Adam and Nate are playing game 3 during a round in a Competitive Sealed deck event.

Adam is at 1 life point, and has a Heroes' Bane with 8 +1/+1 counters and an Omenspeaker.
Nate is at 6 life points, and has an untapped Minotaur Skullcleaver, plus a tapped Vaporkin to hopefully deal lethal damage on the following turn.

Adam untaps and draws, then attacks with both his creatures.
Nate chump blocks Heroes' Bane with Minotaur Skullcleaver and asks “OK, do I take 1?”
Before damage is dealt Adam casts Polymorphous Rush on Omenspeaker saying "This is now a copy of my Heroes' Bane until end of turn, do you take 8?"
Nate scoops and extends his hand, then he notices something odd and calls the Judge before they can collect the cards on the battlefield.

Nate says that Omenspeaker has no +1/+1 counters and should die as the copy of a 0/0 creature without dealing combat damage, so Adam somehow tricked him into concession with his game error.
Adam agrees that he was playing fast, but also points out that the concession already happened and the Judge has been called when the match was just ended.

What is your ruling here?


Thanks in advance :)

Edited Stefano Ferrari (April 29, 2014 05:54:00 PM)

I need clarification here. You say he scoops, but they haven't picked up any cards yet?

To be honest, I don't get the process of communication that's supposed to have happened here. How did Nate express his “scoop”? You're saying that they didn't collect the cards yet. I'm asking because when being attacked for lethal, I don't actually concede, and never will I say “I concede.”. I'm just dead. I will most likely start to pack my cards immediately. Adam said he was attacking with lethal power, and Nate believed him. In my opinion Nate didn't actually concede, he considered the game to be finished because he was killed by his opponent's attack. However, this is just my personal interpretation.

Tricking your opponent into conceding could be legal under certain circumstances, depending on what you actually do, but basically saying “You're dead!” when it's not true would most likely make me start an investigation.

Another interesting question is: Can we still “rewind” the game even if (for a brief moment) both players considered the game to be over?

Originally posted by Anthony Bucchioni:

I need clarification here. You say he scoops, but they haven't picked up any cards yet?

“Scoops” as in “reveals the cards in his hand and places them on the table”. Maybe my English knowledge failed here… :) Apologies!
He essentially concedes the game and the match, *before* noticing the issue.

Jasper König
Another interesting question is: Can we still “rewind” the game even if (for a brief moment) both players considered the game to be over?

This is indeed a part of the scenario that I would like to understand how to manage.

Edited Stefano Ferrari (April 29, 2014 05:51:37 PM)

If I see a player extend his hand to their opponent like in this case even if all their cards are still on the table, it indicates that they are conceding the match. In my point of view Nate has offered his concession and Adam has accepted. The match is over.

Not all judges or players will have this same point of view as I do. An argument could be made that an extension of the hand alone is not clear enough because even players that win the match may extend their hand to their losing opponent as a sporting gesture or maybe hand shakes could happen between games instead of after the entire match.

I would say that, unfortunately for Nate, he has in fact conceded the game. 104.3a states that a Player can concede at any time and therefore loses the game immediately.

It would be no different if I scooped and then looked at his top card and it was the Win-Con he was waiting for.

So, my ruling would be that Nate did, in fact, concede the game. No penalties, no warnings, no cautions - just the fact that the game was over by the time he realized that if he thinks his opponent is playing too fast for him then he should talk to his opponent and ask him to slow down and if that doesnt work, let a Judge know.

NOTE: I would also take a pulse of the situation. I am reading this with no hint of mal intent from Adam.

90% of the time the right way to resolve this is to ask the player “Did you
concede?” followed by “Why did you do <action opponent thinks was a
concession”. This solves it quickly as the player will usually answer “Yes”
or “To scoop” and then it stands.

Originally posted by Eric Paré:

If I see a player extend his hand to their opponent like in this case even if all their cards are still on the table, it indicates that they are conceding the match.

Or that they accept they're dead. How can we in this situation visually differentiate between a player who actually conceded and a player who accepted his defeat?

Well, Stefano said that the player did concede, so let's assume that he did. Even if all the cards are still there, we can't rewind because one player conceded due to a misrepresentation of the rules by his opponent? So offering a hand shake or accepting one “locks in” a corrupted gamestate? If that's policy, I don't like it. ;)

An argument AGAINST a rewind could be that substantial information could be gained as a result of the concession, especially when both players showed their hands. I really hope there are more reasons.

Edited Jasper König (April 29, 2014 07:25:59 PM)

AFAIK, this isn't something explicitly defined by the MTR or IPG documents. I think it comes down to the judge's assessment of the specific scenario.

In general, I wouldn't give much credence to pleasantries as a way to make that determination. It's too easy for players to have creative memories about end of game exchanges, and silly disputes like does “good game” mean “I concede” or “this has been a thrilling match so far.” For every player who says “You got me!” there's one that says “It looks like you got me!” and it seems insane to be resolving these disputes in a way that requires a linguistics degree.

The heuristic I've always used to determine if the game is over is as follows:

Has the (possibly) conceding player:
* Combined objects from different zones (e.g. scooped up lands with the contents of his hand)
* Revealed information from hidden zones (e.g. looked at the top card of his library, or flipped something exiled face down that he didn't know about)
* Removed counters from permanents
* Destroyed his record of life totals (usually by picking up his D20)
* Signed the match slip

Any of these actions to destroy the gamestate indicate to me that not only has the player acknowledged that the game is over, but they are past the point where they are double-checking that conclusion.

Additionally, if the (possibly) conceding player has taken verbal or physical actions which cause his opponent to do any of the above criteria and/or reveal private information, I consider that to be a concession as well. There may be exceptions if the non-conceding player has intentionally destroyed the gamestate in order to “lock in” a concession by a player who was still clearly in thought as to whether or not they were conceding.

Anything other than this I wouldn't consider to be a concession - nothing is preventing play from resuming and there's very little to be gained from engaging in a he said/she said debate. It is perfectly okay for a player to express that he thinks the game is over while still being in the process of thinking it through. Even beginning to gather permanents (without actually destroying the gamestate) can be a non-verbal communication that “I think this is over, but am moving slowly to give myself time to double-check.” Most players will scoop up their permanents as the conclusive indication that they have conceded the game, and most opponents will wait for that before clearing their own board. Trying to say a player has “locked in” their decision to concede before that is an arbitrary and potentially infuriating process.

Edited Glenn Fisher (April 29, 2014 07:17:02 PM)

1) Assess whether or not this was malicious. In the case that it was, obvious DQ to Adam for UC - Cheating. Nate's concession is overridden by Adam cheating to get the concession, so Nate wins both the game and the match.

2) IMO Adam has committed TE - CPV by providing derived information (the total power of his creatures) incorrectly. Since all the actions leading up to that point, including the Polymorphous Rush, seemed to be legal (assuming he didn't actually place counters on his non-Heroes Bane creatures), I would not give any other related infraction. Thus I would give Adam a Warning for TE - CPV. Regarding whether or not Nate actually concedes the game here, I would lean towards no, if the game state is completely unchanged and no cards have been touched. If either player has begun cleaning up their cards, I would say that Nate's concession does stand.

Edited Lyle Waldman (April 29, 2014 07:28:00 PM)

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Assess whether or not this was malicious. In the case that it was, obvious DQ to Adam for UC - Cheating.

I don't think Adam has cheated in this scenario. At competitive REL a player has cheated if he 1) purposely or knowingly violated a game/tournament rule, and 2) attempted to gain an advantage from doing so.
In the scenario, Adam probably didn't know that his Omenspeaker turned into a 0/0 instead of a 4/4 and that he had to move it to the graveyard before attempting to move to combat damage step. His error sounds like an honest mistake.

Edited Eric Paré (April 29, 2014 08:56:48 PM)

An investigation should be done at this point. At minimum, Adam needs a warning for TE - CPV. I would also add that showing your hand and offering a handshake isn't necessarily conceding the game. He could have been doing that because he believed he was dead. If he isn't dead, and he wasn't conceding, the game hasn't actually ended. In that case, we ask the Head Judge about a rewind. Even if we don't rewind, the Omenspeaker doesn't have the counters, so it never deals any damage, and should be moved to the graveyard before either player receives priority.

This sounds like a “you had to be there” type of scenario.

Like Gareth said, my first question would be to ask Nate “did you concede?” If he says yes, or starts off with “well, yes, but…” then the game is over. A player may concede at any time, regardless of the game state.

If he says “no, I didn't actually concede”, then he'll need to have a pretty good explanation for why he did whatever it was that he did that made Adam think he had conceded.

Edited Joe Brooks (April 29, 2014 11:20:39 PM)

Am I the only one, who think, that backup of concide, that was based on GRV or CPV commited before, if possible, is completely ok?

Question to all: what CPV or GRV is there here?