If seen this happen at several large Legacy events and always wondered if it was a legal play.
Player 1 plays Show and Tell.
Player 1 and 2 put a card face down.
Player 1 reveals his card.
Player 2 concedes without revealing his card.
Does Player 2 need to reveal his card before he concedes?
104.3a A player can concede the game at any time. A player who concedes leaves the game immediately. That player loses the game.No
under review
Originally Posted by GreatWhale
I don't know that this is correct.
Show and Tell instructs both players to reveal at the same time. So, if you want to see what one player put down, you do need to show. You can concede after choosing, but since you both reveal that the same time, there is no actual opportunity to concede having seen theirs and not revealing yours.
"The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
—Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order
Maybe we have different interpretations of what "at any time" means.
"leaves the game immediately" doesn't really suggest 'but only after they flip over a face down card'
I've never known it to be a APNAP issue.
If someone concedes you can't say 'wait I need to finish resolving my spell'; the game is over, they conceded.
Well, the issue here is that both cards should be revealed simultaneously. There should not ever be even a second of literal real-time where one card is revealed and the other is not.
Of course in real life, you can't be perfectly synchronized with another human being, but in practice, since Show and Tell says to reveal the cards at the same time, there should not be a time where one card is revealed and the other is not. The issue here is that Show and Tell was not resolved correctly, not when a player can concede.
"The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
—Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order
I guess "at any time" is open to debate after all; remembering back to the arguments over resolving Urza's Bauble.
The rules do make a few mentions to "at any time" and I always understood it as having the normal English meaning, not part of the rules of the game.
But then that's getting more into IPG stuff than game rules.
Well, here is my issue with that.
How much time is between simultaneous events? Zero, by my understanding, that is what simultaneous means as I understand it. So, while you can concede at any time, there is literally no time between the two reveals.
Consdier the following case:
You play Show and Tell. For some reason or other, you ask a Judge to resolve the spell (perhaps you had some sort of disagreement with this opponent before). How might the Judge do this? Presumably, you each would indicate the card you choose and once that is done, the Judge would reveal both cards at the same time, as Show and Tell instructs. In this instance, were you deprived of your right to concede having seen their card and not revealed your own? Certainly not, as there was no time where one card is revealed and the other is not, that is simultaneity as we colloquially conceive of it.
I guess if you want to make some kind of 4D non-Euclidean spacetime argument to the Judge in this case about there being no such thing as simultaneity, you can try, but I don't imagine you win that one...
"The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
—Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote