I've updated the opening post with results and deck comments. Provided there are no further corrections, congrats to Reyemile for winning this round. Props to everyone for completely almost all of the matches, and for taking the time to go back and edit your posts when disagreements were resolved. You made it very easy to compile everything. The only matches that I added in were 1-5, 1-9, and 5-9.
The only outstanding match discussion was for matches 3-7 and 3-8, both dealing with the question of whether a Time Vault deck can force a draw by taking infinite turns. Apparently, it can't. This was news to me, as just earlier this year, I proposed a rule for XCB to make this the outcome. I expect that quite a few results have been scored incorrectly on this basis in the past, but that's no reason to keep doing so when the rules have a definitive answer. Results for 3-9 and 3-11 also changed as a result.
I've updated the opening post with results and deck comments. Provided there are no further corrections, congrats to Reyemile for winning this round. Props to everyone for completely almost all of the matches, and for taking the time to go back and edit your posts when disagreements were resolved. You made it very easy to compile everything. The only matches that I added in were 1-5, 1-9, and 5-9.
The only outstanding match discussion was for matches 3-7 and 3-8, both dealing with the question of whether a Time Vault deck can force a draw by taking infinite turns. Apparently, it can't. This was news to me, as just earlier this year, I proposed a rule for XCB to make this the outcome. I expect that quite a few results have been scored incorrectly on this basis in the past, but that's no reason to keep doing so when the rules have a definitive answer. Results for 3-9 and 3-11 also changed as a result.
Er... that impacts more than just my matchups. Game states like "the first person to do X loses" would no longer result in a draw, either. I think this has a large impact on XCB as a whole to interpret it that way.
(and arguably violates the "plays optimally" rule; that tournament rule - not game rule - forces players to play sub-optimally)
Er... that impacts more than just my matchups. Game states like "the first person to do X loses" would no longer result in a draw, either. I think this has a large impact on XCB as a whole to interpret it that way.
(and arguably violates the "plays optimally" rule; that tournament rule - not game rule - forces players to play sub-optimally)
Good point. I've restored those matches as draws, and I'll try to clarify the issue in the rules.
Game states like "the first person to do X loses" would no longer result in a draw, either.
That's not true. There's a clause in the comp rules covering exactly this (716.5), which states: "No player can be forced to perform an action that would end a loop other than actions called for by objects involved in the loop."
So in other words, the shortcut rules mean you can't force a draw by making your opponent wait for you to finish doing infinite things (because a shortcut may be taken), but it is still a draw if you and your opponent both decline to take any actions.
(and arguably violates the "plays optimally" rule; that tournament rule - not game rule - forces players to play sub-optimally)
I see what you mean, but a better way to look at it is that infinite strings of actions are not actually a legal move in Magic, ever. So it's not a question of suboptimal play. Taking 1000 turns and taking 10000 turns are exactly as good as each other, so choosing 1000 is not suboptimal. They're not as good as taking infinite turns, but that's OK because that's not a legal move any more than it's legal for me to put a 9/9 indestructible Hippo token into play during your upkeep on the basis that my username begins with 'b'.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
--
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
I'm definitely on the no actual infinite turns side, since you literally cannot do that in magic. All you can do is arbitrarily large. It's not playing suboptimally, it's following the game rules of magic.
My score against #5 should be 3. If I go first, starting from turn 3 I cast Serene Remembrance targeting nothing to make sure that it won't be discarded. If my opponent casts Wistful Thinking, I cast Serene Remembrance targeting all the discarded cards on the next turn. I eventually cast Entreat the Angels to get five 4/4 Angel tokens and attack with them the next turn to win. Shrieking Affliction won't hit me more than a few times.
That's not true. There's a clause in the comp rules covering exactly this (716.5), which states: "No player can be forced to perform an action that would end a loop other than actions called for by objects involved in the loop."
So in other words, the shortcut rules mean you can't force a draw by making your opponent wait for you to finish doing infinite things (because a shortcut may be taken), but it is still a draw if you and your opponent both decline to take any actions.
I see what you mean, but a better way to look at it is that infinite strings of actions are not actually a legal move in Magic, ever. So it's not a question of suboptimal play. Taking 1000 turns and taking 10000 turns are exactly as good as each other, so choosing 1000 is not suboptimal. They're not as good as taking infinite turns, but that's OK because that's not a legal move any more than it's legal for me to put a 9/9 indestructible Hippo token into play during your upkeep on the basis that my username begins with 'b'.
I don't like to flip-flop so much, but this whole issue isn't something I've considered at length before. Based on these arguments, I'm changing the results back to match wins. Someone can feel to try to change my mind again.
That's not true. There's a clause in the comp rules covering exactly this (716.5), which states: "No player can be forced to perform an action that would end a loop other than actions called for by objects involved in the loop."
So in other words, the shortcut rules mean you can't force a draw by making your opponent wait for you to finish doing infinite things (because a shortcut may be taken), but it is still a draw if you and your opponent both decline to take any actions.
I see what you mean, but a better way to look at it is that infinite strings of actions are not actually a legal move in Magic, ever. So it's not a question of suboptimal play. Taking 1000 turns and taking 10000 turns are exactly as good as each other, so choosing 1000 is not suboptimal. They're not as good as taking infinite turns, but that's OK because that's not a legal move any more than it's legal for me to put a 9/9 indestructible Hippo token into play during your upkeep on the basis that my username begins with 'b'.
Ah, but "infinite" isn't required for a draw - just "indefinite".
1.11e. If a game would continue indefinitely, then the game is a draw.
The length of a game (played optimally) where one player is time-walking fruitlessly is, in fact, undefined.
So, both by the letter of the XCB rules, and by tradition, indefinite time walks are a draw. Now, changing them? Reasonable. Changing them during the resolution of a rounds' results? Unreasonable.
1) you cant take infinite turns. you have to take a certain number. thats the rules of magic and it makes sense.
2) the time vault player is playing optimally, and will never give up the turn.
in my opinion, it should be a draw. we arent constrained by things like "round time" in xcb. but i think the rules are ambiguous enough that we need a vote on this.
I'm definitely on the no actual infinite turns side, since you literally cannot do that in magic. All you can do is arbitrarily large. It's not playing suboptimally, it's following the game rules of magic.
it is playing suboptimally though. the optimal play every single turn is to take another.
EDIT: Found the section on loops and shortcuts in the comp rules and made myself familiar with it once again (emphasis mine):
Quote from "Comp Rules 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 only rule that ever forces a player to change his decision and break a loop is this one (again, emphasis mine):
Quote from "Comp Rules 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.
Based on my reading, 716.3 doesn't apply to the time vault case as only one player is making any decisions. In this case the vault player may use the shortcut rules to very quickly take a lot of turns, but after he takes a large number of turns, he is not forced to pass, he may simple take a large number of turns again, and so on, forever. Of course, then the game never ends, which is the optimal result for the vault player if the other option is loosing. XCB has a clear rule that deals with games that would never end, they end in draws, so I don't think this is a problem.
I've been out of Magic for a while, and out of XCB for even longer, but my impression was that the whole thing about taking shortcuts to repeat demonstrated loops was a thing a player may do, but not something a player must do. Choosing not to use them in cases like this would run out the clock and force a draw, but I don't think it is actually delay of game? I'm not sure, I'd need to call a judge, but either way I think it is a case of tournament/DCI rules at that point, not of the comprehensive rules.
That said, I'm basically new here and if the folks who live in this forum want to rule otherwise, I'm not going to complain.
Another observation regarding comp rules versus comprehensive rules - the Magic Comprehensive Rules don't lay out the structure of a match, they just say that tournament games are often played in best 2 out of 3, and that more detailed rules for sanctioned tournament matches can be found in the Tournament Rules. Should we move the rule describing the structure of an XCB match from the XCB comp rules to the XCB tournament rules to sync up?
Final ruling for this round regarding infinite turns:
To me, it's still unclear whether the rules allow a player to force a draw via infinite turns or not. That being the case, and until the relevant rules have been written more clearly, it is possible for a player to draw the game by taking infinite turns. That's how we've played it in the past.
While we've established in the past that in cases where a rules violation has clearly occurred (such as the last time I submitted Stronghold Gambit), or where rules clearly have been misinterpreted, then the correct rules will be used, regardless of how decks were scored in previous rounds. However, it's my opinion that the correct ruling here – if there is one – is unclear. If the correct ruling is unclear or there is no correct ruling, then the previous ruling should be used.
This is a reasonable way to handle this round, but because it's technically wrong we should change it starting from next round.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
--
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
This is a reasonable way to handle this round, but because it's technically wrong we should change it starting from next round.
The rule should be settled one way or the other clearly. FWIW, I think it should be clearly stated that it's not changing - I don't like infinite time walk decks, but too much of XCB comes down to "staredown against an empty board".
(in particular, a random thing this would affect: optional per-turn life-gain vs. non-optional damage. If they're otherwise evenly matched, the life-gainer has to eventually choose to die)
Shortcuts within a single turn match intuition. Shortcuts over multiple turns do not, and the rules should strive to be intuitive.
(in particular, a random thing this would affect: optional per-turn life-gain vs. non-optional damage. If they're otherwise evenly matched, the life-gainer has to eventually choose to die)
If we want to keep this feature - and I can see why we migght - the correct way to do it is to add an XCB rule saying that it results in a draw.
(Although I'd recommend checking with a judge first. Indeed, I've sent a message to the Cranial Insertion team to get their opinion.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
--
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
I received a response from Eli Shiffrin (Woapalanne) at Cranial Insertion, confirming we do have a problem:
Quote from Cranial Insertion »
Sadly for you, in a case where you can either perform an optional loop to continue the game indefinitely or stop performing the loop and lose, you have to choose to stop performing the loop, and you're going to lose. Solution: win first. 8)
And just to provide context for the answer, here's the full text of what I asked them:
Q1) Consider this situation: I have a Time Vault and a Voltaic Key in play. For some reason I can't lose to being decked by my draw step (a Null Profusion in play, perhaps), but apart from that it's all bad news since my opponent is clearly going to kill me on her next attack step. Can I claim a draw here on the basis that I can take infinite turns, or do the shortcut rules force me to say how many turns I'm taking and then she gets to kill me?
Q2) (This is a followup question which is only relevant if the answer to the above is that the same is a draw.) Suppose instead that my opponent has only a Platinum Angel and a Collapsing Borders in play with no cards in hand or in her library and nothing relevant in her graveyard. All my cards have somehow been exiled except a bunch of basic Plains and an Elixir of Immortality. The question is, am I obliged to eventually die to Collapsing Borders damage because the shortcut rules force me to break the Elixir lifegain loop that's keeping me alive, or is this game a draw? (Or to put it more simply: faced with a loop involving compulsory damage and optional lifegain, is the game a draw or does the compulsory effect win?)
This stuff may sound hopelessly artificial, but Q1 actually game up in one of Salvation's X-card Blind tournaments last week!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
--
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The only outstanding match discussion was for matches 3-7 and 3-8, both dealing with the question of whether a Time Vault deck can force a draw by taking infinite turns. Apparently, it can't. This was news to me, as just earlier this year, I proposed a rule for XCB to make this the outcome. I expect that quite a few results have been scored incorrectly on this basis in the past, but that's no reason to keep doing so when the rules have a definitive answer. Results for 3-9 and 3-11 also changed as a result.
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy
Er... that impacts more than just my matchups. Game states like "the first person to do X loses" would no longer result in a draw, either. I think this has a large impact on XCB as a whole to interpret it that way.
(and arguably violates the "plays optimally" rule; that tournament rule - not game rule - forces players to play sub-optimally)
Good point. I've restored those matches as draws, and I'll try to clarify the issue in the rules.
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy
That's not true. There's a clause in the comp rules covering exactly this (716.5), which states: "No player can be forced to perform an action that would end a loop other than actions called for by objects involved in the loop."
So in other words, the shortcut rules mean you can't force a draw by making your opponent wait for you to finish doing infinite things (because a shortcut may be taken), but it is still a draw if you and your opponent both decline to take any actions.
I see what you mean, but a better way to look at it is that infinite strings of actions are not actually a legal move in Magic, ever. So it's not a question of suboptimal play. Taking 1000 turns and taking 10000 turns are exactly as good as each other, so choosing 1000 is not suboptimal. They're not as good as taking infinite turns, but that's OK because that's not a legal move any more than it's legal for me to put a 9/9 indestructible Hippo token into play during your upkeep on the basis that my username begins with 'b'.
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
I don't like to flip-flop so much, but this whole issue isn't something I've considered at length before. Based on these arguments, I'm changing the results back to match wins. Someone can feel to try to change my mind again.
Anyway, I'm glad this is being sorted out.
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy
Ah, but "infinite" isn't required for a draw - just "indefinite".
1.11e. If a game would continue indefinitely, then the game is a draw.
The length of a game (played optimally) where one player is time-walking fruitlessly is, in fact, undefined.
So, both by the letter of the XCB rules, and by tradition, indefinite time walks are a draw. Now, changing them? Reasonable. Changing them during the resolution of a rounds' results? Unreasonable.
1) you cant take infinite turns. you have to take a certain number. thats the rules of magic and it makes sense.
2) the time vault player is playing optimally, and will never give up the turn.
in my opinion, it should be a draw. we arent constrained by things like "round time" in xcb. but i think the rules are ambiguous enough that we need a vote on this.
it is playing suboptimally though. the optimal play every single turn is to take another.
The only rule that ever forces a player to change his decision and break a loop is this one (again, emphasis mine):
Based on my reading, 716.3 doesn't apply to the time vault case as only one player is making any decisions. In this case the vault player may use the shortcut rules to very quickly take a lot of turns, but after he takes a large number of turns, he is not forced to pass, he may simple take a large number of turns again, and so on, forever. Of course, then the game never ends, which is the optimal result for the vault player if the other option is loosing. XCB has a clear rule that deals with games that would never end, they end in draws, so I don't think this is a problem.
I've been out of Magic for a while, and out of XCB for even longer, but my impression was that the whole thing about taking shortcuts to repeat demonstrated loops was a thing a player may do, but not something a player must do. Choosing not to use them in cases like this would run out the clock and force a draw, but I don't think it is actually delay of game? I'm not sure, I'd need to call a judge, but either way I think it is a case of tournament/DCI rules at that point, not of the comprehensive rules.
That said, I'm basically new here and if the folks who live in this forum want to rule otherwise, I'm not going to complain.
Another observation regarding comp rules versus comprehensive rules - the Magic Comprehensive Rules don't lay out the structure of a match, they just say that tournament games are often played in best 2 out of 3, and that more detailed rules for sanctioned tournament matches can be found in the Tournament Rules. Should we move the rule describing the structure of an XCB match from the XCB comp rules to the XCB tournament rules to sync up?
To me, it's still unclear whether the rules allow a player to force a draw via infinite turns or not. That being the case, and until the relevant rules have been written more clearly, it is possible for a player to draw the game by taking infinite turns. That's how we've played it in the past.
While we've established in the past that in cases where a rules violation has clearly occurred (such as the last time I submitted Stronghold Gambit), or where rules clearly have been misinterpreted, then the correct rules will be used, regardless of how decks were scored in previous rounds. However, it's my opinion that the correct ruling here – if there is one – is unclear. If the correct ruling is unclear or there is no correct ruling, then the previous ruling should be used.
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
The rule should be settled one way or the other clearly. FWIW, I think it should be clearly stated that it's not changing - I don't like infinite time walk decks, but too much of XCB comes down to "staredown against an empty board".
(in particular, a random thing this would affect: optional per-turn life-gain vs. non-optional damage. If they're otherwise evenly matched, the life-gainer has to eventually choose to die)
Shortcuts within a single turn match intuition. Shortcuts over multiple turns do not, and the rules should strive to be intuitive.
If we want to keep this feature - and I can see why we migght - the correct way to do it is to add an XCB rule saying that it results in a draw.
(Although I'd recommend checking with a judge first. Indeed, I've sent a message to the Cranial Insertion team to get their opinion.)
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
I agree that adding a rule is the right move. I'd argue that that goes whichever way it goes.
And just to provide context for the answer, here's the full text of what I asked them:
Q2) (This is a followup question which is only relevant if the answer to the above is that the same is a draw.) Suppose instead that my opponent has only a Platinum Angel and a Collapsing Borders in play with no cards in hand or in her library and nothing relevant in her graveyard. All my cards have somehow been exiled except a bunch of basic Plains and an Elixir of Immortality. The question is, am I obliged to eventually die to Collapsing Borders damage because the shortcut rules force me to break the Elixir lifegain loop that's keeping me alive, or is this game a draw? (Or to put it more simply: faced with a loop involving compulsory damage and optional lifegain, is the game a draw or does the compulsory effect win?)
This stuff may sound hopelessly artificial, but Q1 actually game up in one of Salvation's X-card Blind tournaments last week!
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>