If AP thinks it was lethal, and NAP thinks it was lethal, whether it really was lethal is irrelevant.

Unless I hear that NAP never had a chance to stop things before AP picked stuff up but was trying to, I'm going to side with AP every time here. The last known game state was a lethal attack. NAP never took any action beyond that. If AP makes a lethal attack and says “Game 2?” there's no way AP lost that game unless NAP takes an action that prevents lethal from happening.

Originally posted by Jochem van 't Hull:

Originally posted by Mike Combs:

AP tapped out to attack for lethal, AP extended their hand signalling the game was over, NAP accepted the handshake, NAP gave AP no reason to think NAP could/would win this game, and NAP gave the judge no reason to think AP had any reason to think they were not the winner. Match is over at this point. What happens now (unless it's a discussion) has zero bearing on my ruling. AP won.

AP shuffled up. No way to verify that it was indeed lethal and since they're very-to-somewhat inexperienced players I wouldn't put it past either of them to have misjudged lethal.

The game ended when the two shook hands. Who shuffled is completely irrelevant to me, assuming you believe everything else going on. What you have described is that AP attacked for what they thought was lethal, NAP admitted AP had no way of knowing that NAP could actually win and they shook hands. Game over.

I admit I have seen hundreds of situations where a player can't win, they swing in “for fun” and then extend their hand as a concession. In the majority, it is clear what is going on. If someone tries to angle shoot here, they can explain based on the board state that the AP had no reason to think they could win. Again, based on your description, it doesn't seem like that applies here. This is on the NAP (who wants to win) to make it clear they are winning. They didn't do that in the game nor did they do that in their discussion with you.

This is definitely an unfortunate situation and I would 100% have a conversation with both of these players about the importance of communication.

*There may be something I'm missing or misunderstanding, but from what I've read if, for example, I were the HJ, you had made the ruling and it was appealed to me, I'd be siding with AP based on what you've written. That's all.
You had to be there.

If AP shuffle up without tells something like “I win”… Why we assume they will win??
AP only atacks with all (all-in) and “He/She thinks was lethal” but don't tell it, check o anything else!! only shuffle up.

Why NAP must do to a Jedi mind read trick to tell “ey! stop… i'll survive!”?

I'm not much experimented as Judge, but play since 20 years (about)… and I never saw a “shuffle up as winner” but I saw lot of times an “all-in-suicide-atack and shuffle and concede”.

99% of the time, yes, Ivan, but in this context, there was presumably
lethal damage on the field and AP had no knowledge of NAP's fog. Obviously,
AP thought he had won, and had no reason to offer a concession.

2017-02-18 17:23 GMT-05:00 Iván R. Molia <

It was over a month ago and I'm no longer 100% clear on the details, but I think it happened quickly and NAP didn't realize what was going on until AP shuffled up. So I should tell NAP that he lost because he reflexively shook a hand?

I think this is why the situation is “you had to be there.”

If AP rushed through giving NAP a chance to even show the fog effect (which is new information for us in the thread), then it's more reasonable to side with NAP on this one. I think if anything this highlights the importance of conducting a thorough investigation to determine exactly what happened. For instance, why didn't NAP show the fog while AP was scooping up their cards? if NAP can give a reasonable answer, and AP did in fact rush through the end of the game, there's no reason I couldn't side with NAP.

This is the 3rd game… In previous games NAP can play the fog… even if that never happens, AP must know about the existence of a “fog” in green in the current editions for the tournament…
Asume than NAP can´t avoid the “presumed” lethal damage was AP fail… and jump to an irreversible game state only works in detriment of AP.

If AP have lethal, atack to kill, and shuffle up without confirmation… even without a fog or mana… for me, I think we must be on the NAP side… until AP tell us a great answers for his/her actions.
(I assume that AP tell about lethal and shuffle up denied time to NAP to check it; If Nap agree with the lethal, AP wins, but not the case)

Originally posted by Iván R. Molia:

If AP shuffle up without tells something like “I win”… Why we assume they will win??
AP only atacks with all (all-in) and “He/She thinks was lethal” but don't tell it, check o anything else!! only shuffle up.

Why NAP must do to a Jedi mind read trick to tell “ey! stop… i'll survive!”?

I'm not much experimented as Judge, but play since 20 years (about)… and I never saw a “shuffle up as winner” but I saw lot of times an “all-in-suicide-atack and shuffle and concede”.

I'm simply taking the words that were written and giving *my* perspective here.

What has been given to us is that AP attacked for lethal (NAP doesn't dispute that it would be lethal), AP offered their hand, NAP shook their hand. *To me* the game is over at that point.

If these players had randomly shook hands “many” times previously, or something weird like that, then maybe we're having a different discussion, but that didn't happen here. AP attacked, offered a hand, NAP shook the hand, game was over and AP started packing up. Having something in your hand that you could have used but didn't is part of the game; showing it to a judge after the game is over is not the same as having done that thing in the game.

As has been said many times, you had to be there.

Originally posted by Mike Combs:

I'm simply taking the words that were written and giving *my* perspective here.

What has been given to us is that AP attacked for lethal (NAP doesn't dispute that it would be lethal), AP offered their hand, NAP shook their hand. *To me* the game is over at that point.

If these players had randomly shook hands “many” times previously, or something weird like that, then maybe we're having a different discussion, but that didn't happen here. AP attacked, offered a hand, NAP shook the hand, game was over and AP started packing up. Having something in your hand that you could have used but didn't is part of the game; showing it to a judge after the game is over is not the same as having done that thing in the game.

You say that “AP attacked for lethal” but it's clear that he wasn't . NAP absolutely disputed that it was lethal, since he was going to play the fog to survive. When NAP has the win on board/in hand and his opponent concedes, why should he show his hand? If the game would have played out without the confusion created by AP, NAP would have won. Why would we reward AP with a win for creating this confusion?

When someone offers a handshake, the default assumption is that they are conceding the game. That should always be the starting point in this sort of situation, though there are some circumstances where we could want to make exceptions. For example a lethal attack with no cards in hand or mana open or other ways to defend yourself, or more generally situations where it's clear to both players and spectators which player is about to win (in those cases judges rarely get involved though). Even in that case you should inform AP that it's something they should not do as it can easily create confusion and is considered rude.

When AP “atack for lethal”… NAP saw it as lethal?? Maibe He/She haven't time to count it… (or even don't have in mind count since have a fog in hand) and only He/She saw a suicide all-in atack.

If AP don't tells “Atack for lethal”, “I kill u” or anything else… Why NAP must know that was lethal?? (“lethal” no real lethal since He/She have a fog…)

It seems like we've covered all of the things we would need to talk to the players about, so everyone has an idea how they might proceed, if they were actually there. And, this is absolutely a “you have to be there” situation. Lots of interesting input, everyone - thanks for that!

(I hope no one was waiting for an answer, much less an ‘O’fficial Answer.)

To avoid having this devolve into a debate about what we must rule, when we aren't there to get to a good conclusuion, I'm wrapping this up.

d:^D