My opponent has a Platinum Angel in play and no other permanents in play, cards in hand or cards in his library.
I have no outs to the Angel, but I will not get decked due to Academy Ruins. With the help of Codex Shredder I can recur any card in my graveyard and keep playing the game, even if I am never able to win. Do we just "play" until the time runs out and it ends in a draw? Or is there a ruling how to proceed here?
If you, as the Academy Ruins/Codex player also have no unknowns in library and thus visibly to way to win, at that point, I would consider that you guys are no longer advancing the game. I will strongly suggest that you declare that game an intentional draw. I can't directly force it, but if you keep playing and not advancing the game towards a conclusion, any of you who won't follow my advice and refuse to call it a draw will get slow play warnings, then upgrades to game losses, which is worse for you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm a former judge (lapsed), who keeps up to date on rules and policy. Keep in mind that judges' answers aren't necessarily more valid than those of people who aren't judges; what matters is we can quote the rules to back up our answers. When in doubt, ask for such quotes.
Yes absolutely, there were 4 Ensnaring Bridge in play.
The Argument by the Angel-Player was as you describe Shaka. He has no other option than passing the turn, but the lantern player could just stop activating ruins to "advance the game state".
Maybe other judges have an opinion on this?
If you, as the Academy Ruins/Codex player also have no unknowns in library and thus visibly to way to win, at that point, I would consider that you guys are no longer advancing the game.
However, isn't the player using Academy Ruins intentionally delaying advancing the game state, and that he could do something else (not use Ruins anymore)? On the other hand the player with Platinum Angel has no alternatives, he can't do anything besides to keep ending his turn.
One aspect that wasn't addressed with the original question is why isn't the Angel attacking? I guess we could assume there's an Ensnaring Bridge in play.
Just to be clear are you concerned that the player with Academy ruins is just performing actions with the intent to just burn the clock down? If so then that would mean that it could potentially fall into Stalling territory which has even harsher penalties than those that madmage has given above. But the distinction between the two has hard to make without there being an investigation by a judge which we can't do over a forum for a hypothetical situation.
AS to why the angel isn't attacking as a judge how we get to the situation presented is not that relevant, what is important is that the situation has arisen and now needs to be dealt with either by the route Mad Mage suggested above or the stalling route if you as the judge dealing with it feel it is warrented.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
716.3. Sometimes a loop can be fragmented, meaning that each player involved in the loop performs an independent action that results in the same game state being reached multiple times. If that happens, the active player (or, if the active player is not involved in the loop, the first player in turn order who is involved) must then make a different game choice so the loop does not continue.
Perhaps using academy on different artifacts counts as different game states? And choosing different artifacts in a non-regular order does not count as a loop? Otherwise I think platinum angel guy wins.
While I can't find it at the moment, I had a similar situation a while ago (Necropotence vs. Black Sun's Zenith with empty libraries), and Tabak confirmed that this counted as a loop, so the player who was taking the actions (the Zenith player in my situation) had to stop doing that.
This is actually quite similar to another post from a couple days ago about a stalled out game state due to shared fate, and both posts make me curious about the opinions of the judges here on their general approach/methodology towards stalled-out games like these. A couple questions:
Does it matter if one of the players wants to Intentionally Draw (ID) the game? There are two possible scenarios here, either neither player wants to draw the game, or one player does and the other doesn't. Does this affect your ruling, or do you consider this irrelevant to the situation?
Does the manner of the stalemate matter? The situation in this post is an asymmetric stalemate where one player is passively preventing their loss, while the other has to perform actions to avoid losing. Meanwhile in the linked post above both players are presumed to be surviving passively from the same effect. Does this distinction make any difference to your ruling, or is a stalemate a stalemate regardless of the mechanism involved?
As for my personal opinion on the two questions above, I'll answer in reverse order. First, I do not think the mechanism of the stalemate, or whether it is asymmetrical (one active, one passive) would affect my ruling. It does not seem fair to punish one player over the other just because Player A's method of trying to win is more involved than Player B's. Zauzich brings up an interesting idea about treating the stalemate like a loop, but philosophically I feel like this is trumped by the notion that a player should never be forced to concede a game or to take an action that directly causes them to lose the game. If they have mechanism to avoid losing the game, I feel like it is their right to "stay in the game" so to speak...
...Except in the scenario where that mechanism is not advancing the gamestate and the other player wants to draw the game to move on with the match, which leads to the first question. In my mind it does matter if one of the players wants to ID the game but the other doesn't. If neither player wants to draw then I am fine with either giving slow play warnings to both players eventually leading to simultaneous game losses, or even just doing nothing and letting them both sit there passing turns until time runs out; if they both want to "play" that way, let them. If Player A wants to draw the game however, and if the board state is pretty clearly stalled out, at that point I think I would question Player B (the one not accepting the draw) to determine their reason for dragging the game out, and then probably start issuing slow play warnings to just Player B if they refuse to change things up. My reasoning here is that while Player B has the right to "stay in the game," that right is trumped by Player A's right to actually, you know, play magic and get on with the match.
This is where I think the looping rule Zauzich mentioned can be paraphrased to apply to the situation. Essentially if the game state is looping, and Player A is proposing a break to the loop - Draw the game and move on with the match - then at that point I feel like Player B has two options, either accept the draw or start changing the game state. If they refuse to do either then that at least feels like slow play, and depending on how Player B answers the questioning it might get into Stalling territory.
To summarize I don't think the specifics for how the game got stalled out matter, and if neither player wants to draw the game I'd just leave them be. However I do think if one player wants to draw the stalled-out game, that puts the pressure on the other player to either accept the draw or to start changing the game state, with slow play warnings if they refuse to do either. That's just how I feel about it though, and I am curious as to what other judges think about this.
Zauzich brings up an interesting idea about treating the stalemate like a loop, but philosophically I feel like this is trumped by the notion that a player should never be forced to concede a game or to take an action that directly causes them to lose the game.
I want to agree with the idea that the one player's method of not losing being singled out seems unfair, but it sets a dangerous precedent. The same argument would allow a player with two Unbender Tines to enter a loop in order to stall out taking a lethal attack; in both cases the player is taking actions where the alternative (not continuing to do so) would result in their losing the game.
I want to agree with the idea that the one player's method of not losing being singled out seems unfair, but it sets a dangerous precedent. The same argument would allow a player with two Unbender Tines to enter a loop in order to stall out taking a lethal attack; in both cases the player is taking actions where the alternative (not continuing to do so) would result in their losing the game.
That is a good example, and I agree that I probably did not fully articulate what I meant. I certainly agree that the situation you describe should not be protected. I suppose the distinction would be that in your scenario the game is not advancing at all (not progressing through turns or even steps), while in OP's scenario there is a literal progression to the game even if nothing is effectively changing. Does that make sense?
Zauzich brings up an interesting idea about treating the stalemate like a loop, but philosophically I feel like this is trumped by the notion that a player should never be forced to concede a game or to take an action that directly causes them to lose the game.
I want to agree with the idea that the one player's method of not losing being singled out seems unfair, but it sets a dangerous precedent. The same argument would allow a player with two Unbender Tines to enter a loop in order to stall out taking a lethal attack; in both cases the player is taking actions where the alternative (not continuing to do so) would result in their losing the game.
The difference there is that one player has the capability of winning the game. You could easily have the rule apply only to game states that can never end with one player winning
The difference there is that one player has the capability of winning the game. You could easily have the rule apply only to game states that can never end with one player winning
Is there really a difference though? In both cases, the player who isn't executing a loop will win the game as soon as the player who is executing the loop stops and allows a sufficient number of priority passes to occur. The only material difference is that one loop involves allowing the turn sequence to continue as part of it and the other does not.
716.1b Occasionally the game gets into a state in which a set of actions could be repeated indefinitely (thus creating a “loop”). In that case, the shortcut rules can be used to determine how many times those actions are repeated without having to actually perform them, and how the loop is broken.
716.2a At any point in the game, the player with priority may suggest a shortcut by describing a sequence of game choices, for all players, that may be legally taken based on the current game state and the predictable results of the sequence of choices. This sequence may be a non-repetitive series of choices, a loop that repeats a specified number of times, multiple loops, or nested loops, and may even cross multiple turns.
Is it not true that the academy player could propose a shortcut for the next 5 or 10 or 10,000 activations of academy ruins?
Here is 716.3 again with the example:
716.3. Sometimes a loop can be fragmented, meaning that each player involved in the loop performs an independent action that results in the same game state being reached multiple times. If that happens, the active player (or, if the active player is not involved in the loop, the first player in turn order who is involved) must then make a different game choice so the loop does not continue.
Example: In a two-player game, the active player controls a creature with the ability “{0}: [This creature] gains flying,” the nonactive player controls a permanent with the ability “{0}: Target creature loses flying,” and nothing in the game cares how many times an ability has been activated. Say the active player activates his creature’s ability, it resolves, then the nonactive player activates her permanent’s ability targeting that creature, and it resolves. This returns the game to a game state it was at before. The active player must make a different game choice (in other words, anything other than activating that creature’s ability again). The creature doesn’t have flying. Note that the nonactive player could have prevented the fragmented loop simply by not activating her permanent’s ability, in which case the creature would have had flying. The nonactive player always has the final choice and is therefore able to determine whether the creature has flying.
In the OP's case, once academy ruins player is in a position where the only option is to put the same artifact on top of his deck a 2nd time...
In the OP's case, once academy ruins player is in a position where the only option is to put the same artifact on top of his deck a 2nd time...
Would that really result in a loop, though? He can put the Codex Shredder on top each turn, but get a different card with that back from his grave with its second ability. Would that really be a loop? A different thing would happen each turn, even though he used the same card to start the process.
In the OP's case, once academy ruins player is in a position where the only option is to put the same artifact on top of his deck a 2nd time...
Would that really result in a loop, though? He can put the Codex Shredder on top each turn, but get a different card with that back from his grave with its second ability. Would that really be a loop? A different thing would happen each turn, even though he used the same card to start the process.
716.3. Sometimes a loop can be fragmented, meaning that each player involved in the loop performs an independent action that results in the same game state being reached multiple times. If that happens, the active player (or, if the active player is not involved in the loop, the first player in turn order who is involved) must then make a different game choice so the loop does not continue.
I guess this gets into the realm of rules theory and interpretation but I think the situation can be interpreted such that yes, it's a loop.
If you go form state A to state B and back to A and then B again, that's a clear loop. I presume no argument no argument here.
Say you go from A to B to A to C to A to B to A to C to A. Loop?
Academy ruins can do a deferent thing for a turn or two (or 6, 600?) but at some point all the possible permutations of cards in hand/yard/library will be exhausted and the only option will be to bounce between/among various game states that have all already happened.
I think a judge (which I am not) could at that point feel justified in asking "you need to something else" and therefor also in not waiting for/tracking each of those game state permutations before issuing the "do something else" request.
Personally my issue with applying rule 716.3 directly to this sort of situation is this: who is the "active" player? The so-called loop here spans over multiple turns, which means both players are the active player for part of the loop. Sure one player is performing more actions than the other, but both players are contributing a full turn to the loop so it feels unfair to single one of them out.
Personally my issue with applying rule 716.3 directly to this sort of situation is this: who is the "active" player? The so-called loop here spans over multiple turns, which means both players are the active player for part of the loop. Sure one player is performing more actions than the other, but both players are contributing a full turn to the loop so it feels unfair to single one of them out.
In the described scenario there is only one player doing anything the other player simply passes priority back when it is received, taking no action while the other player 'demonstrates his loop'. Sure the other player gets an untap step where nothing happens, an upkeep where nothing happens, a draw step where they should lose but don't, a main phase where nothing happens, a combat phase where nothing happens, a second main phase where nothing happens, and finally an end step where nothing happens. While the other play is definitely executing a loop with at least one step that is accomplishing nothing. It may seem 'unfair' to penalize the player who has to do something to continue living, its either this or force a draw, neither is optimal but it seems the rules don't like the Ruins.
This is just going around in circles. The question has been answered as thoroughly as it's going to get over the Internet, and anything further would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis by the head judge. Thread closed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My opponent has a Platinum Angel in play and no other permanents in play, cards in hand or cards in his library.
I have no outs to the Angel, but I will not get decked due to Academy Ruins. With the help of Codex Shredder I can recur any card in my graveyard and keep playing the game, even if I am never able to win. Do we just "play" until the time runs out and it ends in a draw? Or is there a ruling how to proceed here?
The Argument by the Angel-Player was as you describe Shaka. He has no other option than passing the turn, but the lantern player could just stop activating ruins to "advance the game state".
Maybe other judges have an opinion on this?
Just to be clear are you concerned that the player with Academy ruins is just performing actions with the intent to just burn the clock down? If so then that would mean that it could potentially fall into Stalling territory which has even harsher penalties than those that madmage has given above. But the distinction between the two has hard to make without there being an investigation by a judge which we can't do over a forum for a hypothetical situation.
AS to why the angel isn't attacking as a judge how we get to the situation presented is not that relevant, what is important is that the situation has arisen and now needs to be dealt with either by the route Mad Mage suggested above or the stalling route if you as the judge dealing with it feel it is warrented.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Perhaps using academy on different artifacts counts as different game states? And choosing different artifacts in a non-regular order does not count as a loop? Otherwise I think platinum angel guy wins.
As for my personal opinion on the two questions above, I'll answer in reverse order. First, I do not think the mechanism of the stalemate, or whether it is asymmetrical (one active, one passive) would affect my ruling. It does not seem fair to punish one player over the other just because Player A's method of trying to win is more involved than Player B's. Zauzich brings up an interesting idea about treating the stalemate like a loop, but philosophically I feel like this is trumped by the notion that a player should never be forced to concede a game or to take an action that directly causes them to lose the game. If they have mechanism to avoid losing the game, I feel like it is their right to "stay in the game" so to speak...
...Except in the scenario where that mechanism is not advancing the gamestate and the other player wants to draw the game to move on with the match, which leads to the first question. In my mind it does matter if one of the players wants to ID the game but the other doesn't. If neither player wants to draw then I am fine with either giving slow play warnings to both players eventually leading to simultaneous game losses, or even just doing nothing and letting them both sit there passing turns until time runs out; if they both want to "play" that way, let them. If Player A wants to draw the game however, and if the board state is pretty clearly stalled out, at that point I think I would question Player B (the one not accepting the draw) to determine their reason for dragging the game out, and then probably start issuing slow play warnings to just Player B if they refuse to change things up. My reasoning here is that while Player B has the right to "stay in the game," that right is trumped by Player A's right to actually, you know, play magic and get on with the match.
This is where I think the looping rule Zauzich mentioned can be paraphrased to apply to the situation. Essentially if the game state is looping, and Player A is proposing a break to the loop - Draw the game and move on with the match - then at that point I feel like Player B has two options, either accept the draw or start changing the game state. If they refuse to do either then that at least feels like slow play, and depending on how Player B answers the questioning it might get into Stalling territory.
To summarize I don't think the specifics for how the game got stalled out matter, and if neither player wants to draw the game I'd just leave them be. However I do think if one player wants to draw the stalled-out game, that puts the pressure on the other player to either accept the draw or to start changing the game state, with slow play warnings if they refuse to do either. That's just how I feel about it though, and I am curious as to what other judges think about this.
That is a good example, and I agree that I probably did not fully articulate what I meant. I certainly agree that the situation you describe should not be protected. I suppose the distinction would be that in your scenario the game is not advancing at all (not progressing through turns or even steps), while in OP's scenario there is a literal progression to the game even if nothing is effectively changing. Does that make sense?
The difference there is that one player has the capability of winning the game. You could easily have the rule apply only to game states that can never end with one player winning
UWRjeskai nahiri UWR
UBRgrixis titi UBR
UBRgrixis delverUBR
UR ur kikimite UR
EDH
RUG Riku of Two Reflections RUG
UBR Marchesa, the Black Rose UBR
UBRGYidris, Maelstrom Wielder UBRG
UBRJeleva, Nephalia's ScourgeUBR
716.2a At any point in the game, the player with priority may suggest a shortcut by describing a sequence of game choices, for all players, that may be legally taken based on the current game state and the predictable results of the sequence of choices. This sequence may be a non-repetitive series of choices, a loop that repeats a specified number of times, multiple loops, or nested loops, and may even cross multiple turns.
Is it not true that the academy player could propose a shortcut for the next 5 or 10 or 10,000 activations of academy ruins?
Here is 716.3 again with the example:
716.3. Sometimes a loop can be fragmented, meaning that each player involved in the loop performs an independent action that results in the same game state being reached multiple times. If that happens, the active player (or, if the active player is not involved in the loop, the first player in turn order who is involved) must then make a different game choice so the loop does not continue.
Example: In a two-player game, the active player controls a creature with the ability “{0}: [This creature] gains flying,” the nonactive player controls a permanent with the ability “{0}: Target creature loses flying,” and nothing in the game cares how many times an ability has been activated. Say the active player activates his creature’s ability, it resolves, then the nonactive player activates her permanent’s ability targeting that creature, and it resolves. This returns the game to a game state it was at before. The active player must make a different game choice (in other words, anything other than activating that creature’s ability again). The creature doesn’t have flying. Note that the nonactive player could have prevented the fragmented loop simply by not activating her permanent’s ability, in which case the creature would have had flying. The nonactive player always has the final choice and is therefore able to determine whether the creature has flying.
In the OP's case, once academy ruins player is in a position where the only option is to put the same artifact on top of his deck a 2nd time...
Would that really result in a loop, though? He can put the Codex Shredder on top each turn, but get a different card with that back from his grave with its second ability. Would that really be a loop? A different thing would happen each turn, even though he used the same card to start the process.
716.3. Sometimes a loop can be fragmented, meaning that each player involved in the loop performs an independent action that results in the same game state being reached multiple times. If that happens, the active player (or, if the active player is not involved in the loop, the first player in turn order who is involved) must then make a different game choice so the loop does not continue.
I guess this gets into the realm of rules theory and interpretation but I think the situation can be interpreted such that yes, it's a loop.
If you go form state A to state B and back to A and then B again, that's a clear loop. I presume no argument no argument here.
Say you go from A to B to A to C to A to B to A to C to A. Loop?
Academy ruins can do a deferent thing for a turn or two (or 6, 600?) but at some point all the possible permutations of cards in hand/yard/library will be exhausted and the only option will be to bounce between/among various game states that have all already happened.
I think a judge (which I am not) could at that point feel justified in asking "you need to something else" and therefor also in not waiting for/tracking each of those game state permutations before issuing the "do something else" request.