Patron Wizard with infinite mana VS Infinte mana

[Offler]

Just say that I have infinite mana and possibility to untap a wizard and there is Patron Wizard under my control.

Oponnent has infinite mana. He casts a spell.

I react, produce infinite mana and declare that i have tapped and untapped a wizard 100 times to activate ability which say "pay 1 or the spell is countered".

opponent declares he pays all the mana.

I declare that i raise the amount of mana to be paid.

and this can go on forever.

Also there are two variants:
a) spell being cast will kill me if resolve
b) spell being cast will not kill me even if resolve.

How would such game end? Probably a draw, or the rules say something different.

[Beatusnox]

Ill edit in the rule number if I find it.


EDIT: Got it backwards. Looks like the active player has to stop the loop.

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.

[Offler]

when i read this in the morning it gave me serious headache... Now its better.

If its my opponents turn, he is the non-active player?

For me it seems like... you can activate the ability of Patron Wizard (or other wizard) any number of times, but if opponent can pay for it with infinite mana, you are not allowed to repeat the process after that.

Even with the rule here its bit... problematic to determine who started the loop.

*start reading the rule again*

ok..

1. Player plays spell with infinite mana
2. me: Activates Patron Wizard with infinite mana
3. Player pays the mana.
4. me: cannot activate the Patron wizard again.

[Julian23]

If its my opponents turn, he is the non-active player?

No. If it his turn, he is the active player.

It's actually quite simple: If he casts a spell during his turn, it will not resolve. If he casts it during your turn, it will resolve.
At least from what I can tell from the rule quoted above.

Under no circumstances will it matter if such a spell might kill you.

[cdr]

Julian23 is correct.

[Forbiddian]

Under no circumstances will it matter if such a spell might kill you.

What does it mean, exactly, if a spell "might" kill you?

[Julian23]

From the opening post:


Also there are two variants:
a) spell being cast will kill me if resolve
b) spell being cast will not kill me even if resolve..

Just wanted to clarify that it doesn't matter whether you think a spell might kill you or not. In fact, it's just a subjective evaluation. Consier cards like Goblin Game or Ad Naueam. You can't always know what kind of gametate a spell will actually produce. Not that it really mattered even if you could tell.

[Offler]

the mentioned situation is very rare, but it might occur. I just want to describe two variants where the spell being played is not important too much and when the spell is going to finish the game. I tried to use this evaluation to describe how important the result could be...

In two player game it refers to active player (now I understand the formulation).

Step by step explanation

a) active player plays a spell
b) Patron wizard activated infinitely (non active player)
c) Patrons ability resolved
d) Active player pays the mana upon resolution
e) Patron Wizard activated ability infinitely.
f) Active player MUST choose other choice - not to pay the mana
g) The spell is countered.

However the first point where the gamestate repeated was when the counter ability is resolved and paid, stack is cleared except the first spell. there will be used argument from the other side in manner "its pointless to counter the spell, because he will be able always pay the mana" or "you already reacted on the first spell but the gamestate did not changed, so you are not allowed to react again" (basically using old stacking rule where the stack resolves at once, not one by one).

I am planning to add Patron wizard in some time but this will be problematic... Knowledge of such rule means, that I will be able to use him bit more effective.