Now I'm not talking about any specific infinite loop here, but I have a more general condition. What happens if an "infinite loop" occurs in which both players have a possible exit condition to the loop?
From what I understand of rule 713.5, neither player is obligated to exit a mandatory loop, and thus a game will draw unless either play opts to exit the loop. But I want to turn this on its head for a second.
Imagine both players have a path to exile in their hand, but do not know that the other has it too. The active player initiates a mandatory loop by casting dance of the dead on the solitary card in his graveyard, worldgorger dragon. (I'm not 100% sure a PTE can end a gorger-loop, but can we just pretend it does for this argument, ie replace that with whatever card would end the loop). Neither player has any "visible to the opponent" means to end the loop, and the objects involved cannot end it as in 713.3, and the active player has no means of converting his wonderful infinite loop into a win condition. Now for the twist- something about this board position ensures that whichever player uses their path to exile will inevitably lose the game, while the other will win. Lets say that both players have beaters and are at 1 life. Thus the player who uses his path to exile to end the loop will suffer a game loss. But as neither player is aware the other holds this same trump card, neither knows they will lose due to this action- they both mutually see it.
So both players can exit the loop, neither player is obligated to exit the loop, both players wish to exit the loop (as they believe it might win them the game), but neither player wishes to be the first to announce they are exiting the loop (as, if the other player did it first, it would give them better position).
I suppose my question follows- is there any way to resolve which player announces their action first? Priority can be passed back and forth as many times as they want for each shot of the loop, and they can discuss any shortcutting they want all day long. Does it just end up with both of them sitting there bluffing each other out and waiting for them to act first, or what? Because, if I'm interpreting the rules right, it would just mean whichever player speaks up and says they have the exit condition first would be the one stuck with doing it (and losing), but neither player would wish for the game to result and would invariably object to the draw, because they "believe" their opt-out would give them a chance to win (ie, stay in stalemate one more turn, and then hope to draw another path).
It really sounds like one big staring contest to me
If a Loop is created that has no visible way to stop it (such as cards on the battlefield) then the game results in the draw. Since the hand is a hidden zone, it doesn't matter if you have a way to end the loop, since it isn't visible.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you don't wear your seatbelt, the police will shoot you in the head."
- To my youngest sister when she was 6.
Everyone knows that good luck and good game are such insincere terms that any man who does not connect his right hook with the offender's jaw on the very utterance of such a phrase is no man I would consider as such.
If a Loop is created that has no visible way to stop it (such as cards on the battlefield) then the game results in the draw. Since the hand is a hidden zone, it doesn't matter if you have a way to end the loop, since it isn't visible.
Actually, that's not quite true.
EDIT: Ah, here we go, the section on Shortcuts:
713. Taking Shortcuts
713.1. When playing a game, players typically make use of mutually understood shortcuts rather than explicitly identifying each game choice (either taking an action or passing priority) a player makes.
713.1a The rules for taking shortcuts are largely unformalized. As long as each player in the game understands the intent of each other player, any shortcut system they use is acceptable.
713.1b 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.
713.2. Taking a shortcut follows the following procedure.
713.2a 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.
Example: A player controls a creature enchanted by Presence of Gond, which grants the creature the ability "{T}: Put a 1/1 green Elf Warrior creature token onto the battlefield," and another player controls Intruder Alarm, which reads, in part, "Whenever a creature enters the battlefield, untap all creatures." When the player has priority, he may suggest "I'll create a million tokens," indicating the sequence of activating the creature's ability, all players passing priority, letting the creature's ability resolve and put a token onto the battlefield (which causes Intruder Alarm's ability to trigger), Intruder Alarm's controller putting that triggered ability on the stack, all players passing priority, Intruder Alarm's triggered ability resolving, all players passing priority until the player proposing the shortcut has priority, and repeating that sequence 999,999 more times, ending just after the last token-creating ability resolves.
713.2b Each other player, in turn order starting after the player who suggested the shortcut, may either accept the proposed sequence, or shorten it by naming a place where he or she will make a game choice that's different than what's been proposed. (The player doesn't need to specify at this time what the new choice will be.) This place becomes the new ending point of the proposed sequence.
Example: The active player draws a card during her draw step, then says, "Go." The nonactive player is holding Into the Fray (an instant that says "Target creature attacks this turn if able") and says, "I'd like to cast a spell during your beginning of combat step." The current proposed shortcut is that all players pass priority at all opportunities during the turn until the nonactive player has priority during the beginning of combat step.
713.2c Once the last player has either accepted or shortened the shortcut proposal, the shortcut is taken. The game advances to the last proposed ending point, with all game choices contained in the shortcut proposal having been taken. If the shortcut was shortened from the original proposal, the player who now has priority must make a different game choice than what was originally proposed for that player.
713.3. 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.
713.4. If a loop contains only mandatory actions, the game ends in a draw. (See rule 104.4b.)
713.5. 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.
Example: A player controls Seal of Cleansing, an enchantment that reads, "Sacrifice Seal of Cleansing: Destroy target artifact or enchantment." A mandatory loop that involves an artifact begins. The player is not forced to sacrifice Seal of Cleansing to destroy the artifact and end the loop.
713.6. If a loop contains an effect that says "[A] unless [B]," where [A] and [B] are each actions, no player can be forced to perform [B] to break the loop. If no player chooses to perform [B], the loop will continue as though [A] were mandatory.
So, given this, the gist is that the active player must choose either to end the loop at some point, or to let it continue indefinitely and draw the game. Whatever his choice may be, the other player then has a choice to either accept his opponent's choice, or to end the loop earlier.
Level 2 Magic Judge
Procrastination is an art form, and I am an artist. Knowledge knows no bounds.
And so people say to me, "How do I know if a word is real?" You know, anyone who's read a children's book knows that love makes things real. If you love a word, use it! That makes it real. Being in the dictionary is an artificial distinction; it doesn't make the word any more real than any other word. If you love a word, it becomes real.
--Erin McKean, Redefining the Dictionary
It's quit easy: Either none of them stops the loop (aka the game ends in a draw) or the active player has to decide first. If he decides to stop at some point, the non-active player can do his decision with that information and either back up to any point before A wants to stop or he can just let him do it. If A decides not to do anything, B can either agree and draw or stop the loop himself now.
I think I am making some sense of that
So when the mandatory (in terms of what is visible) loop is entered, the shortcutting is mandatory too, and all actions must be declared for this loop shortcut in order of priority. If I'm following that, then even though "in reality" priority would be infinitely passed back and forth, the pseudo-priority makes only a single round around the table, and each player is allowed to make a decision for what he would do at any point in this loop (including knowledge of all the previous players' decisions).
So in my example, the active player would be forced to answer whether he will do anything to end the loop first- if he answers yes, the second player will opt not to end the loop and thus win. If he answers no, the second player will be forced to answer- if he answers yes, he will lose, if he answers no, they will both draw.
Or in other words, it just asks one at a time in priority order around the table, right?
A related question: Does it even matter if the way to end the loop is visible? Let's say one or both players have a Seal of Doom in play. Would either of them be forced to use it to end the loop? I was under the impression that the only time you had to end the loop was if there was a choice involved in the actual loop to end it, for example if the reanimation spell was a Necromancy and there were other creatures in the graveyard to choose, or in the triple Faceless Butcher scenario, if there was a 4th creature to exile.
A related question: Does it even matter if the way to end the loop is visible? Let's say one or both players have a Seal of Doom in play. Would either of them be forced to use it to end the loop? I was under the impression that the only time you had to end the loop was if there was a choice involved in the actual loop to end it, for example if the reanimation spell was a Necromancy and there were other creatures in the graveyard to choose, or in the triple Faceless Butcher scenario, if there was a 4th creature to exile.
No, it doesn't matter. If the loop consists solely of mandatory actions (i.e. no player is being required to make a choice regarding the loop that, if chosen differently, would end the loop), the game ends in a draw. Whether there's a "visible" way to end the loop is irrelevant unless that way is part of the loop itself.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
I noticed that the rules said that you are only obligated to make a change to the gamestate and end the loop if it is directly within those objects. How exactly is the scope of "objects" defined here? For example, if I had an artifact in play that gave all creatures under my control the ability T: Sacrifice this permanent. Because this ability would be pasted onto the worldgorger dragon, would I then be obligated to use it? (assuming "object" refers not just to the sets of spells/abilities that are looping, but to the cards involved. If its just the spells/abilities then I guess not)
No, you wouldn't be obligated to use it. 713.5 is talking about abilities and so on that are themselves part of the loop--activating the other ability is not a part of the loop, so the player is not obligated to do so.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 2 Magic Judge
Procrastination is an art form, and I am an artist. Knowledge knows no bounds.
And so people say to me, "How do I know if a word is real?" You know, anyone who's read a children's book knows that love makes things real. If you love a word, use it! That makes it real. Being in the dictionary is an artificial distinction; it doesn't make the word any more real than any other word. If you love a word, it becomes real.
--Erin McKean, Redefining the Dictionary
Here's a simple rule: you can't be made to take an action to end a loop, but you can be made to stop taking an action (including choosing a particular target) to do so.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
From what I understand of rule 713.5, neither player is obligated to exit a mandatory loop, and thus a game will draw unless either play opts to exit the loop. But I want to turn this on its head for a second.
Imagine both players have a path to exile in their hand, but do not know that the other has it too. The active player initiates a mandatory loop by casting dance of the dead on the solitary card in his graveyard, worldgorger dragon. (I'm not 100% sure a PTE can end a gorger-loop, but can we just pretend it does for this argument, ie replace that with whatever card would end the loop). Neither player has any "visible to the opponent" means to end the loop, and the objects involved cannot end it as in 713.3, and the active player has no means of converting his wonderful infinite loop into a win condition. Now for the twist- something about this board position ensures that whichever player uses their path to exile will inevitably lose the game, while the other will win. Lets say that both players have beaters and are at 1 life. Thus the player who uses his path to exile to end the loop will suffer a game loss. But as neither player is aware the other holds this same trump card, neither knows they will lose due to this action- they both mutually see it.
So both players can exit the loop, neither player is obligated to exit the loop, both players wish to exit the loop (as they believe it might win them the game), but neither player wishes to be the first to announce they are exiting the loop (as, if the other player did it first, it would give them better position).
I suppose my question follows- is there any way to resolve which player announces their action first? Priority can be passed back and forth as many times as they want for each shot of the loop, and they can discuss any shortcutting they want all day long. Does it just end up with both of them sitting there bluffing each other out and waiting for them to act first, or what? Because, if I'm interpreting the rules right, it would just mean whichever player speaks up and says they have the exit condition first would be the one stuck with doing it (and losing), but neither player would wish for the game to result and would invariably object to the draw, because they "believe" their opt-out would give them a chance to win (ie, stay in stalemate one more turn, and then hope to draw another path).
It really sounds like one big staring contest to me
- To my youngest sister when she was 6.
EDIT: Ah, here we go, the section on Shortcuts:
So, given this, the gist is that the active player must choose either to end the loop at some point, or to let it continue indefinitely and draw the game. Whatever his choice may be, the other player then has a choice to either accept his opponent's choice, or to end the loop earlier.
Procrastination is an art form, and I am an artist.
Knowledge knows no bounds.
And so people say to me, "How do I know if a word is real?" You know, anyone who's read a children's book knows that love makes things real. If you love a word, use it! That makes it real. Being in the dictionary is an artificial distinction; it doesn't make the word any more real than any other word. If you love a word, it becomes real.
--Erin McKean, Redefining the Dictionary
I think I am making some sense of that
So when the mandatory (in terms of what is visible) loop is entered, the shortcutting is mandatory too, and all actions must be declared for this loop shortcut in order of priority. If I'm following that, then even though "in reality" priority would be infinitely passed back and forth, the pseudo-priority makes only a single round around the table, and each player is allowed to make a decision for what he would do at any point in this loop (including knowledge of all the previous players' decisions).
So in my example, the active player would be forced to answer whether he will do anything to end the loop first- if he answers yes, the second player will opt not to end the loop and thus win. If he answers no, the second player will be forced to answer- if he answers yes, he will lose, if he answers no, they will both draw.
Or in other words, it just asks one at a time in priority order around the table, right?
No, it doesn't matter. If the loop consists solely of mandatory actions (i.e. no player is being required to make a choice regarding the loop that, if chosen differently, would end the loop), the game ends in a draw. Whether there's a "visible" way to end the loop is irrelevant unless that way is part of the loop itself.
Procrastination is an art form, and I am an artist.
Knowledge knows no bounds.
And so people say to me, "How do I know if a word is real?" You know, anyone who's read a children's book knows that love makes things real. If you love a word, use it! That makes it real. Being in the dictionary is an artificial distinction; it doesn't make the word any more real than any other word. If you love a word, it becomes real.
--Erin McKean, Redefining the Dictionary