Hello judges,

I just read this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/33137/


It reminded of a situation I experienced as a player not so long ago.

It was FNM in standard format, and we were playing game 1 of an aggro mirror match. The situation was this:

NAP is tapped out and has no untapped creatures to block with.
AP already has some creatures in play. AP plays Sram's Expertise into Servo Exhibition, and casts Reckless Bushwhacker with Surge. He quickly tapps all his creatures, says “You're dead!” and scoops up his cards immediately.

I'm NAP in this situation. I have very much tournament experience, and I saw it was lethal. But what if I didn't? And does it even matter? AP didn't give me any opportunity to actually count the damage that was coming. Can I call a judge and claim that my opponent conceded? What if I actually didn't see it was lethal? AP picked up his cards so quickly that most players wouldn't have had a chance to check if it was lethal or not.

What do you judges do in situations like these? Do you just trust AP if he says his attack was lethal? Or do you say that a player has conceded if he scoops up his cards first (unless players agreed explicitly that the other player has lost the game, of course)?

In the actual situation I just shaked my head about my opponent's strange behaviour and went on with the match, but I just wonder what would have happened had I called a judge.

Edited Jasper König (Jan. 31, 2017 10:59:56 AM)

This sounds like a “you have to be there” thing, because what you're saying happened doesn't make sense. Like, he just said “you're dead!” and then scooped without letting you verify that you were actually dead? That sounds like a concession to me: “I can't beat you, so here's my attack, I'm going to tell you you're dead, scoop up my cards before you can verify that you're not dead, and hope you just take the bait and give me the win”.

But I doubt this is what happened, so I'm going to go with “you had to be there”.

I can see a player doing this sort of thing: they know their opponent has no blockers and no resources with which to defend themselves. Then it's just a matter of establishing whether or not it was still a lethal attack.

I'm not advocating that it is correct to do this in AP's position, simply that I could very easily see people doing this.

Realistically we would do our best to rebuild the board state and go from there. Personally, if it's a lethal attack, I'm fine with the game being over in AP's favor. That is, if we can prove that it's a lethal attack. In theory NAP hasn't touched their cards in this case, so we can verify what their life total is and if they actually have a way to stop “being dead”.

One other thing to do is educate; specifically educate the players afterwards why we can't un-do concessions that involve scooping up their battlefield.

Originally posted by Christopher Wendelboe:

In theory NAP hasn't touched their cards in this case, so we can verify what their life total is and if they actually have a way to stop “being dead”.

Even if NAP hasn't touched his cards, AP has scooped all of his cards. What if the players can't agree on what has been on the battlefield on AP's side? AP says “I had this, and this, and this, and this, and this…” and NAP just says “I don't know anymore, he played too quickly.”? Do you give AP the benefit of doubt?

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

This sounds like a “you have to be there” thing, because what you're saying happened doesn't make sense. Like, he just said “you're dead!” and then scooped without letting you verify that you were actually dead?

Unfortunately, this is exactly what has happened. I knew that I was dead because I was able to calculate it very quickly, but had I felt the need to check it again, I wouldn't have had the chance to do so because after tapping for attack he immediately picked up his cards together with his graveyard and his library.

Edited Jasper König (Jan. 31, 2017 03:02:35 PM)

I would try to reconstruct and see if we can come to an agreement that AP had lethal. But if we can't reconstruct it properly, or there is doubt between the players what cards were actually present than NAP wins. The burden of proof should always be on the part of the player scooping up his cards, I feel. They're the one ‘destroying the evidence’ so to speak.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

This sounds like a “you have to be there” thing

But in this case “you” (the acting judge) were not there. If you were standing right next to the table when it happened, then no problem. But you weren't. You got called to the table afterwards, and all you get is he-said-she-said and one player with a shuffled up deck. What if you can't get NAP to confirm that he would have lost?

Originally posted by Jochem van 't Hull:

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

This sounds like a “you have to be there” thing

But in this case “you” (the acting judge) were not there. If you were standing right next to the table when it happened, then no problem. But you weren't. You got called to the table afterwards, and all you get is he-said-she-said and one player with a shuffled up deck. What if you can't get NAP to confirm that he would have lost?

That's not what I meant by “you had to be there”. What I meant was, there is more investigation I would need to do, questions I would need to ask the players, and so on, which I would be able to do if I was actually there that I can't do in the context of an online forum.