The more I have thought about this the more I believe that actually no, you should not be able to loop this. However my opinion is invalidated by the fact that Scott Marshall has replied to my inquiry with this ruling made by Gavin Duggan (L3). I would thus feel comfortable using this in an event under this understanding.
"tl;dr - Yes. State that you're going to cast it 410,758 times, and then you're you're guaranteed to have the three cards you want in a row. No math needed at the event; 410,758 will always get you what you want.
Long version: Fortunately, the number isn't theoretical, it's finite and fixed. You need to specify the entirety of the final result to avoid the “Four Horsemen rule”, but you can do that by saying that the outcome is “these three cards in a row, followed by the rest of the deck sorted by collector number.”
Unlike the Four Horsemen combo, which requires a random process (shuffling), that arrangement can always be achieved in at most 410,758 castings of Petals of Insight (assuming there are less than 60 cards in the library, and the number of cards is not divisible by 3). So if you cast Petals 410,758 times, your deck will be sorted in the
desired order. It probably needs far less (duplicate cards, chance pre-ordering, less than 59 cards in the deck, etc) but if the deck ends up sorted in less than the maximum number of castings, you just go through the remaining iterations without changing the order of the deck… so 410,758 will always do.
So,
* the number of iterations is finite and fixed
* the outcome is deterministic
* executing these loop iterations takes zero play time, same as any other loop (See the linked August 2013 ruling)
That that's good enough for the loop rule to apply. Once you've done so, you just need to manually cycle through the deck to put the three cards you want on top. That can require up to one more casting of Petals for each card in the deck, each time putting the top three cards directly onto the bottom in the same order if they're not the
three you want. This part can't be covered by the loop rules, but takes less than a minute and the game state is advancing towards a fixed end, so it's not slow play."
Originally Posted by Technics
The formal shortcut rule effectively requires that all intermediate states to be definite. Here's the rules text:
Consider the following scenario:716.2b 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.
716.2c 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.
Alice: I'm going to cast petals of insight 410,758 times in a row.
Bob: I want to do something different after the 410,705th time you cast it.
Now, what order is player Alice's library in at that time, and, if Alice and Bob don't know, how can they follow the instructions in 716.2c? For bonus points: do we care whether Alice changes the way she sorts depending on what ending point Bob choses, and if she shouldn't be able to, how do we prevent it?
That's the Comprehensive Rules. The thing that trips Four Horsemen is the definition of Slow Play in the IPG, which says "It is also slow play if a player continues to execute a loop without being able to provide an exact number of iterations and the expected resulting game state." The IPG doesn't require you to be able to fully describe every intermediate state, and that's a good thing -- otherwise many obviously-legal loops would become illegal. For example, the Melira/Viscera Seer loop to scry a card of your choice to the top of your library is perfectly deterministic, and perfectly legal. If we required everyone to fully describe intermediate game states it wouldn't be, though, since that would require you to know in advance the thing the loop tells you (the order of the cards in your library).
ubernostrum, that makes no sense. Your Melira/Viscera Seer example doesn't work because you're misunderstanding what it means to "fully describe an intermediate game state". One can totally pull off the combo even if the opponent wants to interact after N iterations of scrying as each intermediate game state is fully describable: it's up to N known cards at the bottom with a number of unknown cards in-between + 1 or 0 cards on top. The game doesn't care about whether players know which exact cards are in-between, as long as both players are aware of their order.
That's why I think your example is a bad comparison because unlike with the Melira combo, players aren't aware of the order of cards in libraries after say the 300,00th loop, thus unable to fully describe an intermediate game state.
The seven cardinal sins of Legacy:
1. Discuss the unbanning ofLand TaxEarthcraft.
2. Argue that banning Force of Will would make the format healthier.
3. Play Brainstorm without Fetchlands.
4. Stifle Standstill.
5. Think that Gaea's Blessing will make you Solidarity-proof.
6. Pass priority after playing Infernal Tutor.
7. Fail to playtest against Nourishing Lich (coZ iT wIlL gEt U!).
Unless you have a pen, paper, and an abundance of time, you can't fully describe the results of the Melira combo either. Both suffer from the same "problems". One is just on a much, much grander scale.
The tournament I started is over. You should join the next one.
No they don't. Melira is still physically performed, so there is no need for pen and paper to write down anything. At any moment the opponent wants to interrupt the process, he can without the need for anyone to consult notes.
The seven cardinal sins of Legacy:
1. Discuss the unbanning ofLand TaxEarthcraft.
2. Argue that banning Force of Will would make the format healthier.
3. Play Brainstorm without Fetchlands.
4. Stifle Standstill.
5. Think that Gaea's Blessing will make you Solidarity-proof.
6. Pass priority after playing Infernal Tutor.
7. Fail to playtest against Nourishing Lich (coZ iT wIlL gEt U!).
Melira can be manually performed, but in the cases where resolution does not equal scoop, a shortcut is usually taken. Forty-five cards left in library. Activate forty-five times and effectively "look" at your entire library. Then activate however many more times you need to in order to find a particular card. Can you do it manually? Sure, but it'll burn the clock, and no one wants that.
Also, why does the hypothetical of someone randomly interjecting after X iterations keep coming up? I understand it's a pain in the ass, but regarding the legality of the Petals combo, I don't see where it has bearing. If you want a hypothetical, try manually resolving the Melira combo with a ten thousand card deck.
The tournament I started is over. You should join the next one.
If the shortcut is OK, then how does this scenario get resolved?
Alice: I cast petals 410,758 times to stack my deck.
Bob: That's fine, but I want to cast something after you've cast it the 410,703th time, but it's still on the stack.
I'm bringing it up because it's an example of a problem that comes up if we treat "petals until X" as a shortcut. Cutting off a proposed loop after some number of iterations should be legal, but creates a poorly defined game state unless all intermediate states in the loop are well-defined.
You can not only "can" do it manually, but have to. That's how the Scry effect is resolved. In no competitive game will you ever see anyone just pick up his/her library and cut their deck at whatever position they want to. Besides that, you can easily go 45 cards in an average 20 seconds if you're just looking for a single card.
You can easily resolve Melira with a ten thousand card deck by just declaring that you will just leave whatever card is on top, on top. By declaring that, the game state is always fully and easily constructable at any iteration of the loop. If you actually wanna scry, you're running into the same trouble that Petals of Insight does, even though it's much less of a mess.Also, why does the hypothetical of someone randomly interjecting after X iterations keep coming up? I understand it's a pain in the ass, but regarding the legality of the Petals combo, I don't see where it has bearing. If you want a hypothetical, try manually resolving the Melira combo with a ten thousand card deck.
The seven cardinal sins of Legacy:
1. Discuss the unbanning ofLand TaxEarthcraft.
2. Argue that banning Force of Will would make the format healthier.
3. Play Brainstorm without Fetchlands.
4. Stifle Standstill.
5. Think that Gaea's Blessing will make you Solidarity-proof.
6. Pass priority after playing Infernal Tutor.
7. Fail to playtest against Nourishing Lich (coZ iT wIlL gEt U!).
I mean, what I described above is actually the legal shortcut. You can't treat your deck like a toy and pick it up and set it down willy-nilly, but establishing the parameters of the combo and then effectively "search"ing to a cut in your library is a perfectly valid method of resolution.
The tournament I started is over. You should join the next one.
If the other player does not want to interrupt you and you have n cards left in your deck, you can use the shortcut : scry 2*n times. The first n times you scry on bottom to see your deck and then you do the cut where you want. So it is not illegal to see your whole deck before cutting.
This is not the premise we are are discussing this under.
Jellydonut argues that because the Melira Combo shortcut is legal, so should be Petals of Insight looping. What he misses is that this is a non sequitur. Unlike with Petals of Insight, the Melira game state is always fully constructable. Even if your opponent for whatever reason allows you to see your deck first and then decides to disrupt you after (N*2)-x iterations, you can always just quickly count to the hidden cards up to that point. With Petals of Insight however, you can't tell what the library will look like after a too large number of iterations if a shortcut is allowed.
The seven cardinal sins of Legacy:
1. Discuss the unbanning ofLand TaxEarthcraft.
2. Argue that banning Force of Will would make the format healthier.
3. Play Brainstorm without Fetchlands.
4. Stifle Standstill.
5. Think that Gaea's Blessing will make you Solidarity-proof.
6. Pass priority after playing Infernal Tutor.
7. Fail to playtest against Nourishing Lich (coZ iT wIlL gEt U!).
Because the Melira player hasn't specified whether the cards will be put on top or bottom, I'm not sure that's technically true.
Suppose that Alice has Melira / Viscera Seer in play, and has used a fetch land to search this turn, and 45 cards in the library and announces, "I'm going to use Viscerra Seer to scry 90 times."
And Bob responds with "I'll cast Archive Trap after the 89th time you scry."
Since Alice hasn't specified whether she'll be leaving cards on top, how can we be sure she's not influenced by knowing that Bob means to interrupt her?
And, to be fair, so is Petals of Insight. It can just take a really, really long time to reach the necessary state. Which is the entire point of an indefinite loop and a shortcut. When I brought up using the Melira combo in conjunction with a ten thousand card deck, I didn't do so just to take a jab at manual resolution. I also brought it up to show that a shortcut is a shortcut no matter big or small.
Right above the rules rufus quoted is the following text...
And right above that is the requirement of "mutually understood". Although it's absolutely Bob's prerogative to interrupt Alice, when Bob says to Alice "I'm going to interrupt you at the 410,703 mark", it's already been established by the players what that obscure middle-mark would be. There's no shock. No water hazards.716.1a 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.
The tournament I started is over. You should join the next one.
I don't think that consensus has been established, and it might well be the case that neither of the players "know the intent" sufficiently to confidently get to an intermediate state, and we also have judges (or quotes from judges) asserting that "it's a legal shortcut" without establishing that there is agreement about intent between the players. This isn't about a situation where both players agree about what's going on.
I can describe a scenario in which that's made explicit:
Alice: I'm going to cast Petals of Insight 410,758 times to sort my library.
Bob: I don't understand what you mean. Please play it out for me.
Alice: Judge!
Judge: What?
Alice: I want to shortcut Petals of Insight to sort my deck. Look, there are 44 cards in my library, so Gavin Duggan says I can sort it.
Judge: OK that's a legal shortcut.
Bob: But I don't understand how Alice will sort her library.
Judge: Don't worry, it's all legal. Go ahead Alice.
Alice: OK, I'm going to cast Petals of Insight 410,758 times to sort my library.
Bob: Wait! I want to do something when the 205,379th casting is on the stack. Judge, please put Alice's library in the appropriate order.
Judge: <Has no idea what order the cards should be in.> Hmm...
The problem is that the intermediary states are only "known" to the Petals player, assuming he uses a well defined algorithm. When the other player decides to stop the loop he has no way to be sure his opponent won't change his sorting algorithm unless he had defined it before hand but this gives an advantage to the opponent because he'll most likely know the failure points where the combo can be disrupted with an hypothetical Archive Trap or Grindstone. This say nothing about the difficulty from knowing a given state in a tournament setting without electronic devices and a fast running clock.
According to my testing it can easily take up half an hour to manually sort a deck in a tournament setting with a simple sorting algorithm. Maybe Matt Tabak will come with a solution eventually.
Why do you want to respond after the 410,703 time? If you have a reason for responding after the deck is in a certain intermediate state, surely you're capable of describing that state.
That's a cute scenario you made up, but also completely false. None of that would happen.
We know exactly what order the cards will be in - a certain 3 on top, the rest by collector number (or whatever other criteria).
And again, why do you care about the 205,379th casting other than desperately trying to claw for a way to not accept a valid loop?
“It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.”
-David DeLaney
Bob really wants to cast Archive Trap when the top 13 cards of Alice's library include all her Wishes and no Emrakuls. (Suppose he has an answer to Emrakul.) Is there such a point in the loop, and does Bob get to know when it is?
What if Bob wants to counter Petals of Insight, and wants to do that at the point in the loop where Alice's deck is in the worst possible configuration (say, the maximum number of lands on top that will occur during the loop)?
The library is a hidden zone, so no, you don't know - short of having something that's revealing the top card(s) of the library. If you happen to know the exact contents and order of the deck before the loop (unlikely since anything that reveals it it likely to involve a shuffle, but not impossible), you as the opponent could figure out at what point in the specified sorting criteria certain cards would be on top and respond at that point.
An exception is when part of the sorting criteria is "X, Y, and Z cards on top" - then you can respond at the end of the loop knowing that those three cards are on top. You can make an educated guess on the order of the rest based on what you think is left in their deck and the sorting criteria chosen.
Again, you don't know that unless you have some way of having knowledge of the order of the deck. This has zero to do with this particular loop. This is something you as an opponent have to deal with when responding to any effect that's manipulating a hidden zone.What if Bob wants to counter Petals of Insight, and wants to do that at the point in the loop where Alice's deck is in the worst possible configuration (say, the maximum number of lands on top that will occur during the loop)?
“It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.”
-David DeLaney
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
