ehhh I could go either way on this one.

Most choices in the game are obvious and go hand in hand with the spells effect.

I cast a dissolve targeting the mage, it resolves, and I choose an equipment to destroy.


You get into some gray areas like the unstable zombie. When it activates I make a choice. Do I have to tell you that choice? I am not sure and could easily see Bryan ruling that you do not have to reveal choices you make.

If that is the case then the wizard does not have to reveal his choice at the beginning of the game.

As I pointed out earlier the game mechanic rule has little to do with the wizard and the trivial choice of his minor school. When I use Tataree's ability do I have to tell you what I am doing, or is the act of removing the damage / adding mana enough of an acknowledgement that I do not have to tell you if you were not paying attention?

Your last reply didn't really address Ringkichard's points, Hedge. All you said was "It doesn't matter in swiss rounds, but when it does matter a Judge can decide." If we allow in your system for having a Judge decide, I would personally want to know how the judge is basing his decision. I would again want a clear, concise, standardized system for determining the winner. Without that, it would simply be the judge's opinion of who he thinks would have come out on top. That doesn't seem fair to me at all.

Let us imagine a worst case scenario, shall we. Two players playing in the finals end with a legitimately tied game. After listening to their plans, the Judge decides to give the win to Player B. Obviously unhappy with that decision, Player A uses the race card and says that he lost because the Judge was racist and didn't like African Americans.

Not only does the Judge not have a way to defend himself against this accusation, BUT IT MIGHT ACTUALLY BE TRUE! It could very easily be the fact that the judge didn't like the way the losing player looked, or smelled, or acted. Something about him could have just gotten under the Judge's skin, and the only thing the Judge has to fall back on is "Well, I think he would have won" when there is ample chance that the other player could have won as well.

Now, if instead we have a clear system for how the judge would base his decision in place, then there would be no reason to have the concession rule in effect. The person who knows he would win by Judge's decision would never concede.

And I can not fathom it ever resulting in anything other than a loss for both players in that situation. If time ran out with them both still slugging away at each other, then obviously they both felt they had a chance to win. So why would either of them give that up?

And if that's the case, then why not cut out the arguments and frustration and simply state "If you're not finished when time runs out, it's a loss for both players."

My point was that they wouldn't agree on it. One would use the method that favored themselves, and the other would use a different method to favor themselves.

Maybe not when it is obvious, but even a slim chance is still a chance and I do think it would be doing myself a disservice if I were to concede when I had a chance of winning. If I haven't conceded by the time the end of the round is called, I see no reason why I would concede after time was called. Obviously I felt there was still a chance for me to win because we were still slugging it out.

I'm fine with allowing people to concede before time is called, but trying to force someone to concede after the fact does not sit well with me and I would never do it. To me, that is like having a tied Super Bowl game and the Ref tells the coaches that instead of going into over time, one of them has to concede or nobody wins the Super Bowl that year. It makes no sense and would piss a lot of people off.

I didn't realize you knew me so well.

But I thought we were making arguments about tiebreakers?