Winning and Losing at the same time

[anonymos]

I hate not being able to sleep sometimes. It makes me do dumb things. I am reading the comprehensive rules. I just found

104.3f If a player would both win and lose simultaneously, he or she loes.

I'm just wondering what kind of game situation would cause this to come up.

[Maveric78f]

Maybe this:

Lich

Enchantment, BBBB (4)
As Lich enters the battlefield, your life total becomes 0.
You don't lose the game for having 0 or less life.
If you would gain life, draw that many cards instead.
Whenever you're dealt damage, sacrifice that many permanents.
When Lich leaves the battlefield, you lose the game.
Plus this:


Mayael's Aria

Enchantment, WRG (3)
At the beginning of your upkeep, put a +1/+1 counter on each creature you control if you control a creature with power 5 or greater. Then you gain 10 life if you control a creature with power 10 or greater. Then you win the game if you control a creature with power 20 or greater.

If you control a creature with power 20 or greater and you have less than 10 cards in your library.

I'm not even sure it works (you may lose even before reading that you win the game).

[luma]

Lich + Mayael's Aria won't work, because you win the game during the resolution of Aria's trigger, and you would lose the game after the trigger resolves, before a player would get priority. Thus, not winning and losing at the same time.

[Maveric78f]

???

It's not a state-based effect to lose by not being able to draw. It should happen when you can't draw.

Edit: well, that's not clear, but it's a question, marked with surprise.

[Nihil Credo]

???

It's not a state-based effect to lose by not being able to draw. It should happen when you can't draw.

It actually is. Well, a state-based action, to be up-to-date on the latest terminology.


104.3c. (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/) If a player (http://www.yawgatog.com/resources/magic-rules/#player) is required to draw (http://www.yawgatog.com/resources/magic-rules/#draw) more cards (http://www.yawgatog.com/resources/magic-rules/#card) than are left in his or her library (http://www.yawgatog.com/resources/magic-rules/#library), he or she draws (http://www.yawgatog.com/resources/magic-rules/#draw) the remaining cards (http://www.yawgatog.com/resources/magic-rules/#card), and then loses the game the next time a player (http://www.yawgatog.com/resources/magic-rules/#player) would receive priority (http://www.yawgatog.com/resources/magic-rules/#priority). (This is a state-based action. See rule 704 (http://www.yawgatog.com/resources/magic-rules/#R704.).)


EDIT: To be clear, this applies to regular losing by "milling". Forbidden Crypt's game loss condition is not a state-based action.

[Maveric78f]

I'll always be surprised by how complicated this kind of simple things can be.

As a conclusion, it's impossible to win and lose the game at the same time. Since, winning game is always part of a card's effect and losing a game from the game rules is always as a state-based effect and up to now no card effect can make you both win and lose the game.

[Illissius]

How are things like Hurricane for 20 handled? Is there a separate rule or just by applying this rule, both players win and lose at the same time => both of them lose => it's a draw?

[tivadar]

How are things like Hurricane for 20 handled? Is there a separate rule or just by applying this rule, both players win and lose at the same time => both of them lose => it's a draw?

This would actually be both players *losing* the game at the same time. And that's a draw:

104.4a If all the players remaining in a game lose simultaneously, the game is a draw.

Technically, when a player loses the game, they leave the game. And you win if all your opponents have left the game:

104.2a A player still in the game wins the game if all of that player’s opponents have left the game.

And I'll try to think of a creative way to both win and lose at the same time... I'd imagine there has to be one. But yes, it'd have to be due to interactions that specifically state you lose and you win.

EDIT: I *think* The Cheese Stands Alone will do it. You're at 1 life with The Cheese Stands Alone and a 1/1 in play. Your opponent swings with a 2/2 trampler. You block. At the end of combat damage resolution, you both have no permanents outside of Cheese in play and are at 0 life. Both state-based effects are checked and you both win and lose the game.

[citanul]

You're at 1 life with The Cheese Stands Alone and a 1/1 in play. Your opponent swings with a 2/2 trampler. You block. At the end of combat damage resolution, you both have no permanents outside of Cheese in play and are at 0 life. Both state-based effects are checked and you both win and lose the game.


Cheese triggers, is put on stack and never resolves.

[tivadar]

Can I see the relevant ruling? Gatherer reports:

If you control no cards in play other than The Cheese Stands Alone and have no cards in your hand, you win the game.

That's not a triggered ability (not "at" or "when"). Though this may have been changed somewhere I don't know.

EDIT: It's possible the wording on this just never got updated in gatherer. Things seem to like talking about Cheese "triggering". But then again, as the post below says, it's Unglued...

[puppektion]

Can I see the relevant ruling? Gatherer reports:

If you control no cards in play other than The Cheese Stands Alone and have no cards in your hand, you win the game.

That's not a triggered ability (not "at" or "when"). Though this may have been changed somewhere I don't know.

EDIT: Sorry, that's the card text, grumble...

Throw in R&D's Secret Lair? But then we're delving far into the un-rules, where logic and reason mean nothing.

[cdr]

Un* has no Oracle, and therefore The Cheese has a static ability.

Barren Glory is trigged, however.

[tivadar]

So in conclusion, you can win and lose at the same time, but only if playing Unglued.

[godryk]

This would actually be both players *losing* the game at the same time. And that's a draw:

104.4a If all the players remaining in a game lose simultaneously, the game is a draw.


Just to clarify the Hurricane thing. It's just the same as if you would cast a Price of Progress that would deal lethal damage to both players, the game would have to be repeated. If you're ahead in games (1-0) and cast a lethal Price of Progress for both players, the current game would end and you would remain winning 1-0 in rounds. I'm far from being a rules guru, this was simply confirmed to me by a level 3 judge.

[cdr]

The game is a draw, like tividar quoted - the match score would be 1-0-1.

[Forbiddian]

I hate not being able to sleep sometimes. It makes me do dumb things. I am reading the comprehensive rules. I just found

104.3f If a player would both win and lose simultaneously, he or she loes.

I'm just wondering what kind of game situation would cause this to come up.



You have Platinum Angel + Coalition Victory (and have met the conditions with creatures of power 2 or less). You have less than 1 life. Your opponent has Platinum Angel.

Solar Tide destroying creatures with power 3 or greater. GG.


Other conditions could be like: Earthquake for 4 and you instead have Sliver Queen, etc.

EDIT: my bad, I thought Coalition Victory was an Enchantment. Man, that card is bad. Still trying to think of ways you could win and lose at the same time.

[Phoenix Ignition]

Other conditions could be like: Earthquake for 4 and you instead have Sliver Queen, etc.

Hurricane. Earthquake doesn't hit Platinum Angel.

[Illissius]

Wait, so if something says "you win the game" (Coalition Victory etc.) while your opponent has an Angel, the game remembers that it happened (rather than the effect just fizzling), and you actually do win the game if/when your opponent's Angel leaves play?

[gravemind123]

It shouldn't, the "You win" effect should happen and then have no effect because your opponent has Platinum Angel. A you win effect from a sorcery won't stick around until your opponent stops controlling the angel.

Looking at the list of cards that say "You win the game" all of them are either a sorcery(Coalition Victory) or have a triggered ability, which won't matter, since you'll die due to State-Based Actions before it even gets put on the stack(or in the case of Coalition Victory, before it resolves assuming both Angels die in response to it), assuming you had that and Platinum Angel set up as in the above post instead of Coalition Victory. The Cheese Stands Alone does appear to be the only card that can set this up.

[Maveric78f]

As gravemind recalls it, win and lose is not possible with the current real magic cards. The only way I thought it was possible: Mayael's Aria + Lich or False Cure does not work because you're losing at the next state based effect. All the win ability are resolved during a spell or a triggered ability while all lose rules happen during state based effects. Conclusion, they can't happen together.

[Forbiddian]

Wait, so if something says "you win the game" (Coalition Victory etc.) while your opponent has an Angel, the game remembers that it happened (rather than the effect just fizzling), and you actually do win the game if/when your opponent's Angel leaves play?

Oh, sorry, I fail at rtfc, I thought it was an enchantment.


This might come up in multiplayer.

You get points for killing the person on your right. If you kamikaze yourself with Earthquake for 20, then I guess the person on your left gets TWO points, since you "won and lost --> lost" so you shouldn't get points, but then two players were eliminated. Seems a little unfair, though.

It could also happen: While in the process of resolving a winning effect, the player concedes (for whatever reason). It might just be in the rules to address the possibility that this occurs, and to say for certain that conceding overrides the effects in the game.

[cdr]

This thread is getting off-topic and corner-casey, but -

You can conceed between discrete actions, indicated by sentences while a spell or ability is resolving. You cannot conceed when you win, but you can conceed just before you win.

[tivadar]

But then in that case, wouldn't you simply lose, and not win and lose at the same time? And isn't that what I said previously? Maybe I'm missing something. Conceding isn't checked with state-based effects, it simply happens when you declare it. And that's either before you win, or not at all.

[cdr]

Right, you can't conceed to win and lose at the same time.