Because then it's not accessible for the rest of the combo above it
(it needs to be the same object that was exiled with the imprint ability; moving it causes it to be lost track of; so it's not sufficient to just put the card back into exile when the ability needs to resolve).
Also this annoyance with imprint not using last known information is what actually lets the transitions work because in order for a waiting soul foundry trigger to produce a creature it needs to be unused in the higher stage, eliminating the gains we would have tried to smuggle.
It does mean that sometimes the very top transition gets to be slightly more efficient, but its less of an effect than being able to hide cards on the stack for the top transition, which has already been shown to be safe.
I'm really not sure what the optimal line for the start is, Ratadrabrik has some odd consequences.
It seems like we can easily make the 53 rabines and lot of mind's eyes. I'm a bit lost as to what the absolute best way to do that is.
ah right, we need to have our cards available for different stages/hyperstages.
So I guess what we need is a card that can make a token without targeting, like Soul Foundry, but without it having to be imprinted either. I'm not quite sure what such a card would be.
I think the first question with regards to the start is, can we get a BB computation going before we start resolving the Phabines?
Well if we had that it would break our transitions, so soul foundry is probably what we want. I don't remember the exact line but I think it had to do with cheating an archon through a worldfire?
Oh computation should definitely be possible precombat, II drawing 18 cards is a lot.
Something like
land mox crypt EE -> replenish, omniscience
3 cards in hand
TYS
search x3 (veyran, rat, (phabine? or yarok? or k'rrik?))
II x7
draw 14
I'm not sure where the best way to go from there is.
At the very least we are able to worldfire+rebuild to make red mana and then use the last IIs to draw SSA twice precombat. I think that is enough to theoretically have access to the full deck and combos for those two draws?
Ooh very nice. Perhaps we can wait to play Veyran until after II, and draw 8 cards instead? If that's good enough, we may be able to get more than two SSA full combos...
Well isn't it better to get like 2 full combos instead of 5 mini ones?
So I guess the question is can we be fully optimal and use those 14 II draws on the non-legendary creatures:
1 Xathrid Necromancer
2 Chancellor of the Annex
3 Martyr of Spores
4 Chromescale Drake
5 Archon of Falling Stars
6 Floodchaser
7 Arboreal Grazer
8 Firebrand Ranger
9 Groundskeeper
10 Ruin Ghost
11 Weathered Wayfarer
Leaving three cards for something like:
Abandon the Post
Spellweaver Volute
Fated Infatuation
And the two other legends we got from Search for glory. Though, that still leaves two unfetched until we cast search again.
Which looks like probably enough to mill everything and fetch our artifacts? Rat+Yarok let fated get a bunch of Chromescale triggers. Though I think we need to be a little careful. We need to get rid of our TYS before resolving a Helix trigger for II.
Hmm the line looks a little tricky actually...
Oh and we can finesse for one more card of slack because II draws 2 cards at a time and we can’t use some of our creatures until after resolving SSA.
If we only care about even doing a computation I think we only need like the first 5 of those, leaving a bunch of draws free to be whatever.
Oh yeah, I was talking about getting perhaps 3 full combos - we won't get enough cards with 4 copies of II, but perhaps we could cast II another 5 times (without TYS of course), drawing SSA the last 3 times, which would beat out the max of 2 combos we can get if we draw 14 cards initially. Just a thought, it may not be possible.
well, we definitely can't full combo without drawing those 11 nonlegendary creatures, and we also definitely need an abandon the post for worldfire, so that's 12 cards spoken for already. And we need something like fated to actually make mana, so 13 cards seem pretty locked in to get started.
Now if we could hypothetically draw 12 of those with II and still get started, drawing the 13th with SSA on the 7th II. However, I don't think there's a line with just one cast of fated because it dead ends on trying to make enchantments. Meaning that drawing 14 before drawing SSA is required. I might be wrong though.
Maybe there's a line with different cards left over in the opening hand?
edit: current deck for reference (only difference is spawing pool->ghitu encampment)
We can draw SSA with the first 14 draws, cast it to get Aura tokens, then shuffle SSA into the library and cast II again, drawing SSA and another card. If that extra card gets us access to the full deck, then we can do a full combo, I believe. So if 14 cards besides SSA are needed, we should be able to still get 3 SSA full combos.
We cant cast SSA until after we resolve worldfire which clears our hand. So it does no good to draw it before.
ok so an outline something like:
tys
II x3
search x4 all legends except veyran
drake
orrery
helix
abandon the post x5
IIx6
worldfirex7
fails by not being able to setup to recover from worldfire (and by not milling enough cards) and can't cast another spell without making the tys trigger lethal.
Okay, fair enough. It would perhaps be nice if we could change things up so we wouldn't need Worldfire to get started... maybe have a colored mana left over from the start. I don't see a replacement for Epic Experiment off hand. Or possibly a replacement for Smoke Spirits' Aid - a black X spell could work, although black isn't ldeal for generating mana.
Changing the way we cheat omniscience into play seems unlikely, there just aren't a lot of cards that work to even do that in the first place and making them work with the rest of the combo puts additional serious restrictions on what even works. Its honestly kind of insane that it doesn't take more deckspace.
So, if we the most SSA full combos we can perform is two, the question is how many treasure tokens we can make with the first SSA. We can make use of the two other cards we draw on the 8th and 9th II's before we full combo, so we can actually get 5 cards in addition to the 11 creatures we need to draw. (Correct me if I am wrong.) We can do a megacombo with "one red mana" (which could just be casting Abandon the Post from hand) and 20 life, that seems like the most that we can get. So that should be like a hyperstage with around 20 stages, maybe a bit less? So maybe around BB_{w^2}(X) with X around 20. That then feeds into BB_{w^3 + w3} (BB_{w^3 + w3} (X)), which then feeds into BB_{w^3 + w3 + 1}^53 (X).
Edit: I'm not thinking clearly, we should be able to cast Starlight to gain a lot of life, and we can perhaps use that life to set up a large hyperstage on the bottom, then put on a megastage transition with our Abandon the Post from hand, and have another hyperstage on top? So perhaps we can get BB_{w^2 * 2}(X) treasure tokens with X large? I guess we have to go through the opening to see how large we can make X, and if we can actually set up a proper double hyperstage.
Well we can't possibly have access to the 17th card before we cast SSA the first time if we want to be able to draw SSA for the 18th and final card.
Also I missed that we need to draw the manland because we can't fetch it before the opponent has some. So we are down to three cards which probably have to be something like fated, abandon the post, worldfire? (maybe volute?)
The issue with casting starlight is that that requires either using one of our few helper slots to draw it, or casting it via helix with an abandon the post (which we would need to draw).
I'm forgetting exactly what the setup requirements for worldfire are, especially with this special one that has the luxury of effectively being both the top and bottom of the stack.
We don't have access to the 17th card before we cast SSA, but we can have access before we perform the full combo.
Edit: Eh, I guess your point about Worldfire applies here as well. After we resolve the 9th II, SSA will be in our hand, so we have to cast it before any WOrldfires get resolved and it gets put into exile.
we need at least one yarok in play before playing spellweaver helix
we need to make a token mirror before exiling the fated infatuation, which requires march of the machines.
we need to make a token metalworker to make any mana.
we need to not kill ourselves with the II after worldfire. This looks to require getting pious back after worldfire, which seems tricky.
I hate to say it, but I think there's an infinite hiding in our current way to do computations with Dralnu's Crusade. By exploiting the dependency loop rules the opponent can halt a computation at an arbitrary point by choosing a different order for their Xathrid Necromancer triggers.
Let me explain:
Say we have 1 Dralnu turning A to B, 2 Dralnus turningn B to C and 1 Dralnu turning C to A. Before the decision point we only have a creature of base type C. The C->A Dralnu will change the set of objects that the A->B Dralnu affects, so A->B is dependent on C->A. Then A->B changes what B->C affects, so there is another dependency. But B->C doesn't change what C->A affects, since there is only the 1 base type C creature and that is affected by C->A anyway. No dependency there, so there's no loop and the Dralnus get applied in dependency order. The C creature becomes a A,B,C creature and collects +4/+4 from all the Dralnus.
Then a token of base type A gets created. We still have A->B dependent on C->A and B->C dependent on A->B from before. But now the B->C Dralnu changes what objects the C->A Dralnu affects, because it gives the base B creature the type C. So C->A is now dependent on B->C and we have a loop. The Dralnus now get applied in timestamp order.
Say that timestamp order is A->B, B->C, then C-A. Now the base C creature becomes a A,C creature and only collects +2/+2 from the Dralnus. It gets another +1/+1 from sharing a creature type with the base A creature, that became a A,B,C. But that is still a net loss of 1 toughness.
It is then fairly straightforward to construct a computation that can use this toughness loss to halt at an arbitrary point. Just give the opponent the triggers to create an A token and a token that shares a type with the base C creature at the same time, while the C creature is 1 damage away from death. If they create the A token first, then the C creature dies, leading to a halt. If they create the other creature first then the extra buff keeps C alive through the toughness loss. And a few heartbeats later the base A creature can be dead, the C creature 1 damage away from dying again and the choice can repeat.
does anyone have any idea how to fix this? One way of course would be to prove the flooding waterfall model Turing complete. Or, if we failed at that, we could try to build big machines using the flooding waterfall model anyway.
any other ways to do computation? There’s the original Churchill UTM, I imagine that’s just plain harder to keep from going infinite, but I don’t know if we’ve investigated it thoroughly.
does anyone have any idea how to fix this? One way of course would be to prove the flooding waterfall model Turing complete. Or, if we failed at that, we could try to build big machines using the flooding waterfall model anyway.
any other ways to do computation? There’s the original Churchill UTM, I imagine that’s just plain harder to keep from going infinite, but I don’t know if we’ve investigated it thoroughly.
In the other thread, Iijil suggested using Sanctifier en-Vec + Xathrid Necromancer + Bishop of Wings in place of Dralnu's + Bishop. But including Bishop is a problem for this deck, and exiling red cards that hit the graveyard is a problem for the small deck.
However, I wonder if it would work to use Sanctifier alongside a color word changer like Whim of Volrath. This would still take an extra card slot, but it would make it possible to use different versions of a single token maker, and to keep the Sanctifier from hitting the wrong colors.
Edit: Alter Reality has flashback, could that help with finding space for it?
But B->C doesn't change what C->A affects, since there is only the 1 base type C creature and that is affected by C->A anyway. No dependency there, so there's no loop and the Dralnus get applied in dependency order. The C creature becomes a A,B,C creature and collects +4/+4 from all the Dralnus.
Then a token of base type A gets created. We still have A->B dependent on C->A and B->C dependent on A->B from before. But now the B->C Dralnu changes what objects the C->A Dralnu affects, because it gives the base B creature the type C. So C->A is now dependent on B->C and we have a loop. The Dralnus now get applied in timestamp order.
Taking a closer look - is that how loops are defined?
613.8. Within a layer or sublayer, determining which order effects are applied in is sometimes done
using a dependency system. If a dependency exists, it will override the timestamp system.
613.8a An effect is said to “depend on” another if (a) it’s applied in the same layer (and, if
applicable, sublayer) as the other effect; (b) applying the other would change the text or the
existence of the first effect, what it applies to, or what it does to any of the things it applies to;
and (c) neither effect is from a characteristic-defining ability or both effects are from
characteristic-defining abilities. Otherwise, the effect is considered to be independent of the
other effect.
613.8b An effect dependent on one or more other effects waits to apply until just after all of those
effects have been applied. If multiple dependent effects would apply simultaneously in this way,
they’re applied in timestamp order relative to each other. If several dependent effects form a
dependency loop, then this rule is ignored and the effects in the dependency loop are applied in
timestamp order.
613.8c After each effect is applied, the order of remaining effects is reevaluated and may change if
an effect that has not yet been applied becomes dependent on or independent of one or more
other effects that have not yet been applied.
From how this is phrased, I can't tell whether it's saying the dependency needs to affect something actually on the field to count towards the loop, or if the theoretical dependency is in effect at all times and makes the order of token creation a non-issue.
I tried to break things with this before but couldnt, and I think the problem in your example is that if you have two dranlus making B->C then there is a way to order them so every A, every B and every C always ends up as an ABC.
and its by applying B->C C->A A->B and B->C in that order. But that does seem to cause the As to lose a toughness on net when the first B is created...
I think you may have a point though and I need to think about this. It seems to me that having a square dependency with unequal diagonals may have this problem as well.
(PS: This would be a great time for someone to prove flooding waterfall TC and we can remove dralnu's crusades entirely)
From how this is phrased, I can't tell whether it's saying the dependency needs to affect something actually on the field to count towards the loop, or if the theoretical dependency is in effect at all times and makes the order of token creation a non-issue.
I don't think the dependency rules care about any theoretical dependencies. The relevant check in 613.8a (b) asks if the other effect changes what the first effect applies to. Not if it could potentially change what it applies to.
I tried to break things with this before but couldnt, and I think the problem in your example is that if you have two dranlus making B->C then there is a way to order them so every A, every B and every C always ends up as an ABC.
and its by applying B->C C->A A->B and B->C in that order. But that does seem to cause the As to lose a toughness on net when the first B is created...
I find even less support for the idea that the rules care about any ordering of the effects that achieves some sort of maximal effect. But in any case, the 2nd B->C Dralnu is only there for the +1/+1. We can change it to B->B or B->Z to get the same buff. Then it certainly shouldn't change the dependencies.
This infinite certainly depends on the exact details of how dependencies are detected, in what order effects are checked for dependencies and applied, and what counts as a loop. At that point there are likely differences between what is intuitive, what is in the rules, and possibly what is intended by the rule makers.
My interpretation of the rules is that the rules try to apply effects in timestamp order and only delay the application if a dependency on one of the unapplied effects is detected right when an effect would normally be applied. That check for dependencies is done with the objects in the game as they are at that point as the universe of things that can be affected.
(I don't have a lot of hope for flooding waterfall computations. I tried for a bit to get good flooding computations for the start of the small deck. But the best I could get is 1 multiplication by n for n bishops: ~2^(#bishops/2). Any sort of looping logic was beyond me, because the effects of a flooding always depends on how late it happens.)
Damn; yeah that does work. Dependency checking uses the objects in play rather than "objects that could theoretically exist"; as there are a large number of those. (There are some ambiguities in the dependency rules, but they don't come into play here)
Sanctifer en-vec + Slight of mind looks like it might work? (instants with flashback don't work as they can be cast during a computation; and colour changers that also change basic land types don't work with the stages).
Sanctifier makes it easier to exile some things. But instants, sorceries, and creatures are already easy to exile pre worldfire transition; and it *doesnt* help exile mox ruby so doesn't immediately break the worldfire transition.
Slight of mind also surprisingly looks safe.
my point before was that the second dralnu's crusade for B->C is not part of the dependency loop but depends on the result of the loop and will thus apply at the end.
The problem is if we make a long loop A->B B->C ... Z->A , then making a bunch of N in the middle will receive all of the buffs, but when we make something else like an A, the N will lose a bunch of their buffs, so they lose more than coat of arms counteracts. (depending on timestamps.)
Hmm, this does look pretty awful.
One thing to note that complicates this a little is that because Xathrid Necromancer is itself a human, any type we create that also has death triggers will always exist and be subject to dralnu's crusades the same way. Also, once the opponent decides to not trip the N clock early, they don't have that option again until the clock zeroes out the added creature. So I think creating a specific counterexample computation is at least a little nontrivial?
Though I don't see why we would need to care about the spoiler type dying, or any problem with resetting a clock like that.
One other solution would be Rotlung reanimator with martyr of spores -> resolute watchdog to keep them alive? How often do we need to bounce the opponent's things anyway?
my point before was that the second dralnu's crusade for B->C is not part of the dependency loop but depends on the result of the loop and will thus apply at the end.
Huh, I never even considered that 2 versions of the same effect could have different dependencies. That might be possible, but I don't think it helps us here, since we can easily construct around it.
One thing to note that complicates this a little is that because Xathrid Necromancer is itself a human, any type we create that also has death triggers will always exist and be subject to dralnu's crusades the same way. Also, once the opponent decides to not trip the N clock early, they don't have that option again until the clock zeroes out the added creature. So I think creating a specific counterexample computation is at least a little nontrivial?
None of the types in the loop need anything triggering from them dying, so while the shared type from the Necromancer is annoying when constructing a specific counterexample it is not that complicated. If you think it is necessary I can work it out, though I'd prefer to use Bishop of Wings
The base C creature that sticks around and which leads to halting when it dies can have another type, not part of the loop that gives it buffs. So it is no problem to have the base A creature die after a constant amount of ticks, while the base C creature stays alive.
The more fleshed out dralnu universe could look something like A->B, B->C, C->A, B->Z, H->C, H->I, with 1 H creature carrying the arcbond, kept barely alive by I creatures, while the increasing amount if I creatures don't help to keep the A creature alive. (Or we just use a 2 type creature to carry arcbond instead of adding more dralnus)
Rotlung Reanimator would work to avoid this infinite, since then we can never create a creature of any type that wasn't there before. But I don't quite remember if we had a working way to build waterfall programs with all the extra buffs from the double shared creature type? And keeping the Reanimators alive through a computation might be more difficult than using Sanctifier en-Vec
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
(it needs to be the same object that was exiled with the imprint ability; moving it causes it to be lost track of; so it's not sufficient to just put the card back into exile when the ability needs to resolve).
It does mean that sometimes the very top transition gets to be slightly more efficient, but its less of an effect than being able to hide cards on the stack for the top transition, which has already been shown to be safe.
I'm really not sure what the optimal line for the start is, Ratadrabrik has some odd consequences.
It seems like we can easily make the 53 rabines and lot of mind's eyes. I'm a bit lost as to what the absolute best way to do that is.
So I guess what we need is a card that can make a token without targeting, like Soul Foundry, but without it having to be imprinted either. I'm not quite sure what such a card would be.
I think the first question with regards to the start is, can we get a BB computation going before we start resolving the Phabines?
Oh computation should definitely be possible precombat, II drawing 18 cards is a lot.
Something like
land mox crypt EE -> replenish, omniscience
3 cards in hand
TYS
search x3 (veyran, rat, (phabine? or yarok? or k'rrik?))
II x7
draw 14
I'm not sure where the best way to go from there is.
At the very least we are able to worldfire+rebuild to make red mana and then use the last IIs to draw SSA twice precombat. I think that is enough to theoretically have access to the full deck and combos for those two draws?
So I guess the question is can we be fully optimal and use those 14 II draws on the non-legendary creatures:
1 Xathrid Necromancer
2 Chancellor of the Annex
3 Martyr of Spores
4 Chromescale Drake
5 Archon of Falling Stars
6 Floodchaser
7 Arboreal Grazer
8 Firebrand Ranger
9 Groundskeeper
10 Ruin Ghost
11 Weathered Wayfarer
Leaving three cards for something like:
Abandon the Post
Spellweaver Volute
Fated Infatuation
And the two other legends we got from Search for glory. Though, that still leaves two unfetched until we cast search again.
Which looks like probably enough to mill everything and fetch our artifacts? Rat+Yarok let fated get a bunch of Chromescale triggers. Though I think we need to be a little careful. We need to get rid of our TYS before resolving a Helix trigger for II.
Hmm the line looks a little tricky actually...
Oh and we can finesse for one more card of slack because II draws 2 cards at a time and we can’t use some of our creatures until after resolving SSA.
If we only care about even doing a computation I think we only need like the first 5 of those, leaving a bunch of draws free to be whatever.
Now if we could hypothetically draw 12 of those with II and still get started, drawing the 13th with SSA on the 7th II. However, I don't think there's a line with just one cast of fated because it dead ends on trying to make enchantments. Meaning that drawing 14 before drawing SSA is required. I might be wrong though.
Maybe there's a line with different cards left over in the opening hand?
edit: current deck for reference (only difference is spawing pool->ghitu encampment)
1 Coat of Arms
2 Xathrid Necromancer
3 Artificial Evolution
4 Arcbond
5 Comeuppance
6 Dralnu's Crusade
Starting a Computation
7 Opalescence
8 Wrong Turn
9 Kaervek's Spite
10 Goblin Boom Keg
11 March of the Machines
Utility
12 Vedalken Orrery
13 Metalworker
14 Twinning Glass
15 Thousand-Year Storm
16 Bloodbond March
17 Chancellor of the Annex
Foundry Stage
18 Martyr of Spores
19 Soul Foundry
20 Phabine, Boss's Confidant
21 Cowardice
22 Mirror of Fate
23 Chromescale Drake
24 Ashnod the Uncaring
25 Ratadrabik of Urborg
26 Spellweaver Volute
27 Veyran, Voice of Duality
28 Fated Infatuation
29 Lingering Souls
30 K'rrik, Son of Yawgmoth
31 Archon of Falling Stars
32 Pious Interdiction
Helix Megastage
33 Spellweaver Helix
34 Worldfire
35 Starlight
36 Abandon the Post
37 Abandon the Post
38 Mox Ruby
39 Yarok, the Desecrated
Blue Mana Stage
40 Master Transmuter
41 Floodchaser
42 Great Furnace
43 Brutal Suppression
44 Search for Glory
45 Snow-Covered Island
46 Arboreal Grazer
47 Firebrand Ranger
48 Groundskeeper
49 Forest
White Mana Stage
50 Ruin Ghost
51 Weathered Wayfarer
52 Archaeological Dig
53 Ghitu Encampment
Start
54 Mana Crypt
55 Epic Experiment
56 Resurgent Belief
57 Omniscience
58 Infectious Inquiry
End Layers
59 Mind's Eye
60 Smoke Spirits' Aid
ok so an outline something like:
tys
II x3
search x4 all legends except veyran
drake
orrery
helix
abandon the post x5
IIx6
worldfirex7
fails by not being able to setup to recover from worldfire (and by not milling enough cards) and can't cast another spell without making the tys trigger lethal.
Artifacts like astral cornucopia can be found with chromescale drake.
Changing the way we cheat omniscience into play seems unlikely, there just aren't a lot of cards that work to even do that in the first place and making them work with the rest of the combo puts additional serious restrictions on what even works. Its honestly kind of insane that it doesn't take more deckspace.
Edit: I'm not thinking clearly, we should be able to cast Starlight to gain a lot of life, and we can perhaps use that life to set up a large hyperstage on the bottom, then put on a megastage transition with our Abandon the Post from hand, and have another hyperstage on top? So perhaps we can get BB_{w^2 * 2}(X) treasure tokens with X large? I guess we have to go through the opening to see how large we can make X, and if we can actually set up a proper double hyperstage.
Also I missed that we need to draw the manland because we can't fetch it before the opponent has some. So we are down to three cards which probably have to be something like fated, abandon the post, worldfire? (maybe volute?)
The issue with casting starlight is that that requires either using one of our few helper slots to draw it, or casting it via helix with an abandon the post (which we would need to draw).
I'm forgetting exactly what the setup requirements for worldfire are, especially with this special one that has the luxury of effectively being both the top and bottom of the stack.
Edit: Eh, I guess your point about Worldfire applies here as well. After we resolve the 9th II, SSA will be in our hand, so we have to cast it before any WOrldfires get resolved and it gets put into exile.
we need at least one yarok in play before playing spellweaver helix
we need to make a token mirror before exiling the fated infatuation, which requires march of the machines.
we need to make a token metalworker to make any mana.
we need to not kill ourselves with the II after worldfire. This looks to require getting pious back after worldfire, which seems tricky.
Let me explain:
Say we have 1 Dralnu turning A to B, 2 Dralnus turningn B to C and 1 Dralnu turning C to A. Before the decision point we only have a creature of base type C. The C->A Dralnu will change the set of objects that the A->B Dralnu affects, so A->B is dependent on C->A. Then A->B changes what B->C affects, so there is another dependency. But B->C doesn't change what C->A affects, since there is only the 1 base type C creature and that is affected by C->A anyway. No dependency there, so there's no loop and the Dralnus get applied in dependency order. The C creature becomes a A,B,C creature and collects +4/+4 from all the Dralnus.
Then a token of base type A gets created. We still have A->B dependent on C->A and B->C dependent on A->B from before. But now the B->C Dralnu changes what objects the C->A Dralnu affects, because it gives the base B creature the type C. So C->A is now dependent on B->C and we have a loop. The Dralnus now get applied in timestamp order.
Say that timestamp order is A->B, B->C, then C-A. Now the base C creature becomes a A,C creature and only collects +2/+2 from the Dralnus. It gets another +1/+1 from sharing a creature type with the base A creature, that became a A,B,C. But that is still a net loss of 1 toughness.
It is then fairly straightforward to construct a computation that can use this toughness loss to halt at an arbitrary point. Just give the opponent the triggers to create an A token and a token that shares a type with the base C creature at the same time, while the C creature is 1 damage away from death. If they create the A token first, then the C creature dies, leading to a halt. If they create the other creature first then the extra buff keeps C alive through the toughness loss. And a few heartbeats later the base A creature can be dead, the C creature 1 damage away from dying again and the choice can repeat.
does anyone have any idea how to fix this? One way of course would be to prove the flooding waterfall model Turing complete. Or, if we failed at that, we could try to build big machines using the flooding waterfall model anyway.
any other ways to do computation? There’s the original Churchill UTM, I imagine that’s just plain harder to keep from going infinite, but I don’t know if we’ve investigated it thoroughly.
However, I wonder if it would work to use Sanctifier alongside a color word changer like Whim of Volrath. This would still take an extra card slot, but it would make it possible to use different versions of a single token maker, and to keep the Sanctifier from hitting the wrong colors.
Edit: Alter Reality has flashback, could that help with finding space for it?
From how this is phrased, I can't tell whether it's saying the dependency needs to affect something actually on the field to count towards the loop, or if the theoretical dependency is in effect at all times and makes the order of token creation a non-issue.
and its by applying B->C C->A A->B and B->C in that order. But that does seem to cause the As to lose a toughness on net when the first B is created...
I think you may have a point though and I need to think about this. It seems to me that having a square dependency with unequal diagonals may have this problem as well.
(PS: This would be a great time for someone to prove flooding waterfall TC and we can remove dralnu's crusades entirely)
I find even less support for the idea that the rules care about any ordering of the effects that achieves some sort of maximal effect. But in any case, the 2nd B->C Dralnu is only there for the +1/+1. We can change it to B->B or B->Z to get the same buff. Then it certainly shouldn't change the dependencies.
This infinite certainly depends on the exact details of how dependencies are detected, in what order effects are checked for dependencies and applied, and what counts as a loop. At that point there are likely differences between what is intuitive, what is in the rules, and possibly what is intended by the rule makers.
My interpretation of the rules is that the rules try to apply effects in timestamp order and only delay the application if a dependency on one of the unapplied effects is detected right when an effect would normally be applied. That check for dependencies is done with the objects in the game as they are at that point as the universe of things that can be affected.
(I don't have a lot of hope for flooding waterfall computations. I tried for a bit to get good flooding computations for the start of the small deck. But the best I could get is 1 multiplication by n for n bishops: ~2^(#bishops/2). Any sort of looping logic was beyond me, because the effects of a flooding always depends on how late it happens.)
Sanctifer en-vec + Slight of mind looks like it might work? (instants with flashback don't work as they can be cast during a computation; and colour changers that also change basic land types don't work with the stages).
Sanctifier makes it easier to exile some things. But instants, sorceries, and creatures are already easy to exile pre worldfire transition; and it *doesnt* help exile mox ruby so doesn't immediately break the worldfire transition.
Slight of mind also surprisingly looks safe.
The problem is if we make a long loop A->B B->C ... Z->A , then making a bunch of N in the middle will receive all of the buffs, but when we make something else like an A, the N will lose a bunch of their buffs, so they lose more than coat of arms counteracts. (depending on timestamps.)
Hmm, this does look pretty awful.
One thing to note that complicates this a little is that because Xathrid Necromancer is itself a human, any type we create that also has death triggers will always exist and be subject to dralnu's crusades the same way. Also, once the opponent decides to not trip the N clock early, they don't have that option again until the clock zeroes out the added creature. So I think creating a specific counterexample computation is at least a little nontrivial?
Though I don't see why we would need to care about the spoiler type dying, or any problem with resetting a clock like that.
One other solution would be Rotlung reanimator with martyr of spores -> resolute watchdog to keep them alive? How often do we need to bounce the opponent's things anyway?
None of the types in the loop need anything triggering from them dying, so while the shared type from the Necromancer is annoying when constructing a specific counterexample it is not that complicated. If you think it is necessary I can work it out, though I'd prefer to use Bishop of Wings
The base C creature that sticks around and which leads to halting when it dies can have another type, not part of the loop that gives it buffs. So it is no problem to have the base A creature die after a constant amount of ticks, while the base C creature stays alive.
The more fleshed out dralnu universe could look something like A->B, B->C, C->A, B->Z, H->C, H->I, with 1 H creature carrying the arcbond, kept barely alive by I creatures, while the increasing amount if I creatures don't help to keep the A creature alive. (Or we just use a 2 type creature to carry arcbond instead of adding more dralnus)
Rotlung Reanimator would work to avoid this infinite, since then we can never create a creature of any type that wasn't there before. But I don't quite remember if we had a working way to build waterfall programs with all the extra buffs from the double shared creature type? And keeping the Reanimators alive through a computation might be more difficult than using Sanctifier en-Vec