Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 56 of 56

Thread: Rules about draws

  1. #41
    Member
    iOWN's Avatar
    Join Date

    Apr 2006
    Location

    Worcester/Boston, MA
    Posts

    422

    Re: Rules about draws

    Quote Originally Posted by Van Phanel View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Wiggl3s
    Ya, your such an amazing player iOwn (should be changed to iPwn FTW) you surpass me with your amazing chalice 1 skillzorz

  2. #42
    Chief Head Chief of the Department of Redundancy Department
    b4r0n's Avatar
    Join Date

    Dec 2005
    Location

    Massachusetts
    Posts

    198

    Re: Rules about draws

    Quote Originally Posted by iOWN View Post
    Madness does not trigger...
    Actually, it does.

    Quote Originally Posted by Comprehensive Rules
    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."
    Quote Originally Posted by Volt View Post
    And make no mistake, a Hulk Flash dominated metagame is shit on a plate. Sure, it made for an interesting GP and possibly even attracted a few curious newcomers who wondered "I wonder what it's like to eat shit?" or "I wonder what it's like to make other people eat shit?" That's all fine and dandy, but I'll be glad to say "Good riddance!" to Flash when I wake up tomorrow.

  3. #43

    Re: Rules about draws

    Read the rule again. It triggers if you choose to remove the card from the game - it doesn't trigger otherwise.
    “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

  4. #44
    Chief Head Chief of the Department of Redundancy Department
    b4r0n's Avatar
    Join Date

    Dec 2005
    Location

    Massachusetts
    Posts

    198

    Re: Rules about draws

    Right. I misunderstood what was being argued about.
    Quote Originally Posted by Volt View Post
    And make no mistake, a Hulk Flash dominated metagame is shit on a plate. Sure, it made for an interesting GP and possibly even attracted a few curious newcomers who wondered "I wonder what it's like to eat shit?" or "I wonder what it's like to make other people eat shit?" That's all fine and dandy, but I'll be glad to say "Good riddance!" to Flash when I wake up tomorrow.

  5. #45
    Hold on! I have a 12/12
    Van Phanel's Avatar
    Join Date

    Mar 2007
    Location

    Germany
    Posts

    401

    Re: Rules about draws

    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.

  6. #46

    Re: Rules about draws

    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.
    “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

  7. #47
    Member
    Meeee's Avatar
    Join Date

    Apr 2007
    Location

    Rochester
    Posts

    38

    Re: Rules about draws

    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?

  8. #48

    Re: Rules about draws

    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.
    “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

  9. #49
    Hold on! I have a 12/12
    Van Phanel's Avatar
    Join Date

    Mar 2007
    Location

    Germany
    Posts

    401

    Re: Rules about draws

    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.

  10. #50

    Re: Rules about draws

    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.
    “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

  11. #51
    EPIC awesomeness
    bigbear102's Avatar
    Join Date

    Mar 2004
    Location

    Baldwinsville/Oswego, NY
    Posts

    962

    Re: Rules about draws

    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.
    EPIC Syndicate

    Quote Originally Posted by nitewolf9 View Post
    I personally like spell snare against 2 cc spells, but it really isn't good against spells that aren't 2 cc. With engineered explosives, it is a good card to have against non-land permanents with converted mana cost equal to what you set the explosives to, but it doesn't hit those that have differing cc. Plus, engineered explosives has sunburst.
    -My hero

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Agent View Post
    For some odd reason, I find shackles to be superb against creature oriented decks. Of course, the logic behind it is the sooner you can play and activate shackles the better. Although, shackles definitely has it's late game uses as well. It basically counts as a threat and a removal spell simultaneously which is relevant against "not quite shroud" creatures. Also, you should really be running a playset of engineered plagues against merfolks. They can dismantle tribal decks so run more of them.
    -I don't think this one was a joke...

  12. #52
    Insane Anarchists Get Mean
    freakish777's Avatar
    Join Date

    Aug 2005
    Location

    NY State
    Posts

    1,644

    Re: Rules about draws

    Quote Originally Posted by bigbear102 View Post
    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.

  13. #53

    Re: Rules about draws

    That's a completely different situation, 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

  14. #54
    I clench my fists and yell "anime" towards an uncaring, absent God
    Nihil Credo's Avatar
    Join Date

    Mar 2007
    Location

    59°50'59.11" N, 17°34'55.69" E
    Posts

    4,702

    Re: Rules about draws

    /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:

    On Quentin's next turn, he transmuted the Tolaria West in his hand to get an Academy Ruins, which returned his previously Duressed Mindslaver. 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 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 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 every turn. He simply paid the mana and put his Mindslaver 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.
    YOU'RE GIVING ME A TIME MACHINE IN ORDER TO TREAT MY SLEEP DISORDER.

  15. #55
    Serious Rider
    Pinder's Avatar
    Join Date

    Oct 2005
    Posts

    4,962

    Re: Rules about draws

    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    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.
    Team Info-Ninjas: Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy.
    My Videos: Chiron Beta Prime, Flickr, Re: Your Brains
    Quote Originally Posted by Slay
    Man Kills Seven at popular gaming tournament, buries in backyard. "I was only trying to get thresh," he says.
    -Slay

  16. #56

    Re: Rules about draws

    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.
    “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)