Do you feel that as the "judge" brought this situation, you are able to announce a winner through this ruling?
The closest I could figure at the time arguing the the current "head judge" was that we consider the match a draw and play out a 4th game, since there was no winner or loser. Because there was a cruel ultimatum in my opponents hand and I was at 5, it was assumed that he would win and it was ruled in his favor and the judge entered it as a 2-1 win for him.
I'll say right now that I was the one playing the jund deck. I understand my bias here and acknowledge that what happens here might be a bit of a rules lawyer attitude, but the fact of the matter is that rules are rules for a reason. Cedric Philips and I can hang out anytime.
In a Jund vs Grixis match during an FNM level event, you are the judge.
The 2 players come to you with their Match reports, both of them 2-1 in their favor. They have played each other.
In the final turn, the life totals are 5(Jund) to 2 (Grixis).
The grixis deck, post draw phase, has 2 cards in hand, X amount of lands (Bunched to a pile, None of which are man lands) and places a scalding tarn on the board.
The jund deck with Sprouting Thrinax, Putrid Leech and 0 cards in hand 4 Lands combined to a pile, 1 forest and 1 Raging ravine with 2 +1/+1 counters on it.
The grixis player shows the jund player a cruel ultimatum, announcing "I just needed a land." Without tapping mana nor announcing Cruel Ultimatum with a target he flips cards off the top of his library showing an M10 dual and another fetch and promptly scoops his board.
Because of the indiscriminate amount of lands in the grixis players pile, the jund player believes that he can not play cruel ultimatum and has conceded. The grixis player believes that the cruel ultimatum was met with concession.
The issue here comes with Concession.
I, as the jund player did not scoop my board nor did I flip the cards off my library like my opponent did. I was still at 5, he was still at 2 because at no point did he play Cruel Ultimatum. He didnt announce the spell, didnt pay the cost or even sacrifice the Scalding tarn that would be required to play cruel ultimatum. I'm a very conservative player when playing. Were I to concede a game, I would give at least a "You got it" or a "Must be nice." but I said nothing, thinking that I would have to untap and turn my stuff sideways, as a courtesy for the remaining card in his hand and then he scooped cards up. After scooping up our cards, we shook hands went through the pleasantries and then went up to report our 2-1 wins.
According to the comprehensive rules,
"104.2a A player still in the game wins the game if all of that player's opponents have left the game. This happens immediately and overrides all effects that would prevent that player from winning the game."
So, at what point between him scooping his board and me scooping my board does one of us lose enough cards to the point where we have "left the game"?
This is the build I've been running at my local Extended tournaments since seeing Kibler's Grove combo. It runs fairly well without the heirarch because the extra pride mages are early game beaters. If im stuck at 4 mana, Knight gives me a little push for a turn 4 Baneslayer so it gets fairly good board presence. Just wondering if there's a little something extra I could give it.
I'd play Zoo with Main decked Celestial purges.
1.The meta is heavy in Red and black permanents. O rings path and Celestrial purge removing cards from the game rather than killing is safer (ie: thrinax, not giving my opponent land)
2. Spectral zoo is sitting right next to me ready for standardization.
The closest I could figure at the time arguing the the current "head judge" was that we consider the match a draw and play out a 4th game, since there was no winner or loser. Because there was a cruel ultimatum in my opponents hand and I was at 5, it was assumed that he would win and it was ruled in his favor and the judge entered it as a 2-1 win for him.
In a Jund vs Grixis match during an FNM level event, you are the judge.
The 2 players come to you with their Match reports, both of them 2-1 in their favor. They have played each other.
In the final turn, the life totals are 5(Jund) to 2 (Grixis).
The grixis deck, post draw phase, has 2 cards in hand, X amount of lands (Bunched to a pile, None of which are man lands) and places a scalding tarn on the board.
The jund deck with Sprouting Thrinax, Putrid Leech and 0 cards in hand 4 Lands combined to a pile, 1 forest and 1 Raging ravine with 2 +1/+1 counters on it.
The grixis player shows the jund player a cruel ultimatum, announcing "I just needed a land." Without tapping mana nor announcing Cruel Ultimatum with a target he flips cards off the top of his library showing an M10 dual and another fetch and promptly scoops his board.
Because of the indiscriminate amount of lands in the grixis players pile, the jund player believes that he can not play cruel ultimatum and has conceded. The grixis player believes that the cruel ultimatum was met with concession.
The issue here comes with Concession.
I, as the jund player did not scoop my board nor did I flip the cards off my library like my opponent did. I was still at 5, he was still at 2 because at no point did he play Cruel Ultimatum. He didnt announce the spell, didnt pay the cost or even sacrifice the Scalding tarn that would be required to play cruel ultimatum. I'm a very conservative player when playing. Were I to concede a game, I would give at least a "You got it" or a "Must be nice." but I said nothing, thinking that I would have to untap and turn my stuff sideways, as a courtesy for the remaining card in his hand and then he scooped cards up. After scooping up our cards, we shook hands went through the pleasantries and then went up to report our 2-1 wins.
According to the comprehensive rules,
"104.2a A player still in the game wins the game if all of that player's opponents have left the game. This happens immediately and overrides all effects that would prevent that player from winning the game."
So, at what point between him scooping his board and me scooping my board does one of us lose enough cards to the point where we have "left the game"?
I bought an alarm clock today instead.
Hopefully, I wont be one of the overflow people who has to play in Mcdonalds like my Last PTQ there.
3 Grove of the Burnwillows
1 Forest
2 Mountains
1 Plains
4 Arid Mesa
2 Marsh Flats
2 Verdant Catacombs
1 Treetop Village
1 Stomping Ground
4 Sacred Foundry
1 Temple Garden[/CARDS]
Creatures
4 Knight of the Reliquary
4 Qasali Pridemage
4 Wild Nacatl
4 Tarmogoyf
4 Baneslayer Angel[/CARDS]
[CARDS]Non-Creature Spells
2 Umezawa's Jitte
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Lightning Helix
4 Path to Exile
4 Punishing Fire
3 Oblivion Ring
2 Kataki, War's wage
2 Gaddock Teeg
2 Luminarch Ascension
2 Wrath of God
4 Molten Rain
This is the build I've been running at my local Extended tournaments since seeing Kibler's Grove combo. It runs fairly well without the heirarch because the extra pride mages are early game beaters. If im stuck at 4 mana, Knight gives me a little push for a turn 4 Baneslayer so it gets fairly good board presence. Just wondering if there's a little something extra I could give it.
1.The meta is heavy in Red and black permanents. O rings path and Celestrial purge removing cards from the game rather than killing is safer (ie: thrinax, not giving my opponent land)
2. Spectral zoo is sitting right next to me ready for standardization.