Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: A shortcutting question - infinite Emmy shuffles

  1. #1

    A shortcutting question - infinite Emmy shuffles

    I have a question about whether or not a combo shortcut would be legal or accepted in a game or tournament situation. Hypothetically, I want to run the Cephalid Illusionist combo (where I can mill my library 3 at a time at instant speed any number of times I want) and I also want to play a 1-of Emrakul, the Aeons Torn. Could I shortcut to the situation where after a resolved Emrakul shuffle that puts 40 cards in my library, Emrakul is the card on the bottom of my library? After enough iterations where no game states change, putting 39 cards in my graveyard would eventually leave me with an Emrakul on bottom.

    Again, this question is more of a hypothetical, and not something I really intend to do. However, if someone with knowledge on this kind of thing thinks it's fine, I'd be interested to know.

  2. #2

    Re: A shortcutting question - infinite Emmy shuffles

    If you can't say how many iterations you are going to resolve, you can't shortcut it. You can't say 'I'll iterate through this shortcut until condition X', it has to be 'I'll iterate through this shortcut X times'.

  3. #3
    itsJulian.com - Legacy Videos
    Julian23's Avatar
    Join Date

    Apr 2007
    Location

    Munich / Germany
    Posts

    3,141

    Re: A shortcutting question - infinite Emmy shuffles

    If you can't produce the exact game state after the number of iterations you have chosen, you can't use the proposed "shortcut". Since you have no way of knowing after how many iterations your desired game state will be produced with 100% certainty, you can't do what you're trying to do.

    If you want to read more on why this doesn't work, it's an issue that was talked about a lot when the "Four Horsemen" deck tried existing.
    The seven cardinal sins of Legacy:
    1. Discuss the unbanning of Land Tax Earthcraft.
    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!).

  4. #4

    Re: A shortcutting question - infinite Emmy shuffles

    All right, that answers it nicely guys. Thanks!

  5. #5

    Re: A shortcutting question - infinite Emmy shuffles

    Here's the rule:

    http://www.yawgatog.com/resources/magic-rules/#R719

    719.2a. 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.

    Note "that repeats a specified number of times" and "predictable results of the sequence of choices".
    “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

  6. #6

    Re: A shortcutting question - infinite Emmy shuffles

    Quote Originally Posted by cdr View Post
    Here's the rule:

    http://www.yawgatog.com/resources/magic-rules/#R719

    719.2a. 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.

    Note "that repeats a specified number of times" and "predictable results of the sequence of choices".
    That's part of it, yeah. I'm actually working on a comprehensive article on this issue. Here's a link, if people want to make some comments or edits.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/xrhayfa2q7nw98s/Loop Article DRAFT 7-28-16.pdf?dl=0

  7. #7

    Re: A shortcutting question - infinite Emmy shuffles

    Quote Originally Posted by MaximumC View Post
    That's part of it, yeah. I'm actually working on a comprehensive article on this issue. Here's a link, if people want to make some comments or edits.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/xrhayfa2q7nw98s/Loop Article DRAFT 7-28-16.pdf?dl=0
    I don't think 2012 qualifies as recently anymore.

    Fans of the Four Horseman will be quick to point out that, if the deck was given infinite time, then it eventually would reach the necessary conditions to win.
    Should probably be:

    Fans of the Four Horseman will be quick to point out that, the combo is "almost certain" to reach the necessary conditions to win.
    ...

  8. #8

    Re: A shortcutting question - infinite Emmy shuffles

    I think I mean the former. The argument advanced by 4H players is that, sure, they can't tell you for sure that they will win if they were allowed to repeat the combo any finite number of times. There's ALWAYS a chance each iteration fails. However, it's also true that, if you identify a specific probability of failure Delta, then the 4H player can give you a number of iterations that will bring the chance of failure below Delta.

    For example, assume a 25% failure rate each time you go off. Say someone asks the 4H player to prove that the chances of failing to go off are less than 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000007%. Well, the 4H player just does some math, notices that 0.25 times itself 100 times is about 6.22 x 10^-61, and reports back that 100 iterations will do it. In fact, there's no Delta you can name that the 4H player cannot get under.

    This is similar to the analysis of limits in mathematics, and the same idea holds, and it's why I used the shorthand of, given infinite time, the 4H player will win.

    Quote Originally Posted by rufus View Post
    I don't think 2012 qualifies as recently anymore.
    Point taken. I guess some of the audience considers 4 years a long time... I remember when Ronald Reagan was President, so it doesn't seem like too long ago to me. :)

  9. #9

    Re: A shortcutting question - infinite Emmy shuffles

    Quote Originally Posted by MaximumC View Post
    I think I mean the former. ...
    "Almost surely" is a notion from math.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely

    If you're feeling particularly masochistic, you could try to address the Omniscience / Petals of Insight rulings, but those don't really make any sense to me so you'd be on your own.
    Last edited by rufus; 10-06-2016 at 10:33 AM. Reason: Fixed a card name.

  10. #10
    Hymn-Slinging Mod
    H's Avatar
    Join Date

    Sep 2008
    Location

    The U-easy-anna
    Posts

    3,413

    Re: A shortcutting question - infinite Emmy shuffles

    Quote Originally Posted by rufus View Post
    "Almost surely" is a notion from math.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely

    If you're feeling particularly masochistic, you could try to address the Omniscience / Pearls of Insight rulings, but those don't really make any sense to me so you'd be on your own.
    You mean Petals of Insight, right?

    EDIT: Here is the thread we had on it.
    "The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
    Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order

  11. #11

    Re: A shortcutting question - infinite Emmy shuffles

    Quote Originally Posted by H View Post
    Yeah, I meant petals.

  12. #12
    Site Contributor
    apple713's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jan 2012
    Location

    Manhattan, NY
    Posts

    2,086

    Re: A shortcutting question - infinite Emmy shuffles

    Quote Originally Posted by cdr View Post
    Here's the rule:

    http://www.yawgatog.com/resources/magic-rules/#R719

    719.2a. 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.

    Note "that repeats a specified number of times" and "predictable results of the sequence of choices".
    There are a few things that i don't like about how this rule is worded.

    "It can't include conditional actions, where the outcome of a game event determines the next action a player takes." This line seems confusing for two reasons. First an example of the bolded part would be helpful because I can't imagine what it means. Second, loops are based on conditional statements. Specifying a number of iterations to complete is in fact a condition. Im saying this from a programming perspective where loops actually exist. So for example.

    do
    {
    /* code */
    } while ( condition )

    specifying a number here would be like while X < 2, and each iteration increases x by 1.


    "predictable results of the sequence of choices" should be clarified that the predictable results must be exact. So for example, if you were milling your deck 3 at a time, you would need would need to predict the exact graveyard order. Although graveyard order isn't important in standard (i think you can rearrange it) in legacy graveyard order is important. Adding this short line would prevent the combo from working because the player could never predict the order of the graveyard at the time that emrakul shows up.


    "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."

    "may" suggests that these are merely suggestions and not a inclusive list. the drafters should consider "must" if they want this list to be inclusive.


    719.2b. 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.

    I read this line as the opponent can accept my proposed shortcut and jump to the point he wants but I cannot. Seems like a double standard. If my opponent can interrupt my loop I should be able to as well.
    Play 4 Card Blind!

    Currently Playing
    Legacy: Dark Depths
    EDH: 5-Color Hermit Druid

    Currently Brewing: [Deck] Sadistic Sacrament / Chalice NO Eldrazi

    why cards are so expensive...hoarders

  13. #13

    Re: A shortcutting question - infinite Emmy shuffles

    Quote Originally Posted by apple713 View Post
    ...

    I read this line as the opponent can accept my proposed shortcut and jump to the point he wants but I cannot. Seems like a double standard. If my opponent can interrupt my loop I should be able to as well.
    If you like you can think of it this way:

    The opportunity to interrupt the short cut goes around the table once, and the player that proposes the short cut is the one that gets the first opportunity to interrupt. (Since a player isn't going to interrupt his own proposed course of actions, the issue is academic.)

  14. #14

    Re: A shortcutting question - infinite Emmy shuffles

    @apple713 - It's a necessary evil. Shortcuts are what allows you to win with deterministic, infinite combos in the first place. You would not have time to make one million Pestermites otherwise. In exchange for this, if you want to shortcut a process like that, you need to give the opponent the sole option to interrupt it. Once you get to that point and the opponent acts, you are free to respond, of course. Perhaps you counter their well-time removal spell.

    Think about how profoundly unfair it would be if you gave the infinite combo player a way to interrupt as well. I announce I'm going to make a million Pestermites. My opponent wants to interrupt the combo at a specific point to kill my Kiki-Jiki. Should I then be allowed to back up further, KNOWING what they want to do, so I can stop it pre-emptively? Perhaps with Silence or something? That's not fair in the slightest.

    Quote Originally Posted by rufus View Post
    "Almost surely" is a notion from math.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely

    If you're feeling particularly masochistic, you could try to address the Omniscience / Petals of Insight rulings, but those don't really make any sense to me so you'd be on your own.
    Obviously, timing rules of a tournament will always trump strict application of the Rules, but here's my take on it.

    1. This is a loop, since you are putting Petals on the stack and back in your hand. True, you're stacking part of your library, but this is comparable to putting a token creature into play with Kiki-Jiki. Each time around the loop you generate a benefit but the actual machine of the loop goes in a circle forever.

    2. Assuming your end goal is to get 3 specific cards on top of your library, it is a deterministic loop because there is a specific, finite number of repetitions - 410,758 - which will get you those cards on top. (I'm not re-doing the math, but rather trusting the judge and your thread on this issue.)

    3. Therefore, you are allowed to propose this shortcut.

    This exposes one interesting additional interaction with the Shortcut and Slow Play rules, though, and I'm glad you brought it up.

    There is no express requirement that the game state be exactly predictable at all points during the loop, just at the end of the proposed shortcut. (@rufus, I know it certainly seems to ASSUME that you can define the state, but in fact the rules don't expressly require this.) Definite number of iterations, definite resulting state. So, what happens when someone has Field of Dreams in play and wants to interrupt your proposed shortcut if your win condition is ever on top of your library, because they want to mill it away. What happens there? Well, luckily, the Slow Play rules ALSO do not require you to define the board state during the loop. So, if this comes up, it seems like your opponent would basically tell you, "I want to interrupt your loop at all points where Petals are on the stack to see if I want to respond." And you'd functionally go through the loop rather than shortcutting it.

    So, you get to play a game of "flip the top cards" until you mill what you want or until they get the cards they want on top. And then a judge would come in and stop you because tournament time trumps everything else! (Perhaps employing the rules prohibiting "Impossible Actions?")

  15. #15
    Member
    GoboLord's Avatar
    Join Date

    Apr 2010
    Location

    Germany
    Posts

    143

    Re: A shortcutting question - infinite Emmy shuffles

    Quote Originally Posted by cdr View Post
    Here's the rule:

    http://www.yawgatog.com/resources/magic-rules/#R719

    719.2a. 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.
    Based on this, doesn't the Omniscience / Petals of Insight loop require the player who executes the loop to specify the number of times he wants to repeat it?
    From my understanding "I repeat the loop until I find X in my top 3 cards" is a "conditional action".
    Mountain Caverns, Lackey, Go.

    If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchanges our apples, we each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange our ideas, we each have two ideas.

  16. #16
    itsJulian.com - Legacy Videos
    Julian23's Avatar
    Join Date

    Apr 2007
    Location

    Munich / Germany
    Posts

    3,141

    Re: A shortcutting question - infinite Emmy shuffles

    Isn't it deterministic if the number of cards in the deck isn't a multiple of 3?
    The seven cardinal sins of Legacy:
    1. Discuss the unbanning of Land Tax Earthcraft.
    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!).

  17. #17
    Member
    GoboLord's Avatar
    Join Date

    Apr 2010
    Location

    Germany
    Posts

    143

    Re: A shortcutting question - infinite Emmy shuffles

    Quote Originally Posted by Julian23 View Post
    Isn't it deterministic if the number of cards in the deck isn't a multiple of 3?
    The point remains that, at the point at which the player suggest the loop, he usually doesn't know how many times he will have to repeat the loop; i.e. he can't specify a number.
    Mountain Caverns, Lackey, Go.

    If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchanges our apples, we each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange our ideas, we each have two ideas.

  18. #18

    Re: A shortcutting question - infinite Emmy shuffles

    Quote Originally Posted by GoboLord View Post
    The point remains that, at the point at which the player suggest the loop, he usually doesn't know how many times he will have to repeat the loop; i.e. he can't specify a number.
    If you want a rather lengthy explanation of why it's a valid loop, you can see here.

    The tl;dr is that it takes at most m = n^2 + n iterations to sort the deck however you want, so you can name m. It's deterministic (all intermediate states known), unlike mill+shuffle "combos".
    “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

  19. #19
    Member
    GoboLord's Avatar
    Join Date

    Apr 2010
    Location

    Germany
    Posts

    143

    Re: A shortcutting question - infinite Emmy shuffles

    Thanks for the reference, this was interesting to read.
    So, what I understand is that as long as the Player who casts Petal of Insight can describe the loop to a judge in a way that the judge approves it, shortcutting is allowed.
    Mountain Caverns, Lackey, Go.

    If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchanges our apples, we each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange our ideas, we each have two ideas.

  20. #20

    Re: A shortcutting question - infinite Emmy shuffles

    Quote Originally Posted by GoboLord View Post
    Thanks for the reference, this was interesting to read.
    So, what I understand is that as long as the Player who casts Petal of Insight can describe the loop to a judge in a way that the judge approves it, shortcutting is allowed.
    Since it's a legal loop, yes.
    “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

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)