Overheard between two very new players at a casual event, in extra turns:

“Neither of us gets prizes in a draw, but if someone wins then the winner will get a pack. Want to agree that the player with the lowest life total at the end of turns will concede?”

How do you respond?

When you say casual event, do you mean this is unsanctioned? If not, is this Regular REL or the yet poorly defined “casual REL”?

In any case, this is functionally no different than agreeing to flip the top card of the library for highest mana cost. They are arriving at a match result through an avenue not provided by the game rules.

Originally posted by Yonatan Kamensky:

In any case, this is functionally no different than agreeing to flip the top card of the library for highest mana cost. They are arriving at a match result through an avenue not provided by the game rules.

There's a big difference here: the players are using information they're allowed access to: their life totals. They're not committing rules violations to obtain the information as they would by revealing what “would have happened” if they kept playing. They're also not determining it randomly… or at least not any more randomly than any match of Magic. As the Annotated IPG explains:

At the end of a match, its fine for players to use current board position to make a case of who should concede to who; however they must make a decision based on what they see.

I agree with John that the conversation as stated isn't a problem. Players using the current board state to decide that they would like to concede is fine.

However, I would probably want to chat with the players - especially if I think they might be newer to tournament play - and discuss what is and is not acceptable when deciding the outcome of a match.

Originally posted by Yonatan Kamensky:

When you say casual event, do you mean this is unsanctioned? If not, is this Regular REL or the yet poorly defined “casual REL”?

Regular REL, sorry for the lack of clarity.

Edit: to further explain, “casual” means “FNM-level with new players and kids” as opposed to “semi-serious event with moderate prize support and experienced players.” Both would be governed by the JREL document, but the nature of the event would certainly affect a judge's interpretation of the incident.

Edited Eli Meyer (March 8, 2015 07:21:16 PM)

To those saying it's ok: It feels like to me that they're no longer playing magic, but playing a closely related game with slightly different rules. Making a case for “you should scoop because my board/hand is better” is still within the game of magic, just trying to convince your opponent to concede. However, playing sudden death no longer feels like a game of magic.

I misread the scenario. I thought, for some reason, they were playing “first to do damage”, not lowest life totals.

Edited Olivier Jansen (March 9, 2015 12:56:18 PM)

I don't follow that logic. Keep in mind that Sudden Death can happen in sanctioned tournaments if they are running timed matches in elimination brackets - it's not an utterly left field idea.

The players aren't breaking any rules or using information they shouldn't have to determine their outcome; if they want to change their strategic priorities, that's on them.

According to IPG:

“At the end of a match, its fine for players to use current board position to make a case of who should concede to who; however they must make a decision based on what they see”

This covers up the whole situation for your players. They are not doing it wrong, but I wouldn't encourage it.

This is one of the least bad ways for players to avoid a draw; no infraction.

d:^D

There is a small appendix – the players may agree this at the start of the match, but the judges will not help if a player reneges on the agreement.

So my question is where do you draw the line on player agreements with regard to alternative win conditions?

In turn 5 of turns, the active player reveals his hand to the non active player and says, “Neither of us want to draw, so I'm going to mix these two cards, land and nonland, up and put them face down. If you can choose the nonland, I'll scoop to you. If you choose the land, you scoop to me. Sounds good?”

Two players enter turns and one player says to the other, “I don't want to draw, and it doesn't look like we'll be able to finish. How about on turn 5 of turns, reveal the card you draw to me, and if you can't kill me, I'll scoop to you if it's a land, and you scoop if it's a non land. Sound good?”

“If you can correctly guess whether the collector number of the forest I'm using is odd or even, I'll scoop to you. If you're wrong, you scoop to me. Cool?”

These sorts of things are using the game state and information the players have available to them, but are definitely getting a match result through means that aren't the game of Magic.

Establishing an arbitrary goal, like, who has more cards in hand, who has more lands in play, who has more permanents on the battlefield, whose graveyard has more cards, and agreeing to this kind of stipulation ahead of time feels very much like determining a match result through something that isn't Magic. Can someone help me draw the line here, and why it is where it is drawn?

Because setting up an arbitrary win condition in the game feels very much like improperly determining a winner to me.

This scenario is seeing debate in my personal circle as well. I personally come down on the side that this is okay, but very close to the line— I would be talking with these players afterward to encourage them to find less shady ways of ending their match.

It certainly does feel shady to me, and I can understand the other side of the argument. To play devil's advocate here, the key distinction being made is that the players make this agreement at the start of extra turns (or somewhere in the middle), not at the end. It's not even shady to me at the end of turns— it feels no different than asking “well, that's turn 5. This is a draw, but if we had another turn or two I would win the game— would you like to concede to me?”.

However, this occurring somewhere different than the very end of turns can damage the way the players play the game even more than going to time already does. When the win condition changes from “don't die” to “have more life than that guy”, the ideal strategies to achieve that condition also change, and if the players are allowed to play under this new win condition, it could greatly alter how they play the game.

However, the difference to me lies in the fact that they are still playing Magic: The Gathering. At my last FNM, I drafted a very slow, controlling Abzan deck. In my third round, I faced a U/G player and decided to sideboard in my Meandering Towershell. In game 3, after seeing it in my opening hand, I decided to set the stipulation for myself that I could only win the game by attacking with Mr. Turtle McDurdle. This significantly altered the way that I played the game, as protecting my only win condition became top priority. However, I was still playing Magic, I was just playing a slightly altered version of Magic.

The situation discussed in this thread feels similar. We've changed the win condition by agreeing to concede if situation X happens, but we're still playing Magic to achieve situation X. This is why I do not believe I would disqualify the player here.

Originally posted by Thomas Ralph:

There is a small appendix – the players may agree this at the start of the match, but the judges will not help if a player reneges on the agreement.

Can you provide a source for that? I'm interested to see one, if possible.


P.S. Durdle Turtle got there. In the end, I won the game, and thus the match, on the back of my Towershell.

Eric - looks like all of your examples introduce a random element, which is unacceptable. They may be using Magic cards, but it's not a game of Magic determining a winner, it's a random element. Randomly Determining A Winner remains a Very Bad Thing at Regular REL, as well as Comp/Professional.

David - Thomas Ralph is correct <– there's your source. :)

d:^D

But that means that it's ok to agree to arbitrary win conditions with your opponent?

“Whoever has fewer cards in their library wins this whip mirror, ok?”

“Whoever has more creatures on the battlefield at the end of turn 5 wins, agreed?”

“Would you like to agree to the alternative win condition of whoever draws the most cards during this game will win at the end of turns?”

Are these all ok things to do?

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

David - Thomas Ralph is correct <– there's your source. :)

Thank you, Scott. If I implied I disagreed with Thomas, that wasn't my intent. His statement supports my position. I was just hoping to find a passage in the MTR (or other relevant policy document) to support it, to further strengthen my position in the debates among my circle of friends. I'm home now, though, so I can scan the documents myself and see if I find anything.