Suppose you have 2 players playing a mirror match, and they both have the capacity to make as much mana as they want, and they both have a Nantuko Shade
how does this get resolved?
My initial(and frankly current) thought was that this was a fragmented loop, and that the active player was screwed.
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.
But the argument was made that since the power and toughness of the shades was changing, that the actions actually don't result in the same game state being reached.
Is that the case? and why?
I'm mostly interested in the "why" for this one. I mostly want to know What distinguishes a fragmented loop from a non-loop, and How is this distinction codified in the rules
A judge will require a substantial change in the game state for a loop to continue (e.g., player gets closer to dying or winning; something dies; etc.). Irrelevantly changing the power/toughness of two creatures doesn't advance the game in any meaningful way, so the active player will indeed have to make a different choice.
As far as codification of this, that's virtually impossible to do in reasonably concise language, so you just have to use some common sense. Does the loop progress the game? No? Then stop it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 3 Judge
This FAQ answers many of the common questions asked in the MTGS Rulings forum. Take a look!
I'm the editor/content manager of the Magic Rules Tips Blog - Bookmark this site for daily tips about game and tournament rules.
"Abstract concepts of perfect judging run headlong into the realities of how people play the game." - Toby Elliott (papa_funk)
If those two creatures are in combat with each other though I think it gets more complicated, as the game may well rest on whose Nantuko Shade survives. In this instance I would give the edge to the player whose mana loop requires the least steps to use. If they are still tied, I would simply suggest that the Nantuko Shades trade with each other unless there are other tricks involved.
If those two creatures are in combat with each other though I think it gets more complicated, as the game may well rest on whose Nantuko Shade survives. In this instance I would give the edge to the player whose mana loop requires the least steps to use. If they are still tied, I would simply suggest that the Nantuko Shades trade with each other unless there are other tricks involved.
That's not how the rules work. The game can and will progress once one or both players stop trying to do the same **** thing (activate Shade's ability). Unlike in Chess when a threefold position happens, we simply make the active player stop and do something different.
If a Shade blocks a Shade and both players have access to unlimited mana, the blocker wins.
If a Shade blocks a Shade and both players have access to unlimited mana, the blocker wins.
Even if the blocker activates the ability first? I thought the player starting the loop would have to break it, meaning that the Shades would just trade if the activated ability isn't used, and that the first player activating it would actually lose his Shade (not the other), which would mean that the correct play for both players would be to trade.
My own rules when building a Commander deck:
1) Underrated general that I can build around but the deck must work without him/her too.
2) Every card must be legal in both banlists.
3) No infinite combo that could win (and ruin) instantly a multiplayer game.
4) Synergy at all costs; stay on theme, avoid goodstuff.
If both players can preform an 'infinite' loop and not advance the game state, then the active player must make a different choice. It doesn't matter who started their loop first. Therefore, in this case, the blocking shade will always win.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 2 Magic Judge
Cards do what they say they do. No more. No less.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
how does this get resolved?
My initial(and frankly current) thought was that this was a fragmented loop, and that the active player was screwed.
But the argument was made that since the power and toughness of the shades was changing, that the actions actually don't result in the same game state being reached.
Is that the case? and why?
I'm mostly interested in the "why" for this one. I mostly want to know What distinguishes a fragmented loop from a non-loop, and How is this distinction codified in the rules
As far as codification of this, that's virtually impossible to do in reasonably concise language, so you just have to use some common sense. Does the loop progress the game? No? Then stop it.
This FAQ answers many of the common questions asked in the MTGS Rulings forum. Take a look!
I'm the editor/content manager of the Magic Rules Tips Blog - Bookmark this site for daily tips about game and tournament rules.
"Abstract concepts of perfect judging run headlong into the realities of how people play the game." - Toby Elliott (papa_funk)
My Type 4 Stack -- DCI Documents -- Comp Rules
"A Plague on All Your Houses!" - Thespian's Stage Pox
If a Shade blocks a Shade and both players have access to unlimited mana, the blocker wins.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Even if the blocker activates the ability first? I thought the player starting the loop would have to break it, meaning that the Shades would just trade if the activated ability isn't used, and that the first player activating it would actually lose his Shade (not the other), which would mean that the correct play for both players would be to trade.
Rules Advisor
Pauper decks: Weenie Tokens — Zombies
My own rules when building a Commander deck:
1) Underrated general that I can build around but the deck must work without him/her too.
2) Every card must be legal in both banlists.
3) No infinite combo that could win (and ruin) instantly a multiplayer game.
4) Synergy at all costs; stay on theme, avoid goodstuff.
Cards do what they say they do. No more. No less.