Platnium Angel V Platnium Angel what happens?

[forests failed you]

I have a scenerio:

I have a Platnium Angel in play and some lands, and my opponent has a Platnium Angel in play and some lands.  Both of us run out of cards in our libraries.  We both have unknown cards in our hands.   We both pass the turn and do nothing relevent for some number of turns. 

What happens?  Clearly it is assumed that the game would be a draw and we would just move on.  However, what if we were in round 7 of an event, and I was paired down. I needed to draw to make top eight and my opponent needed to win in order to make top eight.  Could I refuse to allow the game to be a draw and say I wanted to play it out to a conclusion.  After all, Platnium Angel go is not an infinite loop; am I able to continue taking turns until time is called?  Not to mention I still have cards in hand that are in an unknown zone, I might have a way to win in hand unknown to my opponent. 

You get the general idea?  Can I refuse to agree to a draw of game one; since I only need a draw and he needs to win; and force him to conceed in order to move on to game two?

[Machinus]

I think as long as there is still private information (cards in hand is equivalent here to cards in library), there is no way to make a "ruling" on the game.

I'm not even sure what happens if there are 0 cards in hand and no relevant cards in any other zone. As far as I know players can't just "agree" to draw individual games, and I have no idea what the range of a judge's allowed actions is.

[Scoops666]

I would rule the game a draw. While it isn't a loop by any means, the gamestate has degenerated into a seemingly unchangeable pattern. Whiile cards in hand may be relevant, the game state is even more relevant. If it's progressed to a point where neither play can or will change it, you have to draw the game.

In fact, I remembered Jacob Orlove posting something that happened to him that related to this. Hopefully he'll see this and chime in w/ that so you can see a real life situation that occured. I believe his situation was an early Tinker against Oath (If I get that right my memory amazes me). Eventually he ran out of a library and Oath kept using Blessing, so a judge ruled the game a draw. The Platty v Platty scenario would hold the same, both game states just degenerate into an unresolvable stale mate, which would necessitate a draw.

[Philatio]

Does the fact that there are still decisions to be made affect anything? 

Even if you both have no cards in hand and no librabry and nothing but lands+plats, every turn each one of you has the option to attack, and the other player has the option to block.  If both happen, the defending player loses because he proceeds to his next draw step first.  It might not be a smart choice, but it isn't like it is mandatory to pass the turn over and over.

Then again I guess it isn't mandatory to Oath up Blessing every turn the way the player did in Jacob's game.

[Harlequin]

I think the DCI rule of thumb is that, If the board does not change for 3 three full turn rotations (so 6 total turns 3 for each player)... then the game is considered a draw.  If you have effects in hand that you "could" play but choose not to play anything over the corse of 3 turns, then an judge should be called.  If you have a strong case for why you let 3 turns pass before playing your out, then I'm sure the judge will allow you to play your out.   But if you have nothing to change the game in a progressive way, the "private"ness of your hand is irrellevant. 

The game would be called as a "Draw"  Which means no player is awarded a "win" and a new game is started assuming time permits.  In timed swiss, both players would keep the same game records for that round as the new game started.  So if you won the first game (score 1-0 you) and hit a draw on game 2 with 20 mins left in the round, you would both go to game 3 with the same score 1-0.  Similarly if it is game 3 (1-1 tie in games), then you would go to game 4 with the same score (1-1).  When the 50 mins is up who ever has more won games wins the match, if it is still 1-1 durring game 4 and a winner is not declared then the match is a draw. 

If your in unlimited-time swiss, then you just go to the next game.  If you continue to run into the double angel scenario game after game... well technically you could end up going to game 10, or 20, or 500... before a "First to two games winner" is resolved.  I'm sure around game 5 the 'Real Life' game timer will kick in and some sort of split / concession will be declared - people have to sleep sometime!

A similar "stratigy" can be imposed by a dragon player.  the long and short of it is that if WGD is the only creature in either graveyard then the dragon player can force the game into a draw by casting an Animate spell.  This causes a similar loop ... your draw is different in that players have choices to make.  But ultimately once the game is declared a draw you would treat the score and tournement advancement the same way.

[Jacob Orlove]

While players are still drawing cards, the game state is changing. Once you are both just sitting there, someone should call a judge, and have him resolve the issue (generally, have him declare the game a draw).

[ashiXIII]

This game is definitely a draw. As long as neither play has an out, the judge will declare it a draw. Even if both players entire hands are filled with outs, if neither of them intend to change the game state, the game is still a draw.

[JAG]

This situation actually is a loop.  A loop can consist of more than one turn.  The way this loop would work is that the judge would ask one player (usually the active player) how many times they would like to go through the loop.  That player gives their answer, then the other player has the chance to either interrupt the loop at any point or allow it to happen.  The loop in this case is "I go through my turn and do nothing, he does the same."  Then, according to the rules regarding loops, that loop is fast-forwarded, so it's assumed that you are now past that loop.  Say, for example, you chose to take your turn and do nothing for 600 turns.  Your opponent chose to allow this.  Thus, we now skip to "600 turns later..." at which point you must now take an action to change the game state if you can.  If you cannot, and your opponent also cannot, then the game would likely be ruled a draw.  If you can but choose not to, you will almost certainly suffer the penalty for Slow Play or worse Cheating-Stalling.

sort of an interesting way to pose the scenario, since these things are usually posed in such a way that the players have literally no outs.  The "unknown info" isn't really relevant: if the players want to interrupt the loop, they can.  Otherwise, the game's a draw.

-JM

[The M.E.T.H.O.D]

a judge at a ptq ruled that he could not stop the game and declare it a draw. He said this because actions can still be made to stop the situation, ie one of the players attacking by mistake and it dying or something. so either it draws till time or someone concedes. That player appealed this ruling and it was not overturned

[Nazdakka]

I think as long as there is still private information (cards in hand is equivalent here to cards in library), there is no way to make a "ruling" on the game.

This situation actually is a loop.  A loop can consist of more than one turn.  The way this loop would work is that the judge would ask one player (usually the active player) how many times they would like to go through the loop.  That player gives their answer, then the other player has the chance to either interrupt the loop at any point or allow it to happen.  The loop in this case is "I go through my turn and do nothing, he does the same."  Then, according to the rules regarding loops, that loop is fast-forwarded, so it's assumed that you are now past that loop.  Say, for example, you chose to take your turn and do nothing for 600 turns.  Your opponent chose to allow this.  Thus, we now skip to "600 turns later..." at which point you must now take an action to change the game state if you can.  If you cannot, and your opponent also cannot, then the game would likely be ruled a draw.  If you can but choose not to, you will almost certainly suffer the penalty for Slow Play or worse Cheating-Stalling.

Seems to me JAG has it right - essentially what the judge would say to Machinus' argument is something along the lines of 'if you have something you want to do to affect the gamestate, do it now or I'll rule this game to be a draw'.