Infinite Loops and Inevitable Outcomes

[lep]

This isn't a specific card interaction question but more of a generic rules question. If the active player establishes an infinite loop, say a loop that mills an opponent, but the opponent has a Emrakul, the Aeons Torn in their deck, is a valid shortcut stating that the loop will continue until the last remaining card in the opponents library is Emrakul? This result is inevitable if given enough loops but under the current game rules it is very vague.

Under older comprehensive rules a conditional terminator was not valid, only a number. So at the point of establishing an infinite loop the active player had to name a number and the action is said to be repeated that amount of times.

714. Taking Shortcuts

714.1. 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.

714.1a 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.

714.1b 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.

714.2. Taking a shortcut follows the following procedure.

714.2a 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.

714.2b 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.

714.2c 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.

[Michael Keller]

This isn't a specific card interaction question but more of a generic rules question. If the active player establishes an infinite loop, say a loop that mills an opponent, but the opponent has a Emrakul, the Aeons Torn in their deck, is a valid shortcut stating that the loop will continue until the last remaining card in the opponents library is Emrakul? This result is inevitable if given enough loops but under the current game rules it is very vague.

Under older comprehensive rules a conditional terminator was not valid, only a number. So at the point of establishing an infinite loop the active player had to name a number and the action is said to be repeated that amount of times.

If you decide to (as you said) "mill out" an opponent's library somehow creating an "infinite loop", and Emrakul, the Aeons Torn is a card that is included in that opponent's library, he would go to the graveyard at some point during that process. When that situation occurs, his triggered ability would then go on the stack. Once it does (depending on what kind of "loop" you are referring to; "infinite" or not, each situation is different in its own right), the ability would have to then resolve before Emrakul's triggered ability eventually resolves on the stack. When that situation occurs and there are no more cards in that player's library, each player receives priority in being able to respond to that trigger somehow or some way. If the trigger is left sustained by both players, his ability will resolve and the player's library that was being "milled" will then shuffle his or her graveyard back into his or her library.

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.

The player who has priority now must make a different game choice than the originally "proposed" shortcut that was insinuated for the "loop" that was created. The loop will have an eventual "ending" with both players receiving priority to respond to the shortcut and ultimately coming to an "end" of the shortcut with a different game action being imposed.

This seems to be what I am directly interpreting. If a player is trying to stall a game out by using a supposed "infinite" loop, it is at the judge's discretion whether or not warnings or game losses could be handed out for the actions that are being taken.

You could gain a zillion life off an "En Kor" combo, for example, but you cannot draw the game.

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.

You or your opponent needs to be able to advance the game-state in a situation like this. If you choose not to, a judge should (and probably will) be called and he or she will make a decision based on those actions.

[lep]

If you decide to (as you said) "mill out" an opponent's library somehow creating an "infinite loop", and Emrakul, the Aeons Torn is a card that is included in that opponent's library, he would go to the graveyard at some point during that process. When that situation occurs, his triggered ability would then go on the stack. Once it does (depending on what kind of "loop" you are referring to; "infinite" or not, each situation is different in its own right), the ability would have to then resolve before Emrakul's triggered ability eventually resolves on the stack. When that situation occurs and there are no more cards in that player's library, each player receives priority in being able to respond to that trigger somehow or some way. If the trigger is left sustained by both players, his ability will resolve and the player's library that was being "milled" will then shuffle his or her graveyard back into his or her library.

My question more revolved around when Emrakul resolves and the opponents graveyard is shuffled back into their library. If this process is repeated enough times at some point Emrakul will be the last card remaining in the opponents deck. Given an infinite amount of these loops the result is inevitable although the probability of it happening is fairly low.

[luma]

My question more revolved around when Emrakul resolves and your library is shuffled back. If this process is repeated at some point Emrakul will be the last card remaining in the opponents deck. Given an infinite amount of these loops the result is inevitable although the probability of it happening is fairly low.

No, the result is not inevitable. There is always a possibility that Emrakul is not the last card, so it will never be absolutely certain even if you have an arbitrarily large number (there is no such thing as "infinite" in this game) of tries.

[freakish777]

Last I knew, you couldn't say "statistically at some point your Emrakul will be the only card in your deck, so let's short cut to that scenario" unless you were able to mathematically prove that it would (not could) happen within 100 iterations of your loop (I don't believe this is in the Comp Rules, but rather the DCI Floor Rules, it is possible it's at the head judges discretion, or that it's outdated since I heard this over 5 years ago).

Shortcuts are for shortcutting loops to save time. For instance:

Helm of Awakening + Sensei's Divining Top in play + Sensei's Divining Top on top of Library -> "I'm going to tap to draw with Top. Then I'm going to put the Top that's now in my hand into play. Then I'm going to activate that Top to draw other top. I'm going to do this 1 billion times to create 1 billion storm, is that fine?"

You have 3 green mana and Survival of the Fittest in play and a creature in your hand. You activate Survival "I'm activating Survival, assuming all my activations are good, I'm going to get Squee, and then get Iona, and then get Loyal Retainers, are all my activations going to resolve, I want to cut down on time spent shuffling, is this fine?"


I think you're out of luck on this one, since statistically speaking, it's possible for your opponent's deck to randomly have Emrakul always be the first card to get milled.

[cdr]

This isn't a specific card interaction question but more of a generic rules question. If the active player establishes an infinite loop, say a loop that mills an opponent, but the opponent has a Emrakul, the Aeons Torn in their deck, is a valid shortcut stating that the loop will continue until the last remaining card in the opponents library is Emrakul? This result is inevitable if given enough loops but under the current game rules it is very vague.

Under older comprehensive rules a conditional terminator was not valid, only a number. So at the point of establishing an infinite loop the active player had to name a number and the action is said to be repeated that amount of times.

No, that's not a loop, nor is it shortcuttable. There was a thread recently that covered that area quite well: http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...-kill-too-long

[Malchar]

Might as well toss this in while the topic is fresh. There's no guarantee that Emrakul will be the last card in your opponent's library before time runs out. In fact, there's never a guarantee that Emrakul will be the last card in your opponent's library. From a practical standpoint, you should just use Leyline of the Void or something. There's a ton of corner-case situations where you or your opponent might have cards that would completely change the situation though. However, if you're generalizing, then you won't be able to make this shortcut.

[Parax]

If my oppoent had gained "infinte life" and we agreed that his life would be G. Then i start my own infinte loop of damage, do i just have to do G+1 to him? And since my infinte loop was after his, i get the upper hand, even if both were infinte loops.

Creating creatures with Kiki/Pestermite would have to be G/2 creatures, right?

[mchainmail]

If my oppoent had gained "infinte life" and we agreed that his life would be G. Then i start my own infinte loop of damage, do i just have to do G+1 to him? And since my infinte loop was after his, i get the upper hand, even if both were infinte loops.

Creating creatures with Kiki/Pestermite would have to be G/2 creatures, right?

He chooses a value for G when he's in his combo. On your turn, you can combo and choose another value for G (to kill the opponent, probably higher)

[jrsthethird]

What if the opponent can go off again in response?

[Malchar]

Then he can choose a number that's even larger.

[jrsthethird]

That doesn't solve the problem if you can go off again and choose a number larger than that.

[cdr]

714.3. 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.

The active player always loses in a repetition fight. You cannot "go off" more than once.