Helm Combo vs. Progenitus

[LennonMarx]

Suppose I have Rest in Peace + Helm of Obedience and go to exile my opponent's library, but it contains some number of Progenitus (or Blightsteel Colossus, or Legacy Weapon, etc). Both Progenitus and Rest in Peace are applying replacement effects to the card going to the graveyard, so, does Progenitus end up exiled and my opponent with no library, or is the game a draw because the Progenitus keeps getting shuffled back in, or is it some other result? Also, does it matter whose turn it is (i.e. is the result different if I combo out on my turn vs. on his turn)?

[Koby]

When two replacement effects are fighting to apply on a card, its controller gets to determine the result. Progenitus' controller can choose to have it reshuffle (Pro's replcement) or become exiled (RIP's replacement).

616.1. If two or more replacement and/or prevention effects are attempting to modify the way an event affects an object or player, the affected object's controller (or its owner if it has no controller) or the affected player chooses one to apply, following the steps listed below. If two or more players have to make these choices at the same time, choices are made in APNAP order (see rule 101.4).

As for the interaction:
Helm of Obedience
Artifact, 4
{X}, {T}: Target opponent puts cards from the top of his or her library into his or her graveyard until a creature card or X cards are put into that graveyard this way, whichever comes first. If a creature card is put into that graveyard this way, sacrifice Helm of Obedience and put that card onto the battlefield under your control. X can't be 0.
10/1/2008: You put the creature card onto the battlefield even if you can't sacrifice Helm of Obedience (because it's left the battlefield by the time its ability resolves, for example).
10/1/2008: If an effect like that of Leyline of the Void prevents cards from being put into your opponent's graveyard, the process described in the first sentence of Helm of Obedience's effect will never stop. Your opponent's entire library will be exiled, even if X is 1.

Assuming the choice is to reshuffle every time Progenitus is revealed, the entire library will be milled under Helm's effect. Progenitus will see itself going to the graveyard, and replace the movement with a reshuffle everytime. The result will be that player's library in exile except for Progenitus which is now in the library. Progenitus will remain as the last card in the library and continue to get milled.

Since this is an uncontrolled loop, a choice will have to be made to break that loop. The choice to exile Progenitus will be forced. It is an unbounded loop otherwise.

End result: no library, Progenitus exiled.

EDIT: clarified

[Tammit67]

Assuming the choice is to reshuffle every time Progenitus is revealed, the entire library will be milled under Helm's effect. Progenitus will see itself going to the graveyard, and replace the movement with a reshuffle everytime. The end result will be that player's library in exile except for Progenitus which is now in the library. The process ends with that player's library being exiled except for Progenitus which is the library.

The helm continues to mill until x cards are in put into the GY or a creature is put into the gy, or there are no cards left to mill.

If progenitus is shuffled in after each reveal, then he is in the library, so how does the exit condition of helm get applied? I need clarification

[lochlan]

Why is this a thread? There are enough answers out there for Leyline/Helm, which is the exact same interaction.


When two replacement effects are fighting to apply on a card, its controller gets to determine the result.

But they also have to progress the game state. Infinitely looping Progenitus' shuffle effect is stalling. When you have two choices and one results in an infinite loop, you eventually have to stop choosing it.


The end result will be that player's library in exile except for Progenitus which is now in the library. The process ends with that player's library being exiled except for Progenitus which is the library.

This is not correct--after all, how could this be the case? You don't stop milling with Helm, period. The Progenitus player doesn't get the option of keeping Progenitus in their library. When it's the only card, it continues to replace going to the graveyard with either going to the library or being exiled.


If progenitus is shuffled in after each reveal, then he is in the library, so how does the exit condition of helm get applied? I need clarification

The Progenitus player has two options when Prog. goes into the graveyard: exile or library. Because continuing to choose the library option results in an infinite loop, to progress the game state they eventually are forced to choose exiling the card with Rest in Peace.

[Koby]

Clarified my previous post. Thanks for catching the lapse lochlan.

[cdr]

Good answer by lochlan. Please watch the tone, though - the aggression is hardly necessary.

[lochlan]

Please watch the tone, though - the aggression is hardly necessary.

I honestly don't know what you're referring to.

[cdr]

Why is this a thread? There are enough answers out there for Leyline/Helm, which is the exact same interaction.

This can be left off; it's quite antagonistic and sets a bad tone for the rest of the post. This forum is here for "dumb" questions.

[Freggle]

This can be left off; it's quite antagonistic and sets a bad tone for the rest of the post. This forum is here for "dumb" questions.

I have a dumb question. Why does this very interaction cause a draw on Magic Online? ...does it have something to do with the chess clock or more to do with poor programing?

[Technics]

I have a dumb question. Why does this very interaction cause a draw on Magic Online? ...does it have something to do with the chess clock or more to do with poor programing?

Poor Programming. There are MANY infinate loops that cause MTGO to break, when there are rules interactions that should be applied, and are not.

[HammafistRoob]

And people pay for that? Yikes. No wonder they chased away Cockatrice. IMO they should've hired that kid instead of threatening him. We want Garfield back!¡!

[Koby]

I have a dumb question. Why does this very interaction cause a draw on Magic Online? ...does it have something to do with the chess clock or more to do with poor programing?

Poor programming and an artificial implementation of complex tournament rules. Loops and shortcuts are easy to perform in person, but must be deterministic on the MTGO client. Unbound loops (such as LSV's famous 3 O-ring loop) does cause a draw on both MTGO and in paper. If neither player can perform moves that would break up the loop, the game is locked into mandatory actions and is considered a draw.

Same applies to Worldgorger Dragon + Animate Dead if Dragon is the sole creature that Animate Dead can target.

[rufus]

I have a dumb question. Why does this very interaction cause a draw on Magic Online? ...does it have something to do with the chess clock or more to do with poor programing?

To me, it seems like the player who has Progenitus should be able to (and should) chose the draw by always selecting 'reshuffle':


716.5. 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.

716.6. 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.

[Tammit67]

To me, it seems like the player who has Progenitus should be able to (and should) chose the draw by always selecting 'reshuffle':

Sure, but that's not how the rules work

[Koby]

Sure, but that's not how the rules work

Correct, the player could make the choice to either reshuffle (default action), or exit the loop by exiling Progenitus. Choosing to shuffle Progenitus back in would result in a repeated game-state without advancing the game. The choice would need to be to exile Progenitus and break the loop.

**EDITED*

[redsai]

What if the library consisted of multiple Progentius (and/or other cards with the same ability?)

Are the looping rules clear on that too?

[Koby]

What if the library consisted of multiple Progentius (and/or other cards with the same ability?)

Are the looping rules clear on that too?

Same idea, but now with 2 choices instead of one.

[redsai]

Same idea, but now with 2 choices instead of one.

Not trolling, but what if my Libaray consists of:

2 Progenitus
1 Legacy Weapon
49 Island

And my hand consists of:

1 Mountain


If I keep taking the required exiles and optional shuffles, the game state will likely end up here:
Library

2 Progenitus
1 Legacy Weapon


Hand

1 Mountain

It is unknown (to my opponent, and possibly myself if other conditions are met beforehand) if my actions generate an identical game state (An apparent requisite for 716.3 to apply.) Thus, is it therefore impossible to say that my actions are an infinite loop?

(Does this change if I propose a "shortened" version of the loop that involves me shuffling and revealing until I flip my Mountain? [or cardname in my hand] ?)

[Koby]

Shuffling your deck is not option. If you do not exile Progenitus or Legacy Weapon, they are forced to be shuffled into the deck as part of their replacement effect.

Again, reiterating:
716.5. 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.

EDIT: Repeating the choice to shuffle in does not advance the game state. The only other choice breaks this loop, so you must chose to this eventually. All the cards will be exiled.

[Freggle]

Correct, the player could make the choice to either reshuffle (default action), or exit the loop by exiling Progenitus. Strategically, this could be bad for the player. They are also not forced to take this non-default action. Default action would result in a draw; while the non-default could result in a loss.

Okay, I thought I got this, but now I'm confused. We are now saying that the result of the game should be a draw if the player chooses not to break the loop on the account that the loop is infinite?

I'd like an answer for paper Magic and online. The difference being that online each player has their own respective clock online. Online shouldn't the player choosing whether to shuffle or not loose as a result of the time loss for the choice to reshuffle or not indefinitely?

[redsai]

Shuffling your deck is not option. If you do not exile Progenitus or Legacy Weapon, they are forced to be shuffled into the deck as part of their replacement effect.

Again, reiterating:
716.5. 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.

If you do not (as an optional choice) interfere with the loop; the game will result in a draw.


I think I mistyped my post a little, I meant

required exiles of non Progenitus/Weapon cards and optional shuffling in Progentius/Weapon cards

Basically, every time I'm given an Option, I always choose "Shuffle this card in".

[Koby]

Okay, I thought I got this, but now I'm confused. We are now saying that the result of the game should be a draw if the player chooses not to break the loop on the account that the loop is infinite?

I'd like an answer for paper Magic and online. The difference being that online each player has their own respective clock online. Online shouldn't the player choosing whether to shuffle or not loose as a result of the time loss for the choice to reshuffle or not indefinitely?

Not should, but would result in an infinite unbound loop. This is treated by the game rules as a draw.

I cannot speak for MTGO specifically because I am not sure how the programmers handled this unbound loop. Remember that MTGO is only an implementation of the MTG rule book; and while it's 99% correct, not every interaction is programmed correctly.


I think I mistyped my post a little, I meant

required exiles of non Progenitus/Weapon cards and optional shuffling in Progentius/Weapon cards

Basically, every time I'm given an Option, I always choose "Shuffle this card in".

The default action would be to shuffle Progenitus into your deck. The result of the Helm of Obedience/ Rest in Peace interaction would be a library consisting of Progenituses and Legacy Weapons. You would need to make the choice to exile any of these remaining cards (selecting to replace the "put in graveyard" with "exile" form RIP as opposed to "shuffle back in" with Progenitus) in order to break the loop. Since the default choice results in a repeated game-state, you will need to break the loop and exile Progenitus/Legacy Weapon.

EDIT/Clarification: Net result: no library and all cards exiled.

[Freggle]

Not should, but would result in an infinite unbound loop. This is treated by the game rules as a draw.

I cannot speak for MTGO specifically because I am not sure how the programmers handled this unbound loop. Remember that MTGO is only an implementation of the MTG rule book; and while it's 99% correct, not every interaction is programmed correctly.



The default action would be to shuffle Progenitus into your deck. The result of the Helm of Obedience/ Rest in Peace interaction would be a library consisting of Progenituses and Legacy Weapons. You would need to make the choice to exile any of these remaining cards (selecting to replace the "put in graveyard" with "exile" form RIP as opposed to "shuffle back in" with Progenitus) in order to break the loop.

Thank you for an answer, but between now and then I just asked on ask an MTG Judge and they confirmed that rules 716.5 & 716.6 do NOT apply as it is not an unbound loop because the player controlling the Progenitus makes a choice. They will be forced to exile as a result of Rule 716.3.

"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. ..."

Magic Online just processes it wrong.

[Koby]

Yes, I was mistaken in earlier posts. I have corrected them to clarify.

Progenitus + RIP is not an unbound loop, as the Progenitus' owner can always chose between exile or shuffle. Choosing to shuffle does not advance the game, so the other choice must be selected. This breaks the loop and the game can continue.

[twndomn]

Okay, I thought I got this, but now I'm confused. We are now saying that the result of the game should be a draw if the player chooses not to break the loop on the account that the loop is infinite?

I'd like an answer for paper Magic and online. The difference being that online each player has their own respective clock online. Online shouldn't the player choosing whether to shuffle or not loose as a result of the time loss for the choice to reshuffle or not indefinitely?

There Isn't a Draw. The player is Forced to choose the option to break the infinite loop. On Paper magic, even if you choose to not break the loop, a judge will cover over and make you breaking that loop for you eventually. In online version, the program should be intelligent enough to demonstrate this infinite loop and it will be broken in the program.

[FTW]

Not should, but would result in an infinite unbound loop. This is treated by the game rules as a draw.

I cannot speak for MTGO specifically because I am not sure how the programmers handled this unbound loop. Remember that MTGO is only an implementation of the MTG rule book; and while it's 99% correct, not every interaction is programmed correctly.



The default action would be to shuffle Progenitus into your deck. The result of the Helm of Obedience/ Rest in Peace interaction would be a library consisting of Progenituses and Legacy Weapons. You would need to make the choice to exile any of these remaining cards (selecting to replace the "put in graveyard" with "exile" form RIP as opposed to "shuffle back in" with Progenitus) in order to break the loop. Since the default choice results in a repeated game-state, you will need to break the loop and exile Progenitus/Legacy Weapon.

EDIT/Clarification: Net result: no library and all cards exiled.

I think what he's saying, and this is a corner case and involves being incredibly anal retentive about the semantics of the rules, but I do find this interesting...

Library:
2 Prog
1 Legacy Weapon

Hand:
1 Mountain

You have proceeded some number of times exiling cards and reshuffling Progenitus back in and the rest of your library has been exiled. You have 3 cards in library. From flipping and reshuffing, opponent knows your library contains at least one Progenitus and at least one Legacy Weapon. From looking at your registered decklist, one knows that your deck contains 2 Progenitus and a missing mountain that has not yet been seen. But it is not clear to the opponent whether your library contains

A> ("Progenitus, Legacy Weapon, Mountain") with Progenitus in hand
B> ("Progenitus, Progenitus, Legacy Weapon") with

Based on available information, it is probablistically possible that the Mountain is in your deck and has just never been seen after n iterations, thus A is a possible game state. If you are in A, then choosing to keep reshuffling Progenitus/Weapon back into your library does not necessarily result in an infinite loop of the identical game state (since you could theoretically eventually mill into that Mountain, creating a different gamestate with only 2 cards in library). Thus, according to the semantics of the rule, it sounds like you would not be forced to choose to exile Progenitus and could choose to continue and the opponent would not be able to prove otherwise, thus allowing you to keep looping until the match ends.

However, this would result in a Time Wasting violation, so the point is moot.

[rufus]

I think what he's saying, and this is a corner case and involves being incredibly anal retentive about the semantics of the rules, but I do find this interesting...
...
However, this would result in a Time Wasting violation, so the point is moot.

Changing the library order from one unknown state to another is apparently not considered to be changing the game state. (A more obnoxious example would be if the target of Helm of Obedience was also targeted by Wheel of Sun and Moon since, in that case, you do know stuff about the library order...)

A semantic argument can also be made about:


716.3. 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.

Since a mandatory choice doesn't really seem like an 'independent action' to me.

I also don't understand how drawing in this situation would be any more of a time wasting violation than any other in-game action that would reasonably be expected to lead to a draw.

[FTW]

Changing the library order from one unknown state to another is apparently not considered to be changing the game state. (A more obnoxious example would be if the target of Helm of Obedience was also targeted by Wheel of Sun and Moon since, in that case, you do know stuff about the library order...)

But in this case it would be changing the library order from one unknown state (3 cards, 2 known) potentially to a different KNOWN state (2 cards, both known), so this is not merely just shuffling your library infinitely. As long as there is a chance that mountain is in your library, you could eventually reach a different state (different number of cards in library). Thus you could argue you can keep choosing to not exile Prog because the game state COULD change. This sort of probablistic argument is how 4 Horseman.dec used to work. You used to be allowed to continue reshuffling your library because something different COULD happen, and that allowed the combo to be assembled if you repeated it enough times.

However, under a recent rules change, you are not allowed to repeat an action for a non-deterministic outcome that takes an unknown number of iterations nor can you shortcut anything with an unknown number of iterations. So it would now be called Time Wasting, which is why 4Horsemen is now dead. I imagine a similar argument would apply to this corner case. Correct me if I'm wrong?