This issue came up at a PTQ I was helping judge a couple of months ago I would like to have some input. Two players had both brought identical Soul Sisters decks (a white life-gain deck) and were playing each other in the quarterfinals which the Head Judge had previously declared would have no time limit.

The first game finally ended after 2 and 1/2 hours with both players over 150 life when one player decked through natural draws. Thankfully post-sideboard they were able to actually kill each other but if they had both had some way to shuffle their graveyard into their library the game could be extended indefinitely. I was curious how to handle a situation like this if it were to arise. I know its unlikely but it would have only required a one card change in either players' decks.

Edited Samuel Akers (June 20, 2013 11:06:31 AM)

Even if match has no time limit, slow play still applies (for sake of the other participants, venue time, TO, judges…).

Needs more Felidar Sovereign

But seriously, I agree with Jorge. Just keep playing it out, but certainly watch for slow play. If for example both players have Elixir of Immortality in their decks (which is a terrible idea anyways), the odds that your creature count on board will eventually surpass the life gain of the opponent will happen. It just will take a very long time.

Some time ago, there was a discussion about Shared Fate mirror match at
untimed single elimination portion of the tournament. This is the ultimate
stalemate, since both players have no possible win condition and can't lose
because of Shared Fafe.

Since that, I decided to issue time limits even to the TOP8s. I give 2
hours for quarterfinals and semifinals and 3 hours for final. It is almost
never reached, but if this situation occurs, I feel much more comfortable
to tell the players that I am applying Sudden Death because the time limit
has been exceeded, than applying some unexpected solution because I need to
close the venue.


2013/6/20 Ronny Alvarado <forum-4707-cff1@apps.magicjudges.org>

David, your solution works - but it also violates the official documents that describe how a PTQ or GPT is supposed to be run. I recommend that you confirm with your WPN rep that it's OK to modify that part of the tournament procedures. (And, I expect the answer to be “no”.)

* * *

This topic comes up about once per year, give or take a few specifics. In just about every case, it's been a hypothetical - like the Shared Fate mirror match - but occasionally, it stems from a situation that really did happen, or *almost* happened - typically involving Platinum Angels.

If the players are at an impasse, where neither of them can win but neither is willing to concede, you can encourage them to draw that game and start a new one. Except in the corner-case examples, where the fictional players are roguish, obstinate ne'er-do-wells, the players will almost certainly agree. (They don't want to stay until 3am any more than you do.)

* * *

I'll go ahead and leave this thread open against my better judgment. Every other time this has been brought up and discussed, I've wished I could “close” the Judge e-mail list. I hope that won't be true this time, too! :)

Scott, that answer is really curious, since the only answers I got to my Shared Fate scenario not too long ago were ‘if you expect this to happen, impose a timelimit on the top8’. I cannot find the link to it, since my search-engine seems to be broken.

Then again, for some situations - like the Shared Fate mirror, which by the way did happen, but thankfully in the swiss portion and not in the top8 - your second idea won't really be a solution. If played out and drawn every time a stalemate is reached, the final score would probably be around 2-1-2.000 (the stalemate is not reached within the first 3 turns, but very unlikely not be reached until a player would die). Yes, these are corner-cases, and I won't go on discussing them here since I've already been told this is not wished for. I'll post the link to the old thread once I find it.



But, a question I've been burning to ask anyways….if this is not the place to discuss corner case scenarios - please tell me what is, because I have the strong feeling that these should be able to be discussed, though on the other hand I see the argument of ‘we want this to produce an ’archive' for questions, so discussing corner cases just clogs up the forum and destroys that purpose'.
Maybe make a new sub-forum for corner-cases, where these can be discussed or answered? Where those who wish to discuss them can do so, and those who consider it pointless because it is ‘never going to happen anyways, and if it is, find a solution spontaneously’ can ignore them?

Uncle Scott can correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression
that a Tournament Organizer may impose a time limit if the venue will be
closing.
On Jun 21, 2013 2:42 AM, “Philip Körte” <

Actualy, isn't the situation
- Top 8 without an official Timelimit
- Two players playing fast enough so Slow Play doesn't apply
- The specific matchup creates a situation where it takes an unreasonable amount of time that a player will win (it may be unsure that someone will actualy win)
a good example for execptional circumstances.
You can not reasonable finish the tournament by applying all tournament rules (No time limit etc.).

So I doubt that there will a solution that classifies as an official solution because this is in my opinion a corner case that the rules can and should not support.

If I'm facing this situation I will try find a solution that:
- Decides the match in an acceptable time
- The decicision should be as fair as possible
- Both players should be as happy as possible with decision
Also I will talk to high level judges/WPN that are at that point callable/present to get support for the solution and suggestions.

That solution could be for example:
- Adding a time limit
- Defining an “alternative” win condition together with the players that can be reached much faster

This is where gmail comes in handy. ;)

Shared Fate thread was here: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/2253/


2013/6/21 Martin Koehler <forum-4707-51a2@apps.magicjudges.org>

Thanks Dominik

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

If the players are at an impasse, where neither of them can win but neither is willing to concede, you can encourage them to draw that game and start a new one. Except in the corner-case examples, where the fictional players are roguish, obstinate ne'er-do-wells, the players will almost certainly agree. (They don't want to stay until 3am any more than you do.)

Is this actually legal? That is to say, are we as judges actually allowed to step into a game in progress and say “hey, guys, this is taking a while, how about drawing?” It seems to me like this has to be against some policy, somewhere, although I don't know what to point to specifically. If the TO steps in due to a logistical issue (event has to close, etc), that's one thing, but is the judge staff allowed to do this?

What would lead you to believe otherwise? Players are allowed to concede or draw at any time, per MTR 2.4.