View Full Version : Rules about draws
Say, for example, I get Mindslaver locked but my opponent cannot kill me in any way. Do I lose just by the fact that he has the lock on me or does it become a draw? Also, if he can beat me or I can win by drawing my deck (don't consider time), what are the results. What about a Platinum Angel lock with no way to remove it but no way to win either?
Thanks
Say, for example, I get Mindslaver locked but my opponent cannot kill me in any way. Do I lose just by the fact that he has the lock on me or does it become a draw? Also, if he can beat me or I can win by drawing my deck (don't consider time), what are the results. What about a Platinum Angel lock with no way to remove it but no way to win either?
Thanks
The game never ends in a draw unless there is an infinite loop that neither player can interrupt, or you run out of time in the round and use up all five extra turns. You have to play out the match, but if you know you can't win and will lose by decking yourself eventually then you can concede and move on to the next game.
Alright thanks. Some douche bag of a judge here in montreal, during Extended PTQ, called it a loss for the player that was slaver locked while they were in time but only had 2-3 turns left and his opponent couldn't kill him in time.
What you seem to be asking about are loops. Loops can span turns.
421.2 If the loop contains one or more optional actions and one player controls them all, that player chooses a number. The loop is treated as repeating that many times or until another player intervenes, whichever comes first.
If you are "mindslaver locked", you lose. Maybe you should think twice before calling someone a "douche bag".
In the case of extra turns, you only have that many turns to work with; so in that specific case the game will most likely be a draw.
I guess that was my fault. That rule is a bit confusing though. If the lock continued into extra turns, isn't it not possible to fulfill because you only have the option to continue in the few turns left? And if it is before extra turns, are you really allowed to just say 'repeat until you deck yourself', and even then do you have to count cards if you can't present another way to win (if you have no win condition to present in your deck)?*
*I know this wouldn't pertain to an Academy Ruins lock, but if you managed to Slaver lock them some other what would be the case?
I missed that part. Obviously you can only loop for as many turns as you have.
A loop is repeating an action X times. Obviously if you have less cards than your opponent and your loop does not involve putting cards in your deck, trying to deck them isn't going to work very well.
I missed that part. Obviously you can only loop for as many turns as you have.
A loop is repeating an action X times. Obviously if you have less cards than your opponent and your loop does not involve putting cards in your deck, trying to deck them isn't going to work very well.
So if the play controlling Mindslaver hadn't won the game before the extra turns, doesn't the game end up in a draw anyways? :S
EDIT: Let me rephrase... If the game had entered extra turns before the lock was secured or if the Mindslaver player didn't declare that they were repeating the loop X times, would it draw?
Cait_Sith
05-22-2007, 09:57 PM
I am a little confused Akki. You make it sound like a person with a Slaver-Ruins lock against someone else wins the game once the lock is established.
However, to win the game one of these must be true:
102.2a A player still in the game wins the game if all of that player's opponents have lost the game.
or
102.2b An effect may state that a player wins the game.
Since 102.2b obviously isn't true, that means his locked played must have lost.
To lose a person must:
102.3a A player can concede the game at any time. A player who concedes loses the game immediately.
or
102.3b If a player's life total is 0 or less, he or she loses the game the next time a player would receive priority. (This is a state-based effect. See rule 420.)
or
102.3c When a player is required to draw more cards than are left in his or her library, he or she draws the remaining cards, and then loses the game the next time a player would receive priority. (This is a state-based effect. See rule 420.)
or
102.3d If a player has ten or more poison counters, he or she loses the game the next time a player would receive priority. (This is a state-based effect. See rule 420.)
or
102.3e If a player would both win and lose simultaneously, he or she loses.
From what the person described the lock was established, but none of the victory or defeat conditions listed above were met.
Now, from my point of view, the person who was locked SHOULD have conceded gracefully and was being an ass by refusing, but not violating any rules. The judge was (or would be), in rules terms, wrong for giving the locked player a game loss.
Huh? 102 is irrelveant, as long as the loop you are in leads to one of those conditions. Looping Ruins/Mindslaver will likely deck your opponent, if nothing else.
Let me rephrase... If the game had entered extra turns before the lock was secured or if the Mindslaver player didn't declare that they were repeating the loop X times, would it draw?
The game is a draw at the end of extra turns if no player has won. When you establish a loop, you can only run the loop for as many turns as there are remaining in the game.
So yes, most likely the game would be a draw.
Cait_Sith
05-22-2007, 10:52 PM
Huh? 102 is irrelveant, as long as the loop you are in leads to one of those conditions. Looping Ruins/Mindslaver will deck your opponent.
Eventually yes. But until the person dies I do not see how the judge can make that call. Is there a precedent or some hidden rule?
I posted the rule above. 421 covers loops.
Tacosnape
05-23-2007, 12:42 AM
This question is pretty much for Akki, though I'll take any relevant answers.
How would this apply with, say, the "Untap, Confinement trigger, Squee trigger, return Squee, Pitch Squee, go" part of a Solitary Confinement lock?
Let's assume for Scenario #1, that:
A. Player 1 has the Squee/Confinement lock on Player 2.
B. Player 2 has no way in his or her deck to break the Confinement lock.
C. We're early in the match in game 1, not at turns yet.
Since Player 2 controls all the actions of his turn, does he or she lose and is he or she required to concede? Or can he or she play out every turn, as long as he or she isn't doing so slowly?
Scenario #2:
A. Same.
B. Player 2 says he or she 'thinks' she has an answer to the Solitary Confinement but can't remember.
C. Assume we're now in game 2 and Player 2 says he or she can't remember what he or she boarded in.
Now what happens, since the claimed intent (And there's no way of knowing in a real situation if the player really does believe he or she has a way to stop the Confinement Lock)
Now, Scenario #3. This time, let's take the Mindslaver/Ruins lock. Here are the following parts of the scenario:
A. Player 1 has a Slaver lock on Player 2.
B. Player 1 has no way of killing Player 2 short of decking him.
C. Player 2 -will- kill Player 1, who is at 3 life, with Akroma, Angel of Wrath, if he gets one turn.
D. We're in game 2, post-board.
E. Player 2 claims this is not necessarily a game-ending infinite loop because he runs a single Force of Will (to counter the Slaver for a turn) or some such card in his sideboard, but can't remember if he boarded it in or not. He's also in some sort of bizarre situation where he doesn't have any lands left in his entire deck and Player 1 has no instants in his entire deck so there's no way Player 1 can make Player 2 play the Force during his own Mindslavered turn, if there even is a Force.
Now the following questions arise:
1. How exactly is it determined whether or not this loop, or any loop in a situation like this, is fully in Player 1's control?
2. What information is Player 2 required to divulge in order to gain the privledge of "playing it out" and thereby taking up about 10-20+ minutes of the match? And to whom is he required to divulge this information?
3. What would the penalties be if Player 2 made a claim that he could break it and then couldn't? Would it matter if he genuinely thought he could or if he was lying, and if so, how would you discern between the two?
1) Can't be considered a loop, since both players have the opportunity to take actions. However, the player with the Confinement can shortcut his turn, effectively leaving the other player to play their turns out quickly until they want to do something relevant. Even with player 2 playing out his turns, it shouldn't take long for him to deck.
2) See above.
3) This can be considered a loop in 99% of situations since the other player will likely be unable to do anything ever. If you are somehow in the situation of the other 1%, you can pull the judge to the side and explain this, and then shortcut the game down to player 1 drawing/discarding until player 2 gets to the card he wants.
Also, in your example, player 1 could just discard the FoW unless it was drawn before player 2 had 7 cards.
1. How exactly is it determined whether or not this loop, or any loop in a situation like this, is fully in Player 1's control?
2. What information is Player 2 required to divulge in order to gain the privledge of "playing it out" and thereby taking up about 10-20+ minutes of the match? And to whom is he required to divulge this information?
3. What would the penalties be if Player 2 made a claim that he could break it and then couldn't? Would it matter if he genuinely thought he could or if he was lying, and if so, how would you discern between the two?
1) In most cases it's fairly obvious. Player 2 either can't do anything or chooses not to do anything. Recurring Mindslaver may be borderline, but still pretty obvious in my opinion.
2) This argument should be made to the judge. And even when "playing it out" by shortcutting turns, it should take under 10 minutes in most cases.
3) As long as the player can bring up a reasonable situation where he could stop a cross-turn loop, it should be handled with shortcuts rather than through a loop. In the case of Ruins/Mindslaver, I find this extremely unlikely.
Tacosnape
05-23-2007, 02:06 AM
Much appreciated. I always wondered about things like that.:)
Locutus
05-23-2007, 04:44 AM
I don't think you can treat the "Mindslaver Lock" as a loop, unless the slavered person is at his maximum hand size. While the slavered person can't do anything on his turn, he can still make decisions during his opponent's turn. Since the content of his hand will be different after each turn (unless he has reached his maximum hand size, at which point his opponent could just have him discard the card he draws each turn), there is the posibillity that he can stop the loop somehow, so you can't say he just loses. You should have to play at least until his maximum hand size is reached, and even than, it is possible that something hapens that breaks the loop, so you can't just say he loses. Of course he shouldn't take more than a few seconds for each turn unless he can actually do something, but i think you would have to play it out in every case if he doesn't want to concede.
Cait_Sith
05-23-2007, 10:30 AM
I posted the rule above. 421 covers loops.
That does not answer my question of why the locked person loses. It just tells you what do to with a loop.
I thought I was pretty clear; I don't know how else to say it.
The Academy Ruins / Mindslaver "lock" can be and has been treated as a loop. The locked person loses as a result of the loop.
The player doing the loop says "I'm going to repeat this X times, where X is the number of cards in your library + 1. GG."
Same thing a player with Squirrel Nest + Earthcraft + Altar of Dementia says.
Nightmare
05-23-2007, 01:15 PM
I thought I was pretty clear; I don't know how else to say it.
The Academy Ruins / Mindslaver "lock" can be and has been treated as a loop. The locked person loses as a result of the loop.
The player doing the loop says "I'm going to repeat this X times, where X is the number of cards in your library + 1. GG."
Same thing a player with Squirrel Nest + Earthcraft + Altar of Dementia says.There's a difference, though. What happens if the loop is established in Game three, Turn 1 of turns? Assuming there is more than one card left in the locked player's library, it's no longer viable for the controller of the Slave Lock to say "I will repeat this each turn until I deck you." That game/match should justafiably end in a draw. For the judge to rule otherwise seems strange.
I covered that above, multiple times. If you are in extra turns, you can only use a turn-spanning loop for as many turns as you have.
Nightmare
05-23-2007, 03:17 PM
I covered that above, multiple times. If you are in extra turns, you can only use a turn-spanning loop for as many turns as you have.That doesn't address the ruling, Chuck. How can the Judge call it a win for the Slaver player if the lock can't possibly end in a victory?
That doesn't address the ruling, Chuck. How can the Judge call it a win for the Slaver player if the lock can't possibly end in a victory?
He can't (well, shouldn't).
Sorry if I was not clear.
Watcher487
05-23-2007, 03:32 PM
That doesn't address the ruling, Chuck. How can the Judge call it a win for the Slaver player if the lock can't possibly end in a victory?
Here I think is Chuck's reasoning.
The Slaver player is not going to lose (from drawing out) due to the fact that he Academy Ruin's the Slaver to the top of his library every turn. But the opponent will due to the fact that since the Slaver-lock is a loop (that the opponent can do very little about), the Slaver player can just say he's going to do the loop 10 billion times.
Now, don't get me wrong here, I don't like the idea of this BUT he does have some premise here. And since the fact that it's highly unlikely that you will be able to cast anything to break the loop (since the Slaver player will see it first and most likely cast it for you on something else).
I have played a lot of lock-decks and I have never heard of a lock-loop.
421.2. If the loop contains one or more optional actions and one player controls them all, that player chooses a number. The loop is treated as repeating that many times or until another player intervenes, whichever comes first.
421.2 doesn't apply because:
1) The consistency of the loop requires a [low] level of playskill to upkeep. (i.e. making them play out their instant draw spells).
2) The loop requires knowledge of the opponent's hand, which, while known by the player, is not known by the game at the time the loop is initiated.
3) A loop cannot include player choices. That is, if you say you want to repeat the MindSlaver lock 20 times the loop repeats either 20 times or until ANOTHER player interrupts the loop. You can't create a loop that has an optional action like "I'll look at your hand and play spells in each loop." So if you're looping 20 times and your opponent draws a brainstorm in loop 10 they can stop the loop during your turn and play the brainstorm and potentially stifle Academy Ruins or foil your plans.
The same goes for any lock deck. For instance if I have a Time Vault + Mizzium Transreliquat lock and a Millstone and Academy Ruins in my deck I can't just declare myself the winner even if my opponent has no cards in hand. This is because while I have certain knowledge as a player, the current game state doesn't have knowledge of the entire situation. I can say I'm going to take 20 turns and speed through my turns, but I can't say I'm going to loop until I draw a Millstone because I MUST choose a number. A Mindslaver lock is the same thing, you're saying you're going to continue the loop until your opponent draws something you want to play. You can't do that, you have to choose a number.
Again, if you have to argue that you win the game because of a Mindslaver loop, then you don't win. I can't declare myself the winner if I have a creature in play and my opponent has a Recycle in play w/ no cards in their hand or in play -- even though I could argue that I could make a 20 turn loop where I'm attacking my opponent every turn I still have to go through the motions.
Hidden Information (Informal)
Some information within a Magic game isn't known by all players. For example, face-down cards in any zone and the contents of players' libraries and hands are hidden information. If an effect "reveals" a card that's normally hidden, the card is public information as long as it remains revealed. See also Public Information.
HPC: You are not correct. Handling loops that span turns takes some judgment, but the unique Ruins/Mindslaver situation is pretty clear to me. Some judges might disagree; I think most agree with me. This situation did come up during the recent extended PTQ season and was handled as I describe.
1) Not correct.
2) Not correct.
3) Not correct.
2nd paragraph: Not correct.
3rd paragraph: Not correct.
I have yet to see a realistic situation proposed where the locked player would be able to have any input on the game.
You do not seem to grasp the situation. The only thing someone under this lock could possibly ever play is a 0cc instant spell that their opponent did not somehow cast or discard on the Mindslavered turn.
You are also disagreeing with basic loop rules, on which you could not be less correct.
Nihil Credo
05-23-2007, 05:26 PM
I agree with HPC. In the Mindslaver lock there are hidden variables - namely, the content of the opponent's deck - which prevent it from being a loop in the strict sense of the word; as HPC correctly noted, there are choices involved.
Edit: I see you're online, Akki. In light of your reply to HPC, please let me grab a link to a certain discussion on the subject before replying again.
Ewokslayer
05-23-2007, 05:27 PM
You do not seem to grasp the situation. The only thing someone under this lock could possibly ever play is a 0cc instant spell that their opponent did not somehow cast or discard on the Mindslavered turn.
Then technically won't the loop only be in effect when the slavered player's hand reaches their maximum hand size?
I agree with HPC. In the Mindslaver lock there are hidden variables - namely, the content of the opponent's deck - which prevent it from being a loop in the strict sense of the word; as HPC correctly noted, there are choices involved.
Except the choices HPC use as examples can't actually happen in the lock, drawing Brainstorm in loop 10 is not relevant as they can't cast it since they will be tapped out and they will have to discard it at the end of their turn anyway.
Once the slavered person's hand reaches its maximum hand size they are forced into the same actions every turn. Untap, Tap all mana sources, draw, discard drawn card, pass.
Then technically won't the loop only be in effect when the slavered player's hand reaches their maximum hand size?
True. I would still most likely let it loop even before the hand is full unless the player had a 0cc instant capable of doing something. Really doesn't matter either way; it's not going to take long to draw up to 7.
Nihil Credo
05-23-2007, 06:01 PM
Edit: Changed my mind. It is actually a definitely hard lock, with no decisions on either part, if the Mindslaver player remembers to state that every new card is to be discarded. I agree with Akki now.
At least until they print a Flashback Force of Will ;)
That thread seems to be within the context of MTGO, Nihil. Magic Online cannot handle loops; that's why decks like Project X do not work very well on it.
What I am telling you, though, is that the rules and rulings on loops and loops that span turns are established. If you want to argue, most of you are arguing with the rules.
Once you have established a repeatable action that your opponent either doesn't want to or can't interrupt, you are not required to "play it out". This is designed to save time.
Mindslaver is a borderline case, but unless you can come up with a reasonable scenario for the format you are playing, it can be looped.
Then technically won't the loop only be in effect when the slavered player's hand reaches their maximum hand size?
...
Once the slavered person's hand reaches its maximum hand size they are forced into the same actions every turn. Untap, Tap all mana sources, draw, discard drawn card, pass.
Once the game reaches this state where you can explicitly state all of your actions then 421.2 may apply. It is a special situation, but the judge should never declare a winner based on hidden information, he should let it play out especially since it should only take a couple minutes.
I admit I provided a poor example in #1 as all land will be tapped out. However it still stands that the loop must have a well defined set of actions which the MindSlaver player can't commit to until the opponent has 7 cards in his hand, or if he does, he can't change the loop once he's chosen a number of iterations. So if the loop is allowed when the opponent has 3 cards in hand and a Daze or Pact of Negation is drawn, the player that initiated the loop cannot stop the loop and play the Daze. Only the opponent may interfere with the fulfillment of the loop as per 421.2. If you say you're going to play cards during my turn w/ MindSlaver that's called playing the game and there's already a defined way of participating in that loop. So my first and third point stands as long as the player has less than 7 cards in hand or can perform an action during the MindSlaver's player's turn. And my second point stands against a player simply being declared a winner.
EDIT: I have changed my stance on being able to initiate the loop. I still feel until the player has 7 cards in hand and is just discarding their drawn card a loop can't be declared.
Few of the things you're saying really even make enough sense that I can respond to them other than to say that you are not correct. You seem to be missing some basic concepts.
I'm glad that I'm at least getting some generally agreement finally, at least.
I would appreciate it if you explain why my second and third paragraph are "not correct." I don't know if you're trying to say that they have no relevance to a MindSlaver lock, or if as a judge you'd allow them as loops, or if what I actually stated is incorrect according to the rules and why.
I took the time to write a post. If you're going to discount what I say at least have the decency to elaborate.
Fair enough.
The same goes for any lock deck. For instance if I have a Time Vault + Mizzium Transreliquat lock and a Millstone and Academy Ruins in my deck I can't just declare myself the winner even if my opponent has no cards in hand. This is because while I have certain knowledge as a player, the current game state doesn't have knowledge of the entire situation. I can say I'm going to take 20 turns and speed through my turns, but I can't say I'm going to loop until I draw a Millstone because I MUST choose a number. A Mindslaver lock is the same thing, you're saying you're going to continue the loop until your opponent draws something you want to play. You can't do that, you have to choose a number.
With Time Vault + Transreliquat, you can certainly create a loop. If you have a Millstone in play, you can loop and deck your opponent. If you need to draw a certain card, you can essentially just draw/discard until you get it, but that's a shortcut rather than a loop.
In the case of the Mindslaver loop, you do not care what your opponent is drawing - you're just drawing and discarding for him. If you wanted to draw something specific, that would again require shortcutting through his turns.
Again, if you have to argue that you win the game because of a Mindslaver loop, then you don't win. I can't declare myself the winner if I have a creature in play and my opponent has a Recycle in play w/ no cards in their hand or in play -- even though I could argue that I could make a 20 turn loop where I'm attacking my opponent every turn I still have to go through the motions.
In the case with Recycle you describe, that is absolutely a loop. You are repeating an action X times, and your opponent has no way to do anything about it.
Locutus
05-23-2007, 09:32 PM
At least until they print a Flashback Force of Will ;)
There are cards with non-mana Flashback costs, so it can never really be a loop unless the decklist of the slavered deck is known. Of course, it will always be better to just concede instead of showing your opponent your library if you can't do anything against the lock. Actually 'playing it out' should not take more than about a minute, so this discussion is quite unimportant anyway *g*
Van Phanel
06-04-2007, 11:08 AM
I totally agree with Locutus on the fact, that playing it out should never really be a problem, but i have to disagree with akki. As Locutus stated, the Mindslaver-lock can never be a loop. What if the slavered player draws a madness card for example? The loop would suddenly be stopped (okay, slightly modified, but still not go on like a loop should), by an outside action which can not happen per definition.
I also asked a german level-3 judge about that and he also said that it couldn't be considered a loop.
sammiel
06-04-2007, 11:28 AM
how are you going to pay madness costs when you are tapped out?
There are two instants with non-mana Flashback costs. Even if you are somehow playing Lava Darts, your opponent could just play them and then flash them back during the Minslaver turn.
Madness is optional. Your opponent can simply discard the card and ignore it.
Nice try. Got anything else?
freakish777
06-04-2007, 10:07 PM
How about Scryb Rangers (or other untap a creature effect) with creatures that tap for mana?
I once had an opponent not scoop once I went into Slaver recursion because I was at 1 and was convinced that I would make a mistake allowing him to "get in there" (I did at the beginning of the Slaver recursion, we called the judge over because in my upkeep I activated Academy Ruins naming Mindslaver, only to find it wasn't in my graveyard, having forgotten I did it on my previous turn, the judge ruled it was an illegal target, and gave me a procedural error minor). While at 3, he didn't scoop to making him activate a fetchland while he still had shockland left in his deck... I was a little surprised that he was comfortable with me looking at his entire deck. He did have 2 Scryb Rangers and Birds that allowed him to flash in another Scryb Ranger though...
Sure. If the person being Mindslavered has the ability to do something, you have to shortcut through the game until he doesn't anymore. I imagine he's going to run out of forests eventually.
And again, "he might make a mistake" is not an argument that's going to work for stopping shortcuts or loops.
Van Phanel
06-05-2007, 10:06 AM
Madness is optional. Your opponent can simply discard the card and ignore it.
Playing a card with madness is optional. Sure. But the trigger is not. And if a madness-card triggers the loop is slightly modified by an outside action. The choice of not playing the madness-card is an action that has nothing to do with the loop itself.
This can not happen to a loop.
It would by definition of a loop not be one anymore:
421.1. Occasionally the game can get into a state in which a set of actions could be repeated forever. These rules (sometimes called the “infinity rules”) govern how to break such loops.
I guess we all agree, that - if the slaver-lock was a loop - the "set of actions" described in the rule above would be the slavering and using ruins on slaver on one side and the draw, tap out and discard on the other side. Then if the slavered player draws a madness-card suddenly the "set of actions" is changed.
421.2. [...] The loop is treated as repeating that many times or until another player intervenes, whichever comes first.
So - if the slaver-lock was a loop - it would be repeated a number of times, as long as the slavered player doesn't intervene. But he can't, as his turn is controlled by his opponent and on his opponents turn he's holding known cards and is tapped out. Still something that is not part of the loop happens. How can that be?
Playing a card with madness is optional. Sure. But the trigger is not. And if a madness-card triggers the loop is slightly modified by an outside action. The choice of not playing the madness-card is an action that has nothing to do with the loop itself.
Madness does not trigger...
Anyways, can't you just state that whenever a madness card would be discarded you are not paying the cost? It makes sense that when your opponent does have an option on their turn it can interrupt the loop, but until/unless they do you can repeat it. The only way they can get the Scryb Ranger + Mana out is if both were in play before the lock, and if they were, you'd play it out until they cannot do anything on your turn. Then it's a loop.
b4r0n
06-05-2007, 03:59 PM
Madness does not trigger...
Actually, it does.
502.24a Madness is a keyword that represents two abilities. The first is a static ability that functions while the card with madness is in a player's hand. The second is a triggered ability that functions when the first ability is applied. "Madness [cost]" means "If a player would discard this card, that player discards it, but may remove it from the game instead of putting it into his or her graveyard" and "When this card is removed from the game this way, its owner may play it by paying [cost] rather than paying its mana cost. If that player doesn't, he or she puts this card into his or her graveyard."
Read the rule again. It triggers if you choose to remove the card from the game - it doesn't trigger otherwise.
b4r0n
06-05-2007, 06:58 PM
Right. I misunderstood what was being argued about.
Van Phanel
06-05-2007, 07:06 PM
I'm sorry, I actually remembered Madness wrong.
That does not change the content of my post however. It just is not a trigger, but a choice to not remove the madness-card which still can't be part of a loop.
If you're going to argue that, you might as well argue that since you have to choose a card to discard every turn it can't be a loop.
I don't agree, obviously.
Meeee
06-06-2007, 12:11 PM
So if it's in turns and the Slaver lock won't kill him it's considered a draw?What about a slaver lock established with only a few minutes left it seems like theres a good chance that the slaver player won't be able to kill the other person through whatever means before time is called, but he has established a lock and technically he has time for infinite turns. Those turns would have to be really short is that considered a game loss for the locked player or a draw since it will take the slaver player more time to deck or kill them then time and turns permits?
As noted before, in the case of extra turns, you only have X turns to work with. You can loop for as many turns as you wish, but no more than the number you have left. If the Slaver player can win in those turns great, otherwise too bad for him.
Other than that case, the situation is always the same. Time is irrelevant.
It's not "considered a game loss", the locked player loses because his opponent loops Slaver and kills him, most likely through being decked.
Van Phanel
06-12-2007, 05:06 PM
I wrote an e-mail about this to askthejudge@SCG and got the following reply:
I've given some more thought to my initial response a few days ago, and I have changed my opinion somewhat. There are a few, albeit very few, ways for the
Player B to break this lock. And there are a few ways that the Player A can goof it up. Each iteration of the loop is not the exact same. So I do not think that this is a loop in the traditional sense that you can choose a number and perform that many times.
Having said that, I do not think that the non-Mindslaver player has that many options and I woudl not allow them to play slowly at all. In all of the cases I've seen this interaction the non-Mindslaver player has chosen to concede when this combo was achieved. However if he or she did not concede, I'd watch the match for slow play. The non-mindslaver player does not get the chance to play slowly in purpose to run out the clock. In fact as his options are really limited, he can't use up the clock much at all.
-Chris
--------------------------------------------
On Jun 6, 2007, at 4:14 PM, Ritzkadon@aol.com wrote:
Hi,
I have a question about the rules regarding "infinite loops". The following thread on mtgthesource.com caused me to write this e-mail: http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5849
If you don't want to read through the whole thread, the discussion is essentially about the question if the Mindslaver-Lock can be considered a loop. Consider the following situation:
Player A has a Mindslaver, Academy Ruins and at least 12 other permanent manasources (enough to support the slaver-lock).
Player B has seven cards in hand and he has no chance to do anything about the slaver-lock in hand, play or graveyard.
Can player A initiate an "infinite loop" consisting of the following actions:
a) his upkeep: return Mindslaver via Ruins
b) his drawstep: draw Mindslaver
c) his mainphase: Play and activate Minslaver targeting player B.
d) end his turn
e) player B's turn: draw a card, tap player B out, discard the drawn card
until player B dies from decking.
Could you please not only give me a ruling, but also a short reasoning behind that?
Thanks in advance
Simon
------------------
Christopher Richter
aka kriz_riktr
DCI Level III Judge
Ask the Judge - Starcitygames.com
Moderator MTGNews.com
There actually was an earlier reply, where Chris Richter thought, that the slaver-lock could be looped, but two days later after some thought he sent me the above e-mail.
I think the most important part of this answer is the sentence "Each iteration of the loop is not the exact same."
You sure have to watch out for slowplay in such a situation, as the slavered players options are very limited, but the lock can't actually be looped.
PS: Isn't there an IRC-Channel #mtgjudge or something like that, where you can ask for official rulings? I have no IRC, so I can't go there, but if anyone of you guys could do so, ask for an official ruling and then quote that here, the whole discussion could be ended very fast.
The discussion (you call this a discussion?) isn't going to be "ended". This is not a black-and-white area - judgement is required. I gave my position on it. As I noted, other judges may disagree.
bigbear102
06-13-2007, 06:22 PM
At GenCon in 2005 I was playing Rabid Wombat against mono white Life.dec.
Game 1 went as such: I played 3 plains, he gained infinite life, I scooped.
Game 2 was: Me drop turn 4 Humility, he does irrelevant things like trying to kill me with a bunch of 1/1 dorks while I wrath and eventually cycle decree for the W.
Game 3: He comboes out early, gaining something like ten million life. I drop Exalted Angel and say go. He draws, discards, and says go. I attack during my turn. This goes on for about 4 turns until he calls the judge. He tries to declare an infinite loop. The judge rules against him, and he appeals to the head judge. Since this was GenCon there was a level 4 wandering around.
The judge asked me if I was able to do anything other than attack, and I said that "I wasn't sure" if I had anything else, with enough sarcasm that the level 4 laughed. He then told my opponent that as long as there was time in the round I would not lose the game unless I decked myself. Our decks were counted and I did have less cards than him due to plainscycling once and cycling a renewed faith.
This isn't the same as the slaver lock, but I just thought I would throw it out there.
PS: This was round 4 of a 5 round side event, and I only had 1 loss, so I wasn't going to scoop myself out of a a prize. I hate life.dec, and will never scoop a game to it. This guy was also pretty rude to me before the whole fiasco began.
freakish777
06-13-2007, 08:42 PM
At GenCon in 2005 I was playing Rabid Wombat against mono white Life.dec.
Game 1 went as such: I played 3 plains, he gained infinite life, I scooped.
Game 2 was: Me drop turn 4 Humility, he does irrelevant things like trying to kill me with a bunch of 1/1 dorks while I wrath and eventually cycle decree for the W.
Game 3: He comboes out early, gaining something like ten million life. I drop Exalted Angel and say go. He draws, discards, and says go. I attack during my turn. This goes on for about 4 turns until he calls the judge. He tries to declare an infinite loop. The judge rules against him, and he appeals to the head judge. Since this was GenCon there was a level 4 wandering around.
The judge asked me if I was able to do anything other than attack, and I said that "I wasn't sure" if I had anything else, with enough sarcasm that the level 4 laughed. He then told my opponent that as long as there was time in the round I would not lose the game unless I decked myself. Our decks were counted and I did have less cards than him due to plainscycling once and cycling a renewed faith.
This isn't the same as the slaver lock, but I just thought I would throw it out there.
PS: This was round 4 of a 5 round side event, and I only had 1 loss, so I wasn't going to scoop myself out of a a prize. I hate life.dec, and will never scoop a game to it. This guy was also pretty rude to me before the whole fiasco began.
Was this the same guy that you made record his life? Because that story when I heard the first time 1 and half or so years ago was awesome.
That's a completely different situation, yes.
Nihil Credo
10-13-2007, 07:28 PM
/me casts Necromancy on this thread.
The Mindslaver issue has appeared at Pro Tour: Valencia, where it was brought to the attention of the judging team (which included at least two Level 5 judges). Nate Price gave a detailed account of the ruling in his feature match coverage (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgevent/ptval07/fm8):
On Quentin's next turn, he transmuted the Tolaria West (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:autoCardWindow%28%27Tolaria_West%27%29) in his hand to get an Academy Ruins (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:autoCardWindow%28%27Academy_Ruins%27%29), which returned his previously Duress (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:autoCardWindow%28%27Duress%27%29)ed Mindslaver (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:autoCardWindow%28%27Mindslaver%27%29). He activated it and then called for a judge. This is where things get interesting. A few turns earlier, Quentin had asked the judge watching their match if he could step aside for a little conference. He took a short break and asked the judge a question I couldn't get close enough to hear. Apparently unsatisfied with the answer he received, Q waited until now to appeal to Jaap Brouwer. When Melissa asked what it was about, Quentin responded, channeling his inner Steven Hawking: "It's a matter of infinite turns. It's a time issue." Deep.
Let me break it down for you. Quentin had gotten to the point where he had Melissa locked in an infinite loop. He would recur Mindslaver (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:autoCardWindow%28%27Mindslaver%27%29) and activate it every turn from here out. He was going to leave Melissa with no untapped lands and no way of producing mana. Knowing that she had no free spells in her deck, Quentin was planning to disallow her priority for the rest of the game. Effectively, there was nothing she could do while Quentin built up his mana and waited to draw a threat.
To clarify how this works, I had a conversation with Jaap after the match had finished about shortening turns. Shortening turns is accomplished by means of shortcuts. I know, it's kinda simple. A shortcut in Magic is coming to an agreement with an opponent that an action is going to take place every time a certain trigger happens. In this case, Quentin was going to recur, pay for, and activate his Mindslaver (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:autoCardWindow%28%27Mindslaver%27%29) on every one of his turns. Shortcuts like this still have to take into account windows for opponents to respond. And most importantly, shortcuts can only be used if the opponent agrees.
This situation is the perfect example of when a shortcut could be useful in speeding up what otherwise might be a lengthy process. Q was going to take that action every turn in order to maintain his lock, and Melissa was never going to have priority unless he chose to let her. Since she agreed to the shortcut, Quentin was free to avoid having to go through the motions of regrowing, playing, and activating his Mindslaver (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:autoCardWindow%28%27Mindslaver%27%29) every turn. He simply paid the mana and put his Mindslaver (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:autoCardWindow%28%27Mindslaver%27%29) on top of his graveyard and it was assumed to have been done.
There are a few rules associated with shortcuts on the level Quentin was trying to take them. Jaap was brought in the make sure that Quentin followed all of the rules necessary and approved everything Quentin had told Melissa, on the condition that he still move cards from zone to zone. If he, or Melissa with her turn under control, was supposed to draw cards, he had to draw them. If he had to discard to get to the maximum hand size, it had to be done. This means that he couldn't simply say "I'm going to take every turn until these following conditions have been met." He had to go through the most rudimentary steps.
Magic players use shortcuts all the time, taking for granted what they are. If you've ever left a mana source tapped through your untap to pay for a cards upkeep, you've used a shortcut. This is just the same principle on a larger scale. Bear in mind that to use a shortcut, you have to have your opponent's consent (and it doesn't hurt to have a judge present either). Melissa was very sporting to understand that Quentin was going to be making all of her decisions for the rest of the game and to let him do it. She could have said no, but recognized that if he had infinite time, there was no way she could ever again participate in the game, let alone win. Very few players would be classy enough to let him use these shortcuts to try and legitimately get his win before the time limit expired, so hats off to Melissa for showing some real style.
Pinder
10-13-2007, 08:55 PM
That doesn't address the ruling, Chuck. How can the Judge call it a win for the Slaver player if the lock can't possibly end in a victory?
He doesn't, that's what Akki said. Forgive me if I'm interpereting this wrong, but I think the gist of it is:
If the Slaver/Ruins lock is established before the game goes to 5 turns, then the player with the lock doesn't have a finite number of turns in which to complete the loop, and can simply say 'X+1 times, where X is the number of cards in your library' as a shortcut to deck his opponent.
If the lock is established after the game has gone to turns, then the player with the lock only has a finite number of turns in which to continue the loop, and can only continue it for as many turns as is left in the game. If they win in that many turns, great, but it will most likely be a draw.
So, in general, lock before you go to 5 turns = win, lock after you go to 5 turns = draw.
This is because, as long as time hasn't been called, there is no rule in effect limiting the number of turns a game can have. Because the number of turns that will be in the game is indefinite, a player can claim any number of turns when handling a loop that spans multiple turns. If the number of turns is defined, however, they can only declare up to as many turns as are left in the game.
edit: Didn't notice that there were multiple pages. Either way.
I'd like to point out that what Nihil quoted above is now the most "official" way of handling it.
This is the first time this interaction has come up in a high-level event, and so the first time a definitive answer has been given. Also, since I posted last, policies on shortcuts and communication have changed.
I don't know all the details about how it was handled, but it was probably close to the best way to handle it given current policy.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.