Please keep the forum protocol in mind when posting.

Regular REL » Post: Scooping in response to assumed lethal

Scooping in response to assumed lethal

April 9, 2017 10:37:50 AM

Hary
Judge (Level 2 (Judge Academy)), Scorekeeper

United Kingdom, Ireland, and South Africa

Scooping in response to assumed lethal

This happened at a recent Standard FNM I was judging and I'm unsure as to the correct solution here:

Player A has cast Collective Defiance, escalating once and choosing the first and third modes. On resolving, they discard two Fiery Tempers. Player B picks up his cards, assuming he's about to take lethal damage from the tempers being cast through madness.

Player B then begins to shuffle his deck to get ready for game 2 and says ‘Wait. you didn’t have enough mana open to cast those Fiery Tempers.' and turns to me, expecting a solution.

I was watching the game but wasn't paying enough attention to see if player A did have four open red mana at the time. Lots of 2+ color lands in play. Unsure of what to do both players ended up deciding that the game was a draw as it was impossible to know if the play had been illegal or if player B had lost the game.

From my perspective, it looked like the Fiery Tempers were being discarded (to exile) when player B picked up his cards, yet he said ‘i picked up my cards assuming i’d been dealt lethal damage.'

What's the correct way of resolving this situation? Any further advice on the situation would also help. :)

Edited Hary (April 9, 2017 10:45:48 AM)

April 9, 2017 10:48:03 AM

Christopher Ambery
Judge (Level 2 (Judge Academy)), Scorekeeper

United Kingdom, Ireland, and South Africa

Scooping in response to assumed lethal

Originally posted by Harry Barlow:

This happened at a recent Standard FNM I was judging and I'm unsure as to the correct solution here:

Player A has cast Collective Defiance, escalating once and choosing the first and third modes. On resolving, they discard two Fiery Tempers. Player B picks up his cards, assuming he's about to take lethal damage from the tempers being cast through madness.

Player B then begins to shuffle his deck to get ready for game 2 and says ‘Wait. you didn’t have enough mana open to cast those Fiery Tempers.' and turns to me, expecting a solution.

I was watching the game but wasn't paying enough attention to see if player A did have four open red mana at the time. Lots of 2+ color lands in play. Unsure of what to do both players ended up deciding that the game was a draw as it was impossible to know if the play had been illegal or if player B had lost the game.

From my perspective, it looked like the Fiery Tempers were being discarded (to exile) when player B picked up his cards, yet he said ‘i picked up my cards assuming i’d been dealt lethal damage.'

What's the correct way of resolving this situation? Any further advice on the situation would also help. :)

At this point it would be a case of investigate and see if the player deliberately deceived their opponent
Failing this though - the player has conceded by their own volition - its the players responsibility to confirm they are actually dead in this spot

April 9, 2017 11:33:41 AM

Scott Marshall
Forum Moderator
Judge (Level 4 (Judge Foundry)), Hall of Fame

USA - Northwest

Scooping in response to assumed lethal

I'll just go ahead and add my ‘O’fficial thumbs-up to this:
Originally posted by Christopher Ambery:

At this point it would be a case of investigate and see if the player deliberately deceived their opponent
Failing this though - the player has conceded by their own volition - its the players responsibility to confirm they are actually dead in this spot
Well said, Christopher!

d:^D

May 5, 2017 08:45:07 AM

Bryon Boyes
Judge (Uncertified)

Canada

Scooping in response to assumed lethal

Player A casts Collective Defiance for all three modes, discarding two Fiery Temper. Total is 1B, R, R for required for mana and potentially Player B is about to go from 8 to 0 life. At this point Player B CONCEDES, scoops up his cards and shuffles.

CR 104.3a A player can concede the game at any time. A player who concedes leaves the game immediately. He or she loses the game.

It's right there in the rules. No draw. If you concede you lose.

Player A wasn't hiding information at this point as all three cards that he could put on the stack were in plain view and your mana available is known information. No deception there.

Sounds to me like Player B regretted his decision and wanted to not lose.

May 6, 2017 07:59:29 AM

Russell Deutsch
Judge (Uncertified)

USA - Northeast

Scooping in response to assumed lethal

IMHO, investigating for cheating would be a real stretch here. I mean, Player A would need a lot of things to go correctly in order to pull that off.

If you don't want to lose a game, don't pack up your cards.

May 6, 2017 06:02:38 PM

Isaac King
Judge (Uncertified)

Barriere, Canada

Scooping in response to assumed lethal

I believe Player A can cheat here fairly easily by implying (or outright stating) that he is able to cast the Fiery Tempers.

May 6, 2017 09:13:05 PM

Iván R. Molia
Judge (Level 1 (International Judge Program))

Iberia

Scooping in response to assumed lethal

But player B can allways ask about mana in pool and untap lands instead of ragequit…
The player B was assumed something wrong and concede… We can´t avoid that… and once you concede, the game is finished, so backup isn't never an option…

Remember than bluff and/or give false information about private zones are allowed.
Draw a land and put a poker-fog-face is OK

May 7, 2017 04:38:12 AM

Flu Tschi
Judge (Uncertified), Scorekeeper, Tournament Organizer

German-speaking countries

Scooping in response to assumed lethal

And i believe there is no better lession to be learned here. he will never ever scoop again :)

May 24, 2017 05:57:52 PM

Karen McCulllough
Judge (Uncertified)

USA - Northwest

Scooping in response to assumed lethal

Cards with madness are always discarded in to exile before hitting the graveyard, whether or not you cast it from there is irrelevant. If he discarded in to exile, that wasn't “intentionally misleading”, that was following the rules. Player B conceded. Player B lost the game.