# Community

 Magic: The Gathering Rules Theory and T.. Winning and Losing
Page 1 of 2  •
6 months ago  ::  Dec 27, 2012 - 10:33AM #1
Date Joined: Dec 13, 2011
Posts: 1,786
The rules state that if a player would win and lose the game simultaneously, that player loses the game. However, there seems to be a small loophole. I've quoted the rules below and bolded the relevant parts for this scenario.

Rule 104.2. (Winning the game) Show
104.2. There are several ways to win the game.
104.2a A player still in the game wins the game if all of that player’s opponents have left the game.
This happens immediately and overrides all effects that would prevent that player from winning
the game.
104.2b An effect may state that a player wins the game. (In multiplayer games, this may not cause
the game to end; see rule 104.3h.)
...

Rule 104.3. (Losing the game) Show
104.3. There are several ways to lose the game.
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.
104.3b If a player’s life total is 0 or less, he or she loses the game the next time a player would
receive priority. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)
104.3c If a player is required to draw more cards than are left in his or her library, he or she draws
the remaining cards, and then loses the game the next time a player would receive priority. (This
is a state-based action. See rule 704.)
104.3d If a player has ten or more poison counters, he or she loses the game the next time a player
would receive priority. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)
104.3e An effect may state that a player loses the game.
104.3f If a player would both win and lose the game simultaneously, he or she loses the game.
104.3g In a multiplayer game between teams, a team loses the game if all players on that team have
lost the game.
104.3h In a multiplayer game, an effect that states that a player wins the game instead causes all of
that player’s opponents to lose the game. (This may not cause the game to end if the limited
range of influence option is being used; see rule 801.)
...

Rule 104.4 (Drawing the game) Show
104.4. There are several ways for the game to be a draw.
104.4a If all the players remaining in a game lose simultaneously, the game is a draw.
...

I am at 1 life, have one card left in my library, and control . I then cast . I now should:

1) Win the game because I control Laboratory Maniac and am drawing off an empty library.
2) Lose the game because I'm at -1 life.

However, the rules state that I don't lose from having 0 or less life until a player would receive priority. Laboratory Maniac's effect would cause me to win immediately, while Sign in Blood is still resolving. As a result, I win and the game ends before I can lose.

Rule 104.3h complicates this further. If this scenario comes up in a multiplayer game, then instead of winning, everyone else loses. However, according to the rules, it seems as though they will all lose during the resolution of the spell, and I still win. The existence of rule 104.3f leads me to believe that this is not the intended outcome of this situation.
Cancel
6 months ago  ::  Dec 27, 2012 - 10:56AM #2
evouga
Date Joined: Jul 5, 2008
Posts: 458
What's wrong with the outcome that you win the game?

There are many other situations where you would win and lose "almost" simultaneously, for instance if you're at 1 life and need to tap to cast a game-winning . I don't see a problem with it.
Cancel
6 months ago  ::  Dec 27, 2012 - 11:04AM #3
Date Joined: Dec 13, 2011
Posts: 1,786
The problem is that it's not intuitive. In this case, the effect of a single spell is causing me to both win and lose, but those two results aren't carried out a the same time.
Cancel
6 months ago  ::  Dec 27, 2012 - 11:10AM #4
Soular
Date Joined: Jul 23, 2007
Posts: 432

Dec 27, 2012 -- 10:33AM, FezzHead wrote:

However, the rules state that I don't lose from having 0 or less life until a player would receive priority. Laboratory Maniac's effect would cause me to win immediately, while Sign in Blood is still resolving. As a result, I win and the game ends before I can lose.

As you said, you win while is still resolving, so even if you'd lose as you're applying state-based actions you'd still won't be winning and losing at the same time.

And even if you were to lose as soon as your life hits 0, you'd still supposed to draw before you lose life so you'll win before that.

The existence of rule 104.3f leads me to believe that this is not the intended outcome of this situation.

See Exsam's answer in mtgsalvation's forums:

This rule cannot currently be applied. It exists as a catch-all in case a scenario occurs in which it could.

It was written when the Sudden Death rules for single elimination rounds had a player win as a state-based action instead of lose.

If 104.3f really is obselete, they should get rid of it and only bring it back when it becomes relevant again.

Cancel
6 months ago  ::  Dec 27, 2012 - 11:10AM #5
EyeballFrog
Date Joined: Mar 18, 2012
Posts: 1,087
104.3f might be there as a way to cover their ****.  I can't think of any interaction that would allow that to happen offhand, though my search lead me to some interesting possibilities.

You control .  What happens if you activate with an empty library in a failed attempt to pay for 's lose the game trigger?

You control , , , and a creature with power 20 or greater.  You have no cards in your graveyard.  What happen's when 's triggered ability resolves?
Cancel
6 months ago  ::  Dec 27, 2012 - 11:15AM #6
Nyktos
Date Joined: Oct 11, 2007
Posts: 3,391
First one: That's...weird, but it's weird because of cost-paying rules, not anything to do with this thread. I think you would win.

Second: You lose, because Crypt's replacement applies before you get to the third part of Aria's ability.
blah blah metal lyrics
Cancel
6 months ago  ::  Dec 27, 2012 - 11:49AM #7
Soular
Date Joined: Jul 23, 2007
Posts: 432

Dec 27, 2012 -- 11:10AM, EyeballFrog wrote:

You control .  What happens if you activate with an empty library in a failed attempt to pay for 's lose the game trigger?

Dec 27, 2012 -- 11:15AM, Nyktos wrote:

First one: That's...weird, but it's weird because of cost-paying rules, not anything to do with this thread. I think you would win.

Yes, he would. The card is supposed to be drawn when paying, which happens before losing.
Edit: Okay I see the complication now, this really is a weird. You're supposed to rewind your actions if you can't pay the whole cost entirely, but before you come and say "well can't pay, better rewind the whole thing" you already won. So I still think you would win.

Remember that for the rule to apply, winning and losing need to happen simultaneously. and that most of the time actions happen sequentially, except for cases where the same verb instructs them (with drawing and casting as exception) , or when the word "simultaneously" is used.

You'd porbably need some replacement effect to replace one action with a win and one with a loss. And this too can't happen by replacing draws (, ) because they never happen at the same time as other actions, not even with other draws. This pretty much closes all the possibilities you can make with available cards alone.

Cancel
6 months ago  ::  Dec 27, 2012 - 12:44PM #8
Mage24365
Date Joined: Jun 23, 2009
Posts: 7,599
I am the Twilight Sparkle of The Pony Co.

Ponies
are the best animals on the planet. A cartoon about them made for little girls is the best show on TV. Join the movement.
Rest of sig Show
Disclaimers Show
My initial responses to rules questions are usually just answers. If you want an explanation as to why, say so.
Just because it says I'm there, I'm not necessarily there. I leave my browser open so I don't have to reload ~30 tabs.
Anyone who wants to text duel me through either PM or chat can just PM me with a format (and a time if playing through chat). I don't play standard.

# Card Blind Hall of Fame Show

3CB Show

3CB #1 (1/30/11): Won by silasw, with , , .
3CB #2 (2/13/11): Won by Vektor480, with , ,
3CB #3(2/20/11): Joint win between defuse, with , , ; and Mown, with , ,
3CB #4(3/13/11): Won by Mown, with , ,
3CB #5(3/20/11): Won by silasw, with , ,

5CB Show

5CB 1 (3/6/11): Won by Maraxus-of-Keld, with , , , ,

quotes Show

Sep 5, 2010 -- 9:26AM, Argus_Panoptes wrote:

So, how would I use a card that has a large in the top half and "sui?l? -- pu?? ?is?q" across the middle?

Dec 28, 2010 -- 11:36AM, razorborne wrote:

Dec 28, 2010 -- 10:46AM, signofzeta wrote:

Winning is not important if:

1.  You win by a blowout.

2.  You pay billions of dollars in cards to win.   If you like wasting money just to win one game, while you could have saved it to lose a few and end up winning more in the future, then it is fine by me.

what?

do you ceremonially light your deck on fire after a win?

Jan 26, 2011 -- 2:25PM, Gerdef wrote:

Or did no one notice before.  (And by not notice, I mean covered their ears and shouted LA LA LA LA )

Mar 2, 2011 -- 4:14PM, WotC_MattT wrote:

Mar 2, 2011 -- 12:53PM, Gerdef wrote:

Hmmm...

I think the most awkward situation at the moment is simply the Myr Welder / Equipment / Licid / Aura craziness, but I'm pretty sure he's aware of it.

If the most awkward thing going on right now involves Licids, I declare victory.

Feb 28, 2011 -- 9:50PM, zammm wrote:

We regret to inform you of Trevor Kidd's untimely demise in an unfortunate accident involving a mysteriously blown breaker box and a photophobic creature of unknown origin at his home near Renton, Washington. We at the Wizards Community apologize for any inconvenience or delay, and assure you we'll be preparing a replacement to assume his duties as soon as we finish warming up the cloning vats.

[02:47:46] It doesn't merely "come out of suspend" - you take the last time counter off, and then suspend triggers and say "now cast that! CAST IT NOOOOOW!"
[02:47:49] Because suspend has no indoors voice

[10:11:33] !opalescence
[10:11:33] Opalescence {2WW} |Enchantment| Each other non-Aura enchantment is a creature with power and toughness each equal to its converted mana cost. It's still an enchantment. · Reserved,UD-R,Vin,Leg,Cla,USBC
[10:11:51] *sigh*
[10:12:10] Otecko: Do you have a question about Opalescence?
[10:12:17] sure
[10:12:23] \$10 on humility interaction
[10:12:25] :P
[10:12:29] :D
[10:12:47] humility + opalescence put into play by replenish

Ego Show

Dec 14, 2010 -- 5:59PM, Niklor wrote:

Mage is awesome, BTW.

Jan 22, 2011 -- 4:44PM, MisterFour wrote:

Dear Mage24365,

You are totally awesome. Thank you so much. I hope you are able to dine in Paradise without kicking the bucket to actually get there, and that every dollar you ever make magically becomes two more.

Jun 13, 2011 -- 7:05AM, Mage24365 wrote:

Jun 13, 2011 -- 7:02AM, RootBreaker wrote:

I don't think there are any cards like that.

There are things that prevent you from activating activated abilities, things that increase their cost, and things that counter them, but I don't think anything triggers from them specifically.

There are things that trigger from targeting, so that might be relevant, but I can't think of anything that triggers from targeting a player.

I'm almost positive there's nothing that triggers from damage being prevented.

Jun 13, 2011 -- 7:08AM, RootBreaker wrote:

Well played.

 This user loves Wikipe-tan, the cutest personification of Wikipedia.
^Put this in your sig; PM me for html code.^<
Cancel
6 months ago  ::  Dec 27, 2012 - 1:07PM #9
Date Joined: Dec 13, 2011
Posts: 1,786

I control , , and . I have no cards in my library or graveyard. My opponent casts on my Sunstriker. Normally, I would gain life and take damage simultaneously, but since the "gain 2 life" is replaced by "draw two cards", it must be split into separate actions that happen sequentially. In this case, do I draw first (and win) or exile cards from my graveyard first (and lose)?
Cancel
6 months ago  ::  Dec 27, 2012 - 1:27PM #10
Mage24365
Date Joined: Jun 23, 2009
Posts: 7,599

Dec 27, 2012 -- 1:07PM, FezzHead wrote:

I control , , and . I have no cards in my library or graveyard. My opponent casts on my Sunstriker. Normally, I would gain life and take damage simultaneously, but since the "gain 2 life" is replaced by "draw two cards", it must be split into separate actions that happen sequentially. In this case, do I draw first (and win) or exile cards from my graveyard first (and lose)?

That is basically the exact scenario in the link I just posted.
The actions happen simultaneously and the rule applies.

I am the Twilight Sparkle of The Pony Co.

Ponies
are the best animals on the planet. A cartoon about them made for little girls is the best show on TV. Join the movement.
Rest of sig Show
Disclaimers Show
My initial responses to rules questions are usually just answers. If you want an explanation as to why, say so.
Just because it says I'm there, I'm not necessarily there. I leave my browser open so I don't have to reload ~30 tabs.
Anyone who wants to text duel me through either PM or chat can just PM me with a format (and a time if playing through chat). I don't play standard.

# Card Blind Hall of Fame Show

3CB Show

3CB #1 (1/30/11): Won by silasw, with , , .
3CB #2 (2/13/11): Won by Vektor480, with , ,
3CB #3(2/20/11): Joint win between defuse, with , , ; and Mown, with , ,
3CB #4(3/13/11): Won by Mown, with , ,
3CB #5(3/20/11): Won by silasw, with , ,

5CB Show

5CB 1 (3/6/11): Won by Maraxus-of-Keld, with , , , ,

quotes Show

Sep 5, 2010 -- 9:26AM, Argus_Panoptes wrote:

So, how would I use a card that has a large in the top half and "sui?l? -- pu?? ?is?q" across the middle?

Dec 28, 2010 -- 11:36AM, razorborne wrote:

Dec 28, 2010 -- 10:46AM, signofzeta wrote:

Winning is not important if:

1.  You win by a blowout.

2.  You pay billions of dollars in cards to win.   If you like wasting money just to win one game, while you could have saved it to lose a few and end up winning more in the future, then it is fine by me.

what?

do you ceremonially light your deck on fire after a win?

Jan 26, 2011 -- 2:25PM, Gerdef wrote:

Or did no one notice before.  (And by not notice, I mean covered their ears and shouted LA LA LA LA )

Mar 2, 2011 -- 4:14PM, WotC_MattT wrote:

Mar 2, 2011 -- 12:53PM, Gerdef wrote:

Hmmm...

I think the most awkward situation at the moment is simply the Myr Welder / Equipment / Licid / Aura craziness, but I'm pretty sure he's aware of it.

If the most awkward thing going on right now involves Licids, I declare victory.

Feb 28, 2011 -- 9:50PM, zammm wrote:

We regret to inform you of Trevor Kidd's untimely demise in an unfortunate accident involving a mysteriously blown breaker box and a photophobic creature of unknown origin at his home near Renton, Washington. We at the Wizards Community apologize for any inconvenience or delay, and assure you we'll be preparing a replacement to assume his duties as soon as we finish warming up the cloning vats.

[02:47:46] It doesn't merely "come out of suspend" - you take the last time counter off, and then suspend triggers and say "now cast that! CAST IT NOOOOOW!"
[02:47:49] Because suspend has no indoors voice

[10:11:33] !opalescence
[10:11:33] Opalescence {2WW} |Enchantment| Each other non-Aura enchantment is a creature with power and toughness each equal to its converted mana cost. It's still an enchantment. · Reserved,UD-R,Vin,Leg,Cla,USBC
[10:11:51] *sigh*
[10:12:10] Otecko: Do you have a question about Opalescence?
[10:12:17] sure
[10:12:23] \$10 on humility interaction
[10:12:25] :P
[10:12:29] :D
[10:12:47] humility + opalescence put into play by replenish

Ego Show

Dec 14, 2010 -- 5:59PM, Niklor wrote:

Mage is awesome, BTW.

Jan 22, 2011 -- 4:44PM, MisterFour wrote:

Dear Mage24365,

You are totally awesome. Thank you so much. I hope you are able to dine in Paradise without kicking the bucket to actually get there, and that every dollar you ever make magically becomes two more.

Jun 13, 2011 -- 7:05AM, Mage24365 wrote:

Jun 13, 2011 -- 7:02AM, RootBreaker wrote:

I don't think there are any cards like that.

There are things that prevent you from activating activated abilities, things that increase their cost, and things that counter them, but I don't think anything triggers from them specifically.

There are things that trigger from targeting, so that might be relevant, but I can't think of anything that triggers from targeting a player.

I'm almost positive there's nothing that triggers from damage being prevented.

Jun 13, 2011 -- 7:08AM, RootBreaker wrote:

Well played.

 This user loves Wikipe-tan, the cutest personification of Wikipedia.
^Put this in your sig; PM me for html code.^<