Stefano posted a great question about conceding with a potential CPV or Cheating immediately preceding it depending on wording/intent. The thread can be found here. This was a well crafted question with insightful discussion. Kudos to all on that.

The eventual conclusion was, if you concede the game is over. There is still room to investigate cheating, but there is no rewinding past a game that is over. This got me thinking about a natural extension of that thought…


Here is my question: Do we apply the above conclusion to all ways you can loose the game?

104.3. There are several ways to lose the game.

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.
104.3b If a player’s life total is 0 or less, he or she loses the game the next time a player would
receive priority. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)
104.3c If a player is required to draw more cards than are left in his or her library, he or she draws
the remaining cards, and then loses the game the next time a player would receive priority. (This
is a state-based action. See rule 704.)
104.3d If a player has ten or more poison counters, he or she loses the game the next time a player
would receive priority. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)
104.3e An effect may state that a player loses the game.

Concession is only one of many ways to lose the game. What if a similar similar situation occurs, but without a concession?

Proposed Situation

Adam attacks Nick with an Inkmoth Nexus. Nick is at 9 poison counters and 20 life. Nick also has a Melira, Sylvok Outcast in play. Nick and Adam both mark Nick to 10 poison counters. No concession is announce. Once they are done marking the damage, they realize Melira, Sylvok Outcast is still in play. They call judge immediately to resolve. No scooping, hand revealing, or top of library looking has occurred. Assume no cheating on either part.

By the same logic, 10 poison counters is as game ending as a concession would be. Both players agree they marked that the lethal counter. SBA get applied as Adam gets priority to leave Combat Damage, Nick loses the game.

Is this something we should or shouldn't backup? Share your thoughts.

A GRV has occurred. Both players acknowledge it, it was caught immediately after the mistake was made, and even though a player “lost”, the board state is still exactly the same and no extra information has been gained by either player. I back this up 100% of the time.

Can't really say it better than Casey. Not backing up is just a terrible decision due to looking too deep into rules and policy technicalities.

Edited Jack Doyle (May 2, 2014 11:45:41 AM)

I also back this up 100% of the time. Being that no conciliatory actions were taken, we can just fix the gamestate and play on. It's important to note that if one or both of the players scooped here, there's nothing you can do. Please never try to rebuild the gamestate.

These two situations don't seem the same to me. A player who has conceded has actually lost the game, due to making the choice to concede. What he based that choice on is not for us to decide.

In your proposed situation, Nick has not actually lost the game, because he does not, in fact, have 10 poison counters. The fact that both players incorrectly wrote down an additional poison counter is a GRV, but it doesn't mean he actually has one, therefore he never actually lost the game, even if he thought he did for a moment.

I would certainly back up here, give a warning for GRV, and instruct them to continue the game.

Originally posted by Joseph Brooks:

In your proposed situation, Nick has not actually lost the game, because he does not, in fact, have 10 poison counters. The fact that both players incorrectly wrote down an additional poison counter is a GRV, but it doesn't mean he actually has one, therefore he never actually lost the game, even if he thought he did for a moment.

I believe he actually does have the poison counter. It is just erroneously there due to a GRV. If he didn't, we wouldn't have a counter to remove during the backup.


Everyone so far seems to be on the same page. Let's shake it up.

Does this change if we add one more thing to the scenario…

Nick says, “Yep, I'm dead. That is 10 poison, you got it. Good game.”
Adam replies, “Good game.”
Nick says, “Wait, I have a Melira in play. What happens now?”
Adam agrees, “Let's call judge.”

Further why does it change?

Edited Bret Siakel (May 2, 2014 12:05:36 PM)

Originally posted by Bret Siakel:

I believe he actually does have the poison counter.

If this is the case, then what about a situation where one player wrote down the counter, and the other one didn't? Then does he have one?

121. Counters

121.1. A counter is a marker placed on an object or player that modifies its characteristics and/or
interacts with a rule, ability, or effect. Counters are not objects…

While it is common for players to write down their poison counters similar to life totals, it does not change the fact that they are actual markers placed on a player. In this example, both players agree the 10th counter was placed on Nick.

We should treat this the same as if if a creature got a -1/-1 counter placed on it via a GRV. That counter is actually marked on the creature, and it would be removed as part of a rewind. We would not say it never existed. If we did say that counter could never exist, rewinds would be absolutely mandatory as only the “correct” game-state can exist. We would be discounting any other legal but “incorrect” game-states that exist if we chose to not rewind.

The same as a creature having a -1/-1 counter placed on it is a legal game-state, Nick having that 10th poison counter marked on him is a legal game-state. As judges we can choose whether or not we want to rewind to a more “correct” legal game-state.

I appreciate the input, but let's not let this detract from the main discussion. Let's PM each other if we can't agree on what a counter is. :)

Why would this situation be different if a concession is made vs. not made?

Even if someone says “good game” and the gamestate is still intact, we can fix it. We only can't perform this rewind when the gamestate has been irreparably damaged, usually by scooping. I can't imagine I'd get much issue from the players by fixing it even after a “good game” statement.

If you think about it, there is no such thing as a game loss without a concession. If a player writes 0 on his lifepad but then sits there obstinately not picking up his cards and moving to the next game, the game is technically not “over”. What if, say, the player writes 0 on his lifepad and then sits there thinking to double-check that he actually is at 0? The game is only actualy over when the player realizes he is at 0 and there's nothing he can do about it, and resigns (pun most certainly intended) to his fate. This is basically equivalent to a concession, except in the most technical of definitions.

@Justin: Fellow L3 Eric Shukan, backed up by Uncle Scott, disagrees with you in the thread linked in the OP. Would you mind clarifying your opinion a bit? Thanks, it would be enlightening.

Well, first off, L3s can disagree. In fact, we do all the time and that's part of what makes that crew of judges so productive.

However, reading that thread, Shukan says that there was a concession and I agree, there was. He also says if you want to talk about CPV or investigate here, that's a good talk. Uncle Scott confirmed that you could still investigate here. I'd rewind this through their wordplay all day because to me actions speak louder than words. Sometimes you say good game and then “wait I'm not dead”. How long is that pause allowed to be before the game is over?

To me, a game is over from a policy standpoint when both players have essentially agreed on who won and cards have begun to be scooped up, making the gamestate irretrievable. Yes, there are comp rules for when a player wins, but we are talking about those rules being violated here anyhow, so that doesn't have much bearing.

And, FWIW, I pretty much agree with everything Turner just said - including (especially!) the part about disagreeing. It's part of how we craft policy.

Thanks all for contributing to the discussion. The original thread had started a “debate” in my area on when a game was over and if the way it was over mattered. I tossed this idea out to get some discussion around that.

I love that the correct answer is “It depends.” (also my favorite IT answer).

Thanks again all!

Edited Bret Siakel (May 5, 2014 10:40:13 AM)

Thanks for the response, Justin! I had assumed that the Higher Ups (C) had discussed this and come to a consensus, so I was a bit jarred when the disagreement came up.

I realise that this thread is almost a year old, but I'd like to provide my opinion on what constitutes a concession:

If you think about it, there is no such thing as a game loss without a concession. If a player writes 0 on his lifepad but then sits there obstinately not picking up his cards and moving to the next game, the game is technically not “over”. What if, say, the player writes 0 on his lifepad and then sits there thinking to double-check that he actually is at 0? The game is only actually over when the player realizes he is at 0 and there's nothing he can do about it, and resigns (pun most certainly intended) to his fate. This is basically equivalent to a concession, except in the most technical of definitions.

I believe it's certainly possible for a player to lose the game without conceding. If a player is taking lethal damage and says “good game”, he has not conceded. State-based actions have caused him to lose the game. It doesn't matter if he hasn't written down his new life total, he is simply shortcutting to the time when he would lose the game. There is no reason why losing the game should be any different from other state-based actions or effects, the player doesn't have to confirm it.


In my opinion, there are 2 ways a player concedes:

1. He states it clearly.

2. He ends the game without a possible shortcut to a state-based action or effect that would cause the game to end. He does not have to pick up his cards in order to concede, something like “I need to go, you have the game” is good enough. If the “good game” is done with an approaching death, then it's simply a shortcut.


In both proposed scenarios, even if Nick says “good game”, I would certainly back it up. Nick saying “good game” is simply an acknowledgement that he has lost, not a concession. In the first scenario, the players have committed a violation, incorrectly giving Nick a poison counter. A backup is acceptable. In the second scenario, the players have committed two violations, first giving Nick a poison counter, then ending the game. A backup is still acceptable.