Is there a ruling stating that you can skip tasks if your going to do them so many times. Let's say I have 500 life and I cast Lim-Dûl's Vault and I want to just use it to get my life to 1. Do I have to repeat each step 499 times? Or can I skip them?
Posted from MTGsalvation.com App for Android
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: U Merfolk | GR Tron | WUR Jeskai Control | WBG Abzan Company
Here is the official rule for trying to shortcut:
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. It can't include conditional actions, where the outcome of a game event determines the next action a player takes. The ending point of this sequence must be a place where a player has priority, though it need not be the player proposing the shortcut.
The problem with your Lim-Dul's Vault shortcut is that when the deck is not divisible by 0 or 5 you aren't very easily able to give a proper end state since the order of cards will be different and that is something that can very much matter.
What if he has a fetch land in play. Is it a legal shortcut to Vault down to 2 and then crack the fetch? you end up in a legal and predictable board state but you don't the exact game state of the steps in between?
What if he has a fetch land in play. Is it a legal shortcut to Vault down to 2 and then crack the fetch? you end up in a legal and predictable board state but you don't the exact game state of the steps in between?
Opponent Stifles that player's fetchland ability. Now what?
ALL steps must be predictable, not only the last board state.
It's actually fairly trivial to construct a sequence of game choices with predictable results for what the OP is trying to do. Since the Vault lets the player put the cards on the bottom in "any order" and the library isn't shuffled until after the life payment/deck manipulation procedure is complete, the following sequence has predictable results.
The OP pays 1 life and puts the top five cards on the bottom in the same order, then repeats this 498 additional times. The game state at each intermediate point is predictable, as is the final state. For a library with N cards, N>5, simply take the top 2495 modulo N cards and put them on the bottom, then shuffle the library except the top five cards (as instructed by the Vault). (Smaller values of N are trivial cases since the player just looks at all the cards and rearranges them.)
This can also be extended for other numbers of iterations.
EDIT: genini1's objection below has more to do with the specific words I used than the complexity of the underlying math (which is just arithmetic). 2495 modulo N is just the remainder when dividing 2495 by N.
Opponent Stifles that player's fetchland ability. Now what?
ALL steps must be predictable, not only the last board state.
If the proposed shortcut includes the opponent passing priority rather than Stifling his fetch activation, I would call that a legal shortcut. If the opponent wished to Stifle it, he would reject the shortcut.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Bio-units terminate noise exchange. It is time for you to ingest sandwiches from my compartment.
If the proposed shortcut includes the opponent passing priority rather than Stifling his fetch activation, I would call that a legal shortcut. If the opponent wished to Stifle it, he would reject the shortcut.
... leaving the game state in a non-predictable point. That's my point.
But you would just get a slow play warning if you actually attempted to follow through 498 or 499 repetitions of the vault in a tournament.
Could you actually shortcut the 498 if you never altered any of the cards order (except the last 5) and calculated exactly which cards those last 5 would be as Dilithium says? Mathematically, it makes perfect sense.
It's actually fairly trivial to construct a sequence of game choices with predictable results for what the OP is trying to do. Since the Vault lets the player put the cards on the bottom in "any order" and the library isn't shuffled until after the life payment/deck manipulation procedure is complete, the following sequence has predictable results.
The OP pays 1 life and puts the top five cards on the bottom in the same order, then repeats this 498 additional times. The game state at each intermediate point is predictable, as is the final state. For a library with N cards, N>5, simply take the top 2495 modulo N cards and put them on the bottom, then shuffle the library except the top five cards (as instructed by the Vault). (Smaller values of N are trivial cases since the player just looks at all the cards and rearranges them.)
This can also be extended for other numbers of iterations.
If you had a reason for your repetitions and resolved them in a timely manner then you wouldn't get a slow play infraction.
The problem with the mathematical solution proposed is that it is not trivial. 2495 modulo N, as Dilithium suggested, is something most people would not even know how to go about doing or what it means. This sort of thing is where a head judge would have to rule one way or the other on individual merit, because if the only person who knows how to do the problem is the person suggesting the shortcut there is obviously a conflict of interest.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Posted from MTGsalvation.com App for Android
U Merfolk | GR Tron | WUR Jeskai Control | WBG Abzan Company
EDH:
G Ezuri, Renegade Leader, Fighting for Rivendell
WU Brago, King Eternal, Long Live the King
WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon, Worship the Dragon
In a competitive setting it is relevant what cards are supposed to be on top of your deck since you know what they are.
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. It can't include conditional actions, where the outcome of a game event determines the next action a player takes. The ending point of this sequence must be a place where a player has priority, though it need not be the player proposing the shortcut.
The problem with your Lim-Dul's Vault shortcut is that when the deck is not divisible by 0 or 5 you aren't very easily able to give a proper end state since the order of cards will be different and that is something that can very much matter.
Opponent Stifles that player's fetchland ability. Now what?
ALL steps must be predictable, not only the last board state.
The OP pays 1 life and puts the top five cards on the bottom in the same order, then repeats this 498 additional times. The game state at each intermediate point is predictable, as is the final state. For a library with N cards, N>5, simply take the top 2495 modulo N cards and put them on the bottom, then shuffle the library except the top five cards (as instructed by the Vault). (Smaller values of N are trivial cases since the player just looks at all the cards and rearranges them.)
This can also be extended for other numbers of iterations.
EDIT: genini1's objection below has more to do with the specific words I used than the complexity of the underlying math (which is just arithmetic). 2495 modulo N is just the remainder when dividing 2495 by N.
If the proposed shortcut includes the opponent passing priority rather than Stifling his fetch activation, I would call that a legal shortcut. If the opponent wished to Stifle it, he would reject the shortcut.
... leaving the game state in a non-predictable point. That's my point.
Could you actually shortcut the 498 if you never altered any of the cards order (except the last 5) and calculated exactly which cards those last 5 would be as Dilithium says? Mathematically, it makes perfect sense.
The problem with the mathematical solution proposed is that it is not trivial. 2495 modulo N, as Dilithium suggested, is something most people would not even know how to go about doing or what it means. This sort of thing is where a head judge would have to rule one way or the other on individual merit, because if the only person who knows how to do the problem is the person suggesting the shortcut there is obviously a conflict of interest.