resolve.
Sword of Fire and Ice's ability resolves. The original text of the effect is
Sword of Fire and Ice deals 2 damage to target creature or player and you draw a card.
After we apply the Ward of Piety replacement and Laboratory Maniac replacement to that effect, it becomes
Sword of Fire and Ice deals 1 damage to Alice and Sword of Fire and Ice deals 1 damage to Nathan and Alice wins the game.
At this point, we apply the relevant Nefarious Lich effects. The result is
(Alice exiles 1 card from her graveyard. If she can't, she loses the game) and (Nathan exiles 1 card from his graveyard. If he can't, he loses the game) and (Alice wins the game).
There are no more applicable replacement effects, so the ability finishes resolving. Neither Alice nor Nathan can exile a card from their graveyard, so the end result of this effect is
Alice loses the game and Nathan loses the game and Alice wins the game.
From 104.3f, Alice winning and losing the game simultaneously is a loss. Since Alice and Nathan are thus losing simultaneously, the game is a draw (per 104.4a).
(I tried to figure it out, but it makes me dizzy just thinking about it.)
Winning with Laboratory Maniac WOULD cause the other players to lose the game. One player can't win the game without the other players LOSING the game. The critical question for me is how Magic rules deal with contradictory factors. A card with a +1/+1 counter on it that also gets a -1/-1 counter will eventually have no counters when those two cancel each other out. We don't say that the creature is both a 4/4 and a 2/2 at the same time: we say that it's a 3/3.
Tom's "You can't win the game" + Jane's "Your opponent (ie. Tom) can't lose the game" = Tom can't win the game" + "Tom can't lose the game." Do those cancel each other out? If they don't, we would seem to have a problem. The only conventional game outcome where nobody wins or loses that I know of is a draw. Could no one being able to win and simultaneously no one being able to lose mean that the game ends in a draw. It very well could IF all of the players control an Abyssal Persecutor, but they don't.
One of the players has no win or lose contraints placed on them. Would this fact prevent a "draw" outcome? A draw can only result if NOBODY can win and NOBODY can lose, yet one of the players IS free to win and to lose. Again we hit the instrinsic mutually-exclusive binary nature of winning/losing. Even though the player who isn't controling a Persecutor is free to win or lose, they can't win without the other players losing, and they can't lose without the other players winning. This would seem to me to mean that NOBODY can win this game and NOBODY can lose it.
My sense is that there are only two possible outcomes. Either Magic's rules define this situation to be a draw, in which nobody can win and nobody can lose... OR.... Magic's rules don't take this situation into account and the combo SIMPLY BREAKS THE GAME.
When a player wins the game the game ends immediately (104.1. A game ends immediately when a player wins, when the game is a draw, or when the game is
restarted.) and as far as the game is concerned that's the end of it. There are no losers just a single winner. The only exception is in a multiplayer game with a range of influence.
I read the thread that you included. I play commander, and the "limited range of influence" option doesn't apply to my play group. That being the case, you're making the claim that "nothing in the rules explicitly states that a player who would win the game makes all other players lose the game." Well, nothing in the rules of poker explicitly states that two diamonds plus two diamonds makes four diamonds. That's defined by mathematics and the English language. Nothing in the rules of chess states that "white" is the color that reflects visible light and "black" is the color that absorbs it. That's defined by the laws of physics and the English language. It isn't necessary for the game rules to explicitly state that one person winning a game of magic makes the other players lose the game-- that's what WINNING and LOSING mean in the English language.
If, during a game of Commander, I were to "win" the game in the manner that you suggest-- casting Laboratory Maniac, attempting to draw a card, and being unable to draw-- you claim that the other players will not have "lost" the game, even though I "won" the game. THIS MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. The rules of Magic can't override the definition of the word "win" in the English language or the binary logic represented in the concepts of "winning" and "losing" in American societal culture. To "win" is to "not lose" and to "not win" is to "lose." Can you imagine a Superbowl game ending the way you suggest? The New England Patriots win the Superbowl but, fortunately, the Miami Dolphins didn't lose the game, so they're just as happy.
I cannot accept the assertion that the rules of an intrinsically zero-sum card game have the power to redefine what WINNING A GAME and what LOSING A GAME mean, in practical terms, in the real world.
In casual unsanctioned games, the players can agree on modifications to the comprehensive rules ("house rules") to fill this apparent gap. For example, in such games, the players can agree to use a modified version of C.R. 104.2b with the following sentence at the end: "If the player wins the game this way, all other players lose the game unless the game uses the limited range of influence option (see rule 104.3h)."
Peteroupc and WizardMN are two of the biggest names in this rules forum. They and one other person are all telling you the same thing. If you want to PM Rezzahan or NateDogg(the later which is at least a Lvl2 Judge if not higher), then go for it.
My credentials: I have been playing since 1995. I graduated with an English degree.
Magic is not just played in English, so the rules of English do not apply. Richard Garfield, creator of the game in question, made it as a way to pass time between D&D sessions. Please not the primary language in D&D is not "English". The primary language is "Common". The rules of magic are not built on the assumptions of the English language. Sure, the King James Bible is written in English, but you can be damned sure the original bible was not.
Let's look at two cards in specific: the very recent Princess Twilight Sparkle and the older Divine Intervention. If one successfully activates Twilight, everyone [MLP verbiage "everypony"="everybody"] would win the game and no one would lose the game. If this was ever allowed play in tournaments, all players would tally a win on their slip.
Divine Intervention is very much a legal card. No one loses. No one wins. Everyone draws.
It is possible to end a game of magic without anyone losing.
Take this example as well: Omen Machine and a 1/1 are on the battlefield. I cast Repulse. The casting of Repulse successfully goes on the stack targeting the 1/1. Repulse resolves, one line at a time. First, the 1/1 is returned to the owner's hand. Next, Repulse attempts to make me draw a card, but due to Omen Machine, I cannot. Repulse, having completed as much of its text as it can, is then put into my graveyard. The 1/1 remains in the owner's hand, even though the card could never be drawn while Omen Machine is on the battlefield.
While there are indeed 2 effects that are saying opposite things, Magic has no problem with these effects existing together. One effect does indeed prevent a person from winning and another does indeed prevent that player from losing. However, what they don't do is prevent a player from *playing*. That is, even with these effects, the player is still in the game and still gets to do stuff. Presumably, they will work towards getting rid of the effect that says they can't win. But, the existence of the effects don't automatically cause the game to be a draw. In most cases, the game will continue, even with the presence of some sort of combo, simply because players can't lose.
I mention Lab Man simply to highlight that a player does not lose simply because another player wins. Losing is outlined in the rules and on certain cards and is a specific situation that has been described very well above. A player winning on the other hand simply means the game is done. The other players did not lose (in game terms); they just longer have a game to participate in because that game is over.
While this is a bit of a departure from real life since we tend to track winners and losers of things and someone who didn't win is treated as someone who lost. That all makes sense, but Magic structured on a set of rules that dictate *everything* about the game. This includes the definitions of winning and losing. There are a number of ways for a player to lose in the rules. But, according to the rules, another player winning does not make them a loser in game terms. And, since we only care about what the rules dictate, we can be confident that players can still "lose" when someone else wins the game through a "win the game" effect even though they haven't technically lost.
The answer provided is correct as is the reasoning behind it. If you feel this is unintuitive, you can reach out to Wizards to air your grievance with them. But, the rules are the rules.
I was arguing the point that, outside of tournament settings, Magic is commonly understood to be a zero-sum game in which winning is the opposite of losing. I believe that this is an objective fact-- that's what everyone I know take the words to mean-- in the realm of casual play such as Commander. In my play group, when one person wins, everyone else has lost the game. I can't imagine that this is an uncommon or atypical understanding among casual players of how the game of Magic works. These meanings are fundamentally different from the meanings rigourously spelled out in the game's official rules.
This means that, at the end of a Magic game, there are multiple meanings for "winning" and multiple meanings for "losing." The takeaway of this discussion for me is that language is quite sloppy, and words have multiple meanings at the same time. A "house," to Europeans and Americans, is usually a rectangular wooden or brick structure, but it can also be an igloo, a tee pee, or a round thatched hut. In "game terms," winning and losing have very rigorously-defined meanings, but those meanings don't replace or eradicate the colloquial real-world meanings which have a parallel existence and exist alongside the technical meanings-- at least for non-tournament players.
Clearly, my assertion that the terms "winning" and "losing" can't be re-defined by the rules of a card game was mistaken. They obviously can, as you've all pointed out. I understand now that the formal, official technical meanings of the words can be very different from colloquially understood meanings. I very much appreciate the time you've taken to explain this for me. Thanks!
In this sense, see also C.R. 701.1, which acknowledges the use of certain "specialized verbs" on a card "whose meanings may not be clear" in terms of the game. For example, in terms of the game, the word "destroy" is clearly not taken literally (C.R. 701.7). Other terms with special meanings include "draw (a card)" (C.R. 121), as well as "win the game" and "lose the game" (C.R. 104.2, 104.3). See also this thread, especially its comment 4.
The original question concerned the outcome of targeting Abyssal Persecutor with Fractured Identity in a multiplayer game. Since there's one player who wouldn't simultaneously win and lose the game (because their Abyssal Persecutor has been exiled), and everyone else WOULD simultaneously win and lose, it appears that (according to C.R.104.3f) the person who didn't cast Fractured Identity and Abyssal Persecutor wins the game by default, according to the rules. Am I understanding this correctly?
(I am not aware of any case in which that rule applies at the time of this writing; see also this thread.)It doesn't apply to this scenario, in which one or more players can neither win nor lose the game, except by conceding the game (C.R. 101.1, 104.3a). Under the rules, a player doesn't win the game merely once the player can win the game and every other player can neither win nor lose the game (review C.R. 104.2).EDIT: Edited after comment 17 was posted.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)