Unbounded loops and stalling

[Klazam]

I was wondering, could i do this:


I have a infinite loop involving tapping and untapping with no possible way to win present (no cards in hand).

Example: Llanowar Elves enchanted with Freed from the Real, along with Orochi Leafcaller in play, I tap the Elf to get :g:, use the Leafcaller to convert the :g: to :u:, which i use to untap the Elder with the aura.

It is game two, I'm up by 1-0 in the round, 30 mins left,

Could I insist on manually performing the combo without a shortcut for thirty mins (assuming the opponent doesnt concede) to get the time to run out, then have the game result in a draw, allowing me to win 1-0-1 in the match? Or would that fall under stalling?

To avoid the stalling penalty, I'm tapping and untapping the Llanowar Elves as fast as possible.

Or does the rules require me to use a shortcut in that situation?

(Also, how do i use card tags?)

[cdr]

No, you can't do that. You have to be advancing the game state, or you'll be guilty of slow play or stalling. Keep in mind that there's also a huge difference between Slow Play and Stalling - Slow Play is unintentional, Stalling is intentional and cheating. For something that can be made into a loop, you can pick a number and it's treated as if you repeated the loop that many times.

Card tags are currently .

[Julian23]

To avoid the stalling penalty, I'm tapping and untapping the Llanowar Elves as fast as possible.

Stalling is not about how fast you perform a certain action. It is about your intention, which in this case is abusing the time limit.

[Klazam]

What if it was a fyndhorn elder? I'm advancing the gamestate by making infinite mana now.

Could you quote the rules that requires me to use a shortcut in that case?

I was just wondering about the answer to this

[Bayentethene]

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.

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.
Example: In a two-player game, the active player controls a creature with the ability "{0}: [This creature] gains flying," the nonactive player controls a permanent with the ability "{0}: Target creature loses flying," and nothing in the game cares how many times an ability has been activated. Say the active player activates his creature's ability, it resolves, then the nonactive player activates her permanent's ability targeting that creature, and it resolves. This returns the game to a game state it was at before. The active player must make a different game choice (in other words, anything other than activating that creature's ability again). The creature doesn't have flying. Note that the nonactive player could have prevented the fragmented loop simply by not activating her permanent's ability, in which case the creature would have had flying. The nonactive player always has the final choice and is therefore able to determine whether the creature has flying.

714.4. If a loop contains only mandatory actions, the game is a draw. (See rules 104.4b and 104.4f.)

714.5. No player can be forced to perform an action that would end a loop other than actions called for by objects involved in the loop.
Example: A player controls Seal of Cleansing, an enchantment that reads, "Sacrifice Seal of Cleansing: Destroy target artifact or enchantment." A mandatory loop that involves an artifact begins. The player is not forced to sacrifice Seal of Cleansing to destroy the artifact and end the loop.

714.6. If a loop contains an effect that says "[A] unless ," where [A] and [B] are each actions, no player can be forced to perform [B] to break the loop. If no player chooses to perform [B], the loop will continue as though [A] were mandatory.


See also:
6.1. Cheating — Stalling
Definition
A player intentionally plays slowly in order to take advantage of the time limit. If the slow play is not intentional,
please refer to Tournament Error — Slow Play instead.
Example
A. A player has two lands in his hand, no options available to significantly affect the game, and spends
excessive time "thinking" about what to do to eat up time on the clock.
[B]B. A player is ahead in games and significantly slows down his pace of play so the opponent has little chance
to catch up.
C. A player playing slowly appeals a warning in an attempt to gain advantage by having more time to make a
decision.
D. A player intentionally exceeds the pregame time limit before the third game in an attempt to make it harder
for his opponent to win in time.
E. A player losing a game starts slowing down the pace of play in an attempt to run out the clock.

Penalty
Disqualification



TL;DR Since the loop you're employing contains no mandatory actions, and since you did not describe any use for the infinite mana that you are producing, were I sitting across from you at an event, I would call a judge for stalling. This is my position on this issue, and may not reflect the views of other members of the Source, or of the DCI. :)

[Klazam]

Players with priority may suggest a shortcut, both players have to agree on the shortcut, shortcuts can be used. Nowhere does it say that shortcuts has to be used.

I'm not exactly slowing down the pace of play, I'm still playing normally, and quickly, doing actual in game actions.

[cdr]

Is there a part of "no" you don't understand? :)

Such behavior is extremely undesirable, so it's not allowed. Judges can and will force you to accept shortcuts or face penalties. The F6 key shortcut on Magic Online was implemented specifically to stop what you're describing from happening on there.

[Klazam]

Thanks.

[dakkon]

We had a different situation but a similar question come up a while back. Figure I post it here and see what you guys think:

"I have no win conditions in my deck (they got Jester's Capped or something). However, I have Time Vault + Voltaic Key in play, and I have Timetwister and Regrowth in my library. It's my turn, my opponent is tapped out. They will never get another turn, and I can draw my deck, play all my permanents, and continually Regrow Timetwister as much as I want. I can't kill them, but I can't deck. What happens? Lee Sharpe says it is a draw. Toby Elliot, allegedly a level 5 judge, says I lose."

[rufus]

No, you can't do that. You have to be advancing the game state, or you'll be guilty of slow play or stalling. Keep in mind that there's also a huge difference between Slow Play and Stalling - Slow Play is unintentional, Stalling is intentional and cheating. For something that can be made into a loop, you can pick a number and it's treated as if you repeated the loop that many times.

From a fair play perspective, the distinction between loops that are active and passive seems bizarre. Why is casting Necromancy on Worldgorger Dragon be any more sporting or fair than making infinite copies of Fatestitcher with Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker? I understand the issue of slow play, but why shouldn't a player be able to say 'I loop until you stop me, or we draw.' IIRC you can 'choose' to loop infinitely too as long as the choice is forced- for example if Squire and Opalescence are in play, and you play Dance of Many, I think you can keep having the Dance of Many tokens copy the original Dance of Many and not the Squire.

[cdr]

We had a different situation but a similar question come up a while back. Figure I post it here and see what you guys think:

"I have no win conditions in my deck (they got Jester's Capped or something). However, I have Time Vault + Voltaic Key in play, and I have Timetwister and Regrowth in my library. It's my turn, my opponent is tapped out. They will never get another turn, and I can draw my deck, play all my permanents, and continually Regrow Timetwister as much as I want. I can't kill them, but I can't deck. What happens? Lee Sharpe says it is a draw. Toby Elliot, allegedly a level 5 judge, says I lose."

I assume you asked in #mtgjudge? Assuming Toby told you directly (and not someone claiming Toby said something), you should listen to him. Lee Sharpe has not been a judge in many years and so is not necessarily the best source of info.

Taking turns by itself does not necessarily advance the game state. If you are taking the same few actions over and over, you are almost certainly not advancing the game state, and if you are only using Timetwister and Reset, it's likely the actions you're taking can even compromise a loop.

Either way, you're going to have to advance the game state by doing something different. This most likely means either allowing your opponent to take turns (and maybe deck him if you can survive), or letting yourself be decked.


From a fair play perspective, the distinction between loops that are active and passive seems bizarre. Why is casting Necromancy on Worldgorger Dragon be any more sporting or fair than making infinite copies of Fatestitcher with Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker? I understand the issue of slow play, but why shouldn't a player be able to say 'I loop until you stop me, or we draw.' IIRC you can 'choose' to loop infinitely too as long as the choice is forced- for example if Squire and Opalescence are in play, and you play Dance of Many, I think you can keep having the Dance of Many tokens copy the original Dance of Many and not the Squire.

You seem to be misunderstanding something. You can repeat a loop as much as you like (that's why it's a loop), but loops exist to save time - you can't avoid using a loop to waste time, that's stalling. Pick a number, the loop happens that many times, move on. "I loop until we draw" makes no sense - loops take zero time.

If you have a way to end a loop by making a different choice in the loop itself - choosing a different Animate Dead target, copying something else with Dance of Many - then you're forced to do so.

[dakkon]

Thanks for the responses. This "loop" is a bit more complicated since there are no mandatory actions within each turn and the loop itself is random in execution. I understand at some point you need to advance the game state and that would mean giving my opponent a turn.

However, I use "at some point" loosely because I should still be allowed to sculpt my hand in anticipation of ending the loop. Can I tell the judge "I'm going to Twister + Regrowth and take extra turns until I have these 7 cards in hand (counterspells) after which I will allow my opponent to take his turn?" If he plays a threat and I deplete my counter wall, can I resume my combo and re-sculpt that same hand?

[rufus]

You seem to be misunderstanding something. You can repeat a loop as much as you like (that's why it's a loop), but loops exist to save time - you can't avoid using a loop to waste time, that's stalling. Pick a number, the loop happens that many times, move on. "I loop until we draw" makes no sense - loops take zero time.

As far as I can tell, the rules for shortcuts are optional:

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.
Moreover the shortcut procedure described in the rules doesn't actually preclude a player from repeating the loop after the shortcut is resolved, since a different course of action is only required if the proposed shortcut is cut off.

The competition rules don't actually seem to proscribe indefinite iterations of Opalescence/Dance of Many or Skill Borrower/Kiki Jiki,Mirror Breaker. That leaves the issues of timely play, sportsmanship, and judges' instruction in the Tournament Rules.

Considering that sportsmanship is about intent, there cannot be a distinction between deliberately starting a passive indefinite loop, or actively going through one. Timely play is also an issue, but a player who repeatedly takes a step in the loop, and then offers a draw is clearly trying to move forward to the next game. (One could just as easily, and validly, argue that the other player is stalling by refusing to accept the draw.) That leaves the judge's instructions a.k.a. the 'because I said so' rule, but, as with the sportsmanship issue, I can't see any distinction between a player deliberately looping step by step, or taking a single action with the same intent.


If you have a way to end a loop by making a different choice in the loop itself - choosing a different Animate Dead target, copying something else with Dance of Many - then you're forced to do so.
That's clearly not true if the loop is continued through the passive branch of the choice.

714.5. No player can be forced to perform an action that would end a loop other than actions called for by objects involved in the loop.
...
714.6. If a loop contains an effect that says "[A] unless [B]," where [A] and [B] are each actions, no player can be forced to perform [B] to break the loop. If no player chooses to perform [B], the loop will continue as though [A] were mandatory.
So selecting a particular legal target, or making a choice in modal spells isn't explicitly covered.

Using a more meta-game notion of 'meaningful' game state leads to some strange results if, for example, both players have instant speed, repeatable lethal damage combos. (Yeah, I know that's quite unlikely.) A scenario like that seems like it should be a draw, but, because piling more lethal damage on the stack is no 'meaningful change' after a while, rule 714.3 would indicate that the inactive player wins instead.

[cdr]

Thanks for the responses. This "loop" is a bit more complicated since there are no mandatory actions within each turn and the loop itself is random in execution. I understand at some point you need to advance the game state and that would mean giving my opponent a turn.

However, I use "at some point" loosely because I should still be allowed to sculpt my hand in anticipation of ending the loop. Can I tell the judge "I'm going to Twister + Regrowth and take extra turns until I have these 7 cards in hand (counterspells) after which I will allow my opponent to take his turn?" If he plays a threat and I deplete my counter wall, can I resume my combo and re-sculpt that same hand?

That would be fine - as long as you have a deterministic (not involving, say, milling+Gaea's Blessing) end point that you can articulate to a judge, you're ok. You also have to play at a reasonable pace while doing so to avoid Slow Play.

[cdr]

As far as I can tell, the rules for shortcuts are optional:

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.

Moreover the shortcut procedure described in the rules doesn't actually preclude a player from repeating the loop after the shortcut is resolved, since a different course of action is only required if the proposed shortcut is cut off.

The competition rules don't actually seem to proscribe indefinite iterations of Opalescence/Dance of Many or Skill Borrower/Kiki Jiki,Mirror Breaker.

The rules do require you to end loops if something in the loop allows you to make a different choice to do so.

714.5. No player can be forced to perform an action that would end a loop other than actions called for by objects involved in the loop.


That leaves the issues of timely play, sportsmanship, and judges' instruction in the Tournament Rules.

Considering that sportsmanship is about intent, there cannot be a distinction between deliberately starting a passive indefinite loop, or actively going through one. Timely play is also an issue, but a player who repeatedly takes a step in the loop, and then offers a draw is clearly trying to move forward to the next game. (One could just as easily, and validly, argue that the other player is stalling by refusing to accept the draw.) That leaves the judge's instructions a.k.a. the 'because I said so' rule, but, as with the sportsmanship issue, I can't see any distinction between a player deliberately looping step by step, or taking a single action with the same intent.

The Magic Tournament Rules is meant to be comprehensible by players. That significantly limits the amount and detail of policy that can be contained in it, and even if it didn't, it's impossible to contain policy for all corner cases in documents. This is definitely a corner-case situation. This sort of policy is passed down from senior judges. I am relaying this policy to you.

Policy is that you are not allowed to avoid using a loop when you want to repeat actions, and especially so with the intent to eat up time. This is accomplished by defining such behavior as Slow Play or Stalling and assigning you Slow Play penalties (warning and up) or Stalling penalties (DQ) if you do not comply. This policy exists because the DCI finds such behavior very undesirable, as I think most people will agree.


Using a more meta-game notion of 'meaningful' game state leads to some strange results if, for example, both players have instant speed, repeatable lethal damage combos. (Yeah, I know that's quite unlikely.) A scenario like that seems like it should be a draw, but, because piling more lethal damage on the stack is no 'meaningful change' after a while, rule 714.3 would indicate that the inactive player wins instead.

The rules handle that case already, and you found the answer.

There can exist situations where neither player can or wants to advance the game state, but such situations are corner cases of corner cases.