The search function doesn't work, so I strolled through the forums trying to find a case providing an answer to my question, read secondary literature too, but still am unsure. (Even about finding the right forum, so if it doesn't belong here, feel free to put it elsewhere.)

Player A controls Shared Fate and Claws of Gix. Players' hands are empty. There is no card on the battlefield, in the graveyards, or in player A's library that can change the situation or allow player B to win. Player A's plan is to proceed with the game until the libraries are empty, then sacrifice Shared Fate into Claws of Gix just before player B has to draw a card and by that making him lose.

In a tournament, the game may run out of time if player B keeps going through each of his turns, even if he just looked at the new card he got from Shared Fate and taking a little time to find out that it doesn't help him (always below the line of stalling).

The question is: Is there a way to take a shortcut on this, with or without the help of a judge, e. g. by revealing all cards of player A's library to proove that player B can't get out of this? Or is it player A's own fault to play such a deck on a tournament, and he has to deal with it when the game doesn't end in the given time?

It's Regular REL? Seems like the players have some “sporting” options: A could just say “hey, I know there's nothing in my deck to remove the Shared Fate or the Claws - if you concede, we'll save time.” And, if I'm watching that match as a Judge, and B then says “well, can I look real quick, just to see what I'd see if we played it out?”, I wouldn't interfere.

But I don't think there's any solid policy support for this particular corner.

Originally posted by Mario Haßler:

is it player A's own fault to play such a deck

Yes! (LOL) I once built a Shared Fate deck, with something (can't recall what) that Exiled my library when it EtB. The opponent didn't lose to the draw step, but he also didn't get any more cards … and I had his whole library, lands included, to kill him with. Just like this deck, it was my own fault… :)

Thank you Scott. So if there isn't “any solid policy support for this” at Regular REL, I guess it gets “worse” at Competitive REL, meaning player A has no chance to shortcut this game, judge involved or not, right?

Aside, regarding that “it's his own fault to play such a deck”: I also read that “Players must maintain a pace to allow the match to be finished in the announced time limit.” So I wondered if a player built a deck that, by the way it works, is hardly able to finish within the given time, wouldn't that disregard the quoted rule?

What if this situation occurs at Competetive REL, player A tells player B that there are no Cards in his Library that can possibly kill him and is willing to reveal his library to his opponent/have him ‘demonic tutor’ his library for every draw and ‘f6’ (not take any game-action anymore besides ‘drawing’ a card from his opponents library in his drawstep) until both libraries are empty.

Can player A ‘force’ player B to shortcut (or have him say at what point in time he would like to act with some relevant impact, for that matter)?
If not, does player B's behavior qualify for stalling - since he is trying to have his opponent not win within the timelimit even though he unavoidably will loose (If it is possible to prove, aka revealing the Shared Fate players library, which consists only of cards that don't change the gamestate in a relevant matter)?

There's nothing player A can do here to “force” Player B to do anything. There is not a loop of actions that can truly be shortcutted here. It's also not really legal to say “hey, let's disregard the rules of Magic for a while and let you look through my deck instead of drawing each turn”. Normally, Player A will say “Hey, I built this deck in such a way that I know you can't possibly win the game unless you have an answer already in your hand, and you obviously don't. If you agree to concede, I'll let you see the contents of my deck.” Player B will probably say “Ok, that's fine,” but will be very annoyed if he concedes then finds that there really was an answer…

It's also legal for B to say, “No, I don't believe you, so I'm going to play this out in a timely fashion.” Stalling has a definition of, “Plays slowly in an attempt to run down the clock”. The definition is NOT, “Makes timely game decisions that are unlikely to result in a win for that player anytime soon.”

If Player A is not in a good position to win the match if Player B plays out this horrible tedious game, it sucks for Player A, basically. Similarly, a player in a long game 2 who won the first game is perfectly able to say, “Well, with only 2 minutes on the clock, there's no way for me to win this game in time, and I might lose otherwise, so I'm going to cast this Armageddon now. Then I'll play at a reasonable rate until the time is up.” It's not something we really want to encourage, per se, but it's also clearly not fitting the definition of Stalling.

Well, the definition of stalling is ‘A player intentionally plays slowly in order to take advantage of the time limit’.

If he knows that he will loose the game (not only cannot win the game, he will loose, thats a given and can be proven) then ‘drawing’, contemplating, and possibly dropping a land would fit ‘playing slowly in order to take advantage of the time limit’. Since that is the only thing the player does, running down the clock by wasting time on irrelevant things. He is trying to take advantage of the time limit.
EDIT: This is rather similar to having a Tamiyo Emblem in play and repeatedly casting Sphinx' Revelation for zero, which I believe happened at a T2-GP (Bochum 2012, I believe) and resulted in a DQ for stalling - taking absolutely legal/possible game-actions, but these don't contribute to the Gamestate in a relevant way (it does increase the Stormcount and makes the player spend Mana/Tap lands, so it does contribute to a change in the Gamestate, just not in a relevant way), in order to run down the Clock.

This is, in my opinion, completely different from your example, since if the players would play out the game without a time limit, the player in disadvantage might be able to turn the tide. He is not looking at an absolutely inevitable loss. There are still things happening - creatures attack, creatures block, stuff gets cast and actually does something, even if its just lightning bolt to the face.
Your Example basically says ‘I will not win in 2 minutes, I might win in a longer game, I might not, there would still be (relevant) interaction, so I interact with my opponent to stop him from winning’
This Example reads ‘I will absolutely and positively loose this game and there will be no more interaction at all between anything.’ The only thing I can do is to stall to the timelimit by not accepting the shortcut offered to me.

My opponent is offering me a shortcut ('I will f6 and you tell me with what combination of cards from my library, which you will all eventually ‘draw’, you will prevent my shortcut from finishing in the described situation - we have no cards in our libraries, and nothing but Shared Fate (on my side of the board, there is only 1 in the Deck), Lands, Claws of Gix, Humilities, Moats and Night of Souls Betreyals in play.'), and I refuse to take the shortcut without giving a reason why not (since the only reason(s) possible at this gamesate would be ‘I do not believe that it’s impossible', which can be disproven by showing him the contents of the Deck, and ‘I want to not give into this shortcut because I can stall this Game into overtime, though not change anything, and thereby to a draw’, which is the very definition of stalling).

The player that got locked out of the game doesnt even need to ‘demonic tutor’ every turn (bad idea by me, I do see that), he just needs to see the content of his opponents Deck (from which he will draw) to be able to verify that there really is nothing at all he can draw to do anything to the gamestate.
So, (imo) the question(s) that remain are:
Can I show my opponent my Deck (or the contents of my Deck, through my Decklist (REL comp/prof) given to him by a Judge with my consent)? If no, why not? (I could just ‘accidentally’ drop my Deck faceup (even 1 card by 1, as long as I am not commiting slow play while doing so) when resolving a fetchland-ability, e.g., without commiting an infraction, to show it to my opponent, could I not?)
and, if I can do that:
Can my opponent refuse my shortcut/loop to two empty libraries when it is proven (by himself or a Judge that looks at my Deck/Decklist) that he cannot stop the game from reaching that point exactly - outside from stalling the game into a draw intentionally? - Since once he knows the contents of my Deck and cannot produce an interaction of cards that breaks the shortcut/loop, draw by timeout is the only intention that he could have to deny me the shortcut/loop.


Just as a disclaimer, I know the person that asked this question on Marios website personally (correct me if I'm wrong Mario, and this question does not originate from the question asked on magic.freizeitspieler.de).
I also know that this Deck will be played by (at least) two players this weekend at my local GPT for Strassbourg.
EDIT: Removed demand for an official answer (Brains reasoning makes sense).
I could also provide an example Decklist to continue this discussion on, if needed.

Edited Philip Ockelmann (March 19, 2013 04:07:20 PM)

Originally posted by Philip Körte:

This is rather similar to having a Tamiyo Emblem in play and repeatedly casting Sphinx' Revelation for zero, which I believe happened at a T2-GP (Bochum 2012, I believe) and resulted in a DQ for stalling - taking absolutely legal/possible game-actions, but these don't contribute to the Gamestate in a relevant way (it does increase the Stormcount and makes the player spend Mana/Tap lands, so it does contribute to a change in the Gamestate, just not in a relevant way), in order to run down the Clock.

Like any unique situation, you are going to find that the Head Judge has to make an assessment of that situation and then rule accordingly. That the Head Judge's ruling in that situation was X, doesn't mean it that it will fit every single situation. In that respect, while you may seek to understand the ruling, it doesn't mean that ruling applies to anything more than that specific scenario.

That being said, I'm going to broadly say that the philosophy differentiates between “timely actions” and “untimely actions”, as well as “relevant game actions” and “irrelevant game actions”. In general, a “timely game action” is any action that takes a reasonable amount of time to complete, regardless of what it does to the game state. An “untimely game action” is an action that doesn't take a reasonable amount of time to complete. (In many respects, this is where you can also apply some shortcuts and whether the player can actually shortcut the loop or not. Keep in mind the CR entry and how a loop can be shortcut.) Then you have “relevant game action” that actually accomplishes something with in the game. Compared to an “irrelevant game action” that simply does nothing at all.

In that respect, you can establish a simple metric. Is the action “timely” and “relevant”, then there is no issue. Is the action “timely” and “irrelevant”? Then you might have a problem to investigate, especially if the express reason for the action is to run down the clock. Is the action “untimely” and “relevant”, then there's an issue with the pace of play. Likely it's just slow play. Is the action “untimely” and “irrelevant”, then you probably have a pretty blatant situation where the player may be running down the clock intentionally.

All of these are going to be context sensitive, and you are going to have to evaluate whether the action is truly relevant or not. Is there something the player can do involving storm? Then perhaps the action is relevant, though it may be ideal if the player simply shortcuts to the end point of a loop. (And in the GP Bochum case, it is easy to simply state “Repeat loop X times to arrive at the appropriate storm count, then cast…” There's no need to play out each iteration of the loop.) If storm isn't relevant to the game, and the player isn't going to do anything to take advantage of that storm count, is the action truly relevant? Probably not, and the game state isn't truly being affected in any meaningful way.

Like most such situations, there's a LOT of YMMV. And you may have to rely on your judgment in those situations, and rule accordingly. Just like the Head Judge at Bochum probably had to do. And if that person was lucky, there may have been others to consult before making the ruling.

Originally posted by Philip Körte:

Therefor I'd also like an official answer on this, if at all possible, to be able to give a correct ruling on this.

If you know the policy well enough, and believe that a situation fits with a problematic behavior and is potentially an infraction, why do you need an official answer? Because it's only going to be good for a single scenario, and even then it may not actually be applicable to what truly happens at the event.

Edited Brian Schenck (March 19, 2013 03:16:18 PM)

Ok, let me revoke the demand for something official then, and just other judges ideas about the two questions asked in the end (can he reveal his library/DL, and can the opponent deny the shortcut without a real reason).

You are right, the demand for an official answer might have been short-sighted here :).

Originally posted by Philip Körte:

can he reveal his library/DL, and can the opponent deny the shortcut without a real reason

Without an effect that allows the player to look at his library, nothing allows him to reveal his deck to his opponent. I see no reason to provide an exception in this case. Additionally, players typically will not have access to their decklist during a game (no outside notes).

As for whether or not the opponent can deny the shortcut: It seems to me that this is not something that should be expected. Even if the deck indeed is built to have no win conditions and no ways out of the situation, who would determine that that is the case? Clearly it isn't enough to just take the player's word for it, so do we expect a judge to examine the deck and determine if a win condition exists? While this might be obvious in some cases, what do we do if it isn't obvious?

It seems to me that the only reasonable course of action is to expect the player to be prepared to actually win the game, and if it happens that his deck's method of winning causes it to go to time, then that's pretty much his own fault. This is similar to a stance that was taken by many judges the last time a similar situation was discussed.

@Philip Körte: You're right, I'm asking on behalf of someone posing that question on “Magic für Freizeitspieler”. That's what I usually do when I can't provide a definite answer, normally in the “Rules Q&A” forum, though.

To me, the answer from Josh Stansfield is appealing. Player A can't force player B to do anything, and the game rules don't allow any of the players to have a look at the content of a library. All player A can do is to suggest that player B should concede and explain why, and player B has the right to decline and rather keep playing. As long as he does so in a timely manner, there is nothing to complain about it, and when player A gets angry because the game runs out of time and ends in a draw, he should ask himself in the first place whether it was a good idea to play such a deck in a tournament with the given time restrictions.

I will answer the original question accordingly, adding that the judge on duty might decide differently.

Edit: I also added that it is unlikely that the judge would take a look at all the cards on the battlefield and in the players' libraries and graveyards to get the full picture of the situation and then decide that player B indeed can't change the situation and that the game will end in player A's favor.

Edited Mario Haßler (March 20, 2013 03:05:45 AM)

Vincent:
So he could reveal his library while resolving a fetchland, for example.
And if he does so, the opponent can determine for himself that there is no wincondition (and if he finds one, point it out in order to deny the shortcut).

I know that the perfect information here is an obvious requirement for the shortcut to be possible to be prposed (for exactly the reason you said - the opponent can not verify that there is no possible wincondition as long as he does not have information about the contents of his opponents library).

So, if the Shared Fate player chooses to reveal his library while resolving some ability that allows him to search his library (thereby giving his opponent perfect information about the contents of his deck), can he now propose the shortcut, and can the opponent reject it even if he cannot come up with a (combination of) cards that change anything of the situation?

Originally posted by Philip Körte:

So, if the Shared Fate player chooses to reveal his library while resolving some ability that allows him to search his library (thereby giving his opponent perfect information about the contents of his deck), can he now propose the shortcut, and can the opponent reject it even if he cannot come up with a (combination of) cards that change anything of the situation?

Of course the player is permitted to explain how his deck works and ask the opponent to concede. The opponent is under no obligation to do so.

The opponent is also not obligated to accept this shortcut. Per 716.2b they are permitted to interrupt the shortcut at any time they would make a game choice (for example, by playing a card). It would be completely unreasonable to hand a player a pile of cards they've never seen and say they must find a way out of the situation. The onus is on Player A to actually win the game.

Edited Vincent Roscioli (March 20, 2013 07:57:35 AM)

Philip:
You are never under obligation to accept a shortcut. Player A (the Shared Fate player) can always propose a shortcut to the tune of "There's nothing you can do in this game, you will lose eventually" but Player B doesn't have to accept that shortcut, even if there is nothing the player can do.

At Regular, I'd probably has a conversation with Player B to determine why he doesn't want to accept the shortcut. Is it as simple as the player doesn't understand why he won't be able to do anything about it? That's a good opportunity to walk the player through that. Overall, my tone is going to be “Let's just get this game over with and play some magic.”

Originally posted by Mario Haßler:

I also added that it is unlikely that the judge would take a look at all the cards on the battlefield and in the players' libraries and graveyards to get the full picture of the situation and then decide that player B indeed can't change the situation and that the game will end in player A's favor.

Honestly, any situation where there's a potential strategic or tactical decision to be made is one where a judge should probably refrain from commenting. Especially since there might be something that gets overlooked that would actually allow Player B an out from this situation. Sure, Player A could explain to the judge privately how the deck works, and the judge could review the situation, but if Player B provides a reasonable explanation why they want to continue playing rather than concede and proceeds to play at a reasonable pace, then there's really no intent here. And absent reason to suspect that Player B's reason is to run the clock out and otherwise stall, then the actions are very likely legal.

But that's where your investigation and eventual judgment is going to come into play.

Philip Körte
So, if the Shared Fate player chooses to reveal his library while resolving some ability that allows him to search his library (thereby giving his opponent perfect information about the contents of his deck), can he now propose the shortcut, and can the opponent reject it even if he cannot come up with a (combination of) cards that change anything of the situation?

Yes, the opponent could still reject it. Per MTR 3.12, the player can reveal their entire library to the opponent when resolving some kind of search effect. The opponent could certainly make their own assessment of whether it is a better option to concede, or they do spot (or think they spot) a way to find an out from the situation.

But that doesn't force a concession. There's still no loop here that can be shortcut, as nothing in CR 716 really allows for this to be shortcut. The cards “drawn” each turn are random, and players still have the opportunity to take actions. While the opponent may not have a way to win, it still requires the player to actually win the game and get the opponent to lose. And since “no way to win” isn't equivalent to “losing”, the opponent has the reasonable opportunity to find ways to delay that outcome; again, provided they aren't simply stalling to run down the clock. Taking actions to “not lose” a game isn't equivalent to stalling.

Perhaps after a few turns, the opponent eventually realizes there is a way to win, or that the player takes some action that does allow the opponent to break the lock. That's not impossible, no matter how improbable it may seem. And the opponent could certainly angle for it.

Edited Brian Schenck (March 20, 2013 08:35:25 AM)

Originally posted by Mario Haßler:

I also added that it is unlikely that the judge would take a look at all the cards on the battlefield and in the players' libraries and graveyards to get the full picture of the situation and then decide that player B indeed can't change the situation and that the game will end in player A's favor.

I'll go a bit further than Brian (Judges … “should probably refrain”), and instead say “Judges, don't even think about it.”

For one thing, the Judge could miss something that Player B sees - and a Judge's mistake deciding the outcome of a game is never a good result. Also, the Judge might see something that B would miss - and B would then be looking for it, since the Judge “overruled” A's assertion that there's no outs.

Finally - and this is an important point - Player A can lie as much as he wants about the contents of his deck (well, not the number of cards left). He could say “you've got no outs”, even though he knows there's 2 or 3 Disenchant or Naturalize or similar. If Player B chooses to believe him, that's his business - and again, the judge should not be involved in that, in any way.

For me, the bottom line is still “Own your decisions.” If players choose to play this deck, they accept that some opponents won't fold in a timely manner, and that might not be to their benefit.

Edited Scott Marshall (March 20, 2013 10:18:46 AM)