Multiplayer format, all four players die at same time. Who wins?
Asked by Comfordor 8 years ago
My question is in regards to multi player format, with each player dying at the same time, who technically wins? I understand it happens simultaneously, but in a commander match, we needed to have 2 players proceed to the next "winners pod".
Scenario.
Player A, C is on 32 life. Player B,D is on 26 life.
There is 2x Dictate of the Twin Gods on the bf
Player A casts Shock for 8 damage, cast Arcbond, both targeting their own 1/1 goblin token.
2x Dictate of the Twin Gods increases the Arcbonded goblins damage to 32 to each player/creature
due to APNAP, would Player A & B lose first? Declaring Player C & D to the winners pod?
alternatively, if player A targeted shock and arcbond onto player C creature, would it result in players A&B winning? Or remain the same outcome?
Does Player A, who cast the game ending card get to choose who proceeds? Or does the APNAP rule come into effect?
If the answer is "4-way tie", you can say so, but for the sake of argument, who would technically take 1,2,3,4th place in order to proceed to next pod?
Many thanks!
Yeah it is a tough one. I came across this a while ago, and the outcome 'shocked' me.
We don't use a points system, basically top 2 players in the pod proceed to the "winners pod".
There is a time limit to each round (this scenario we did not have time to play game 2)
Player A chose their best friend, by "stacking" the damage in specific order, but I thought logically, the damage would "resolve" simultaneously, but in the order clockwise starting with Player A.
I was just wondering if there was a definition for when all players lose at the same time? Or do you think it's under the discretion of players involved?
I'd love to hear everyone's opinions
March 16, 2017 4:41 a.m. Edited.
First things first, as far as the rules are concerned, all players lose the game at the same time. This is because what has players lose the game that have 0 or less life is an SBA (state-based action), which don't use the stack and therefore don't care about APNAP order (on top of not being "owned" by any specific player). The outcome would be a draw.
704.1. State-based actions are game actions that happen automatically whenever certain conditions (listed below) are met. State-based actions don't use the stack.
704.3. Whenever a player would get priority (...), the game checks for any of the listed conditions for state-based actions, then performs all applicable state-based actions simultaneously as a single event. (...)
704.5a. If a player has 0 or less life, he or she loses the game.
104.4a. If all the players remaining in a game lose simultaneously, the game is a draw.
Commander doesn't play well with tournaments, and Two-Headed Giant is really the only multiplayer game type that's at all compatible with the tournament rules as-is, without making adjustments, adding rules like a point system, or stumble upon weird situations like you have.
That said, there are several ways to resolve this situation for your predicament of having to end up with two winners I can think of:
- even if you didn't agree on a point system, have players find an agreement (or vote, if you have to) which two players have contributed to the game the most, by any factors you or the players feel are important to them
- similar to the first option, ask players whether they maybe want to concede before the Shocks happen, possibly leaving only two players in the game, or even being able to continue playing because the player casting Shock and Arcbond conceded themselves
- you may agree to award the "first victory" to the player casting Shock and Arcbond, along with removing them from the game (which takes their spells on the stack with them, so noone else will be dealt damage) and continue playing to determine the "second victory"
- count the game as a draw, like regular tournaments do, awarding each person 1 point instead of 3 to the winner and 0 to the loser
I would suggest not to resort to determining winners in by rolling dice, looking at the top card of your library, checking who "would have won if this and that didn't happen", most life before the Ashockalypse, or other random methods - this will render all effort being put into the game by everyone involved seem redundant, and is otherwise not much in the spirit of the game.
March 16, 2017 6:19 a.m.
Gidgetimer says... #4
As all the previous posters have said it is a 4-way tie. I personally would either go with the two payers that had the most life or just calling the Arcbond player the first victor and continuing the game without them to establish a second winner.
I will note that it is actually against the tournament rules to use random methods of determining a winner so many of the ways BlueScope mentioned in their last paragraph of what not to do are strictly against the rules, but I don't feel pre-shock life total is a random method and therefore doesn't fit into the category. I can however see where they are coming from in that many times the first 5-10 points done to each player are determined by just randomly choosing an opponent to attack.
March 16, 2017 11:24 a.m.
@Gidgetimer: As I said, the tournament rules don't cover non-2HG-multiplayer very well. That said, only the third suggestion I made is actually incompatible the tournament rules - the other options simply involve discussing whether players want to concede (assuming they're not discussing incentives). The third option essentially does the same, however is incompatible because it doesn't allow players to semi-concede, but continue playing while the only person that didn't semi-concede is declared a winner.
The reason I don't like life totals isn't just that I do see it as a random factor for the reasons you described, but also that you only ever mention it when a draw is imminent. At that point, you're asking the player with 20 life to concede to the player with 21 life, which is something that shouldn't be allowed for fairness reasons - maybe next game, a player will find themselves behind in life totals, yet having more cards left in their library and suggest that as a means if determining the game, or maybe they have more friends with them that are wearing red beanies. It all comes down to once going down the road of reaching a solution that isn't based solely on the rules or agreement of the players, someone is going to be left in the dust, and everyone else won't notice it because they're busy looking at their promotional cards they got going through the same effort and playing at exactly the same skill level.
March 16, 2017 11:48 a.m.
Thanks for all your opinions and rulings
BlueScope - I agree about life totals, I too believe it's a non-determined factor. You're either alive or dead. Just because you have the highest life total (by a few points) doesn't mean you are likely to win.
I also thought Player A choosing second place was unfair, but the 4th player packed up and left immediately when this happened (it seemed like he experienced this before) I was outvoted 2:1
Even though random dice roll is not permitted, it does seem the most fair, quickest and easiest solution. xD
I do like the idea of the remaining 3 players fighting for second place, it is a more fair and balanced solution. I might suggest that next time.
Most players are honest and fair and do vote for MVP as a group to proceed. Or otherwise come to a fair and comprimable solution
But it is common to have a group of friends who like to team up against others, which is unfair, biased and not in the spirit of the "political strategy" of the game. Next time this happens I'll be sure to suggest the above solutions in order to fairly determine a winner.
Thank you again
March 16, 2017 9:31 p.m. Edited.
@Comfordor: Now that I read that post, I feel like adding that it's hardly the players' job to come up with a solution for this... whoever launches a tournament should provide solutions for common cases, and a tie between players in a multiplayer game is a common case. If you're a player in this situation, and there is no way to denote the real outcome you encountered, call a judge (or if there is none, the TO) and have them decide how to proceed. Whichever solution they come up is going to be the one that will be used, and since it's probably not going to be a sanctioned tournament, you don't have to care about things like dice rolls not being allowed.
And yeah, the reason I dislike dice rolls and the like is that it makes the entire game of Magic unimportant. If your goal is just to survive until someone launches the nuke, followed by picking the correct number, that has very little to do with the mechanics of the card game. Of course it's not unfair - it's just going to be very unsatisfying for everyone but the winner.
acbooster says... #1
That's really a difficult question to answer without knowing what factors play into it. Some playgroups like to use a point system where points are allocated to a player for certain things determined by the group as a whole.
The answer really is that the game would end in a draw, and with the information we're given there's no way to resolve the tie other than playing another game.
March 16, 2017 1:53 a.m.