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.Originally Posted by k u j a
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.
If you are "mindslaver locked", you lose. Maybe you should think twice before calling someone a "douche bag".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.
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.
Last edited by cdr; 05-22-2007 at 11:41 PM.
“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
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.
“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
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?
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:
or102.2a A player still in the game wins the game if all of that player's opponents have lost the game.
Since 102.2b obviously isn't true, that means his locked played must have lost.102.2b An effect may state that a player wins the game.
To lose a person must:
or102.3a A player can concede the game at any time. A player who concedes loses the game immediately.
or102.3b 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.)
or102.3c 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.)
or102.3d 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.)
From what the person described the lock was established, but none of the victory or defeat conditions listed above were met.102.3e If a player would both win and lose simultaneously, he or she loses.
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.
Team Multi-Grain - We're wholesome.
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.
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.
“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
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?
Team Multi-Grain - We're wholesome.
I posted the rule above. 421 covers loops.
“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
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) 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.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?
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.
“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
Much appreciated. I always wondered about things like that.:)
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.
That does not answer my question of why the locked person loses. It just tells you what do to with a loop.
Team Multi-Grain - We're wholesome.
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.
“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'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.
“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
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?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote