Infinite questions

[dicemanx]

While I accept either of the two arbitrary judgements regarding the WGD question, I want to ask this:

1) Suppose that the judge rules that I am not allowed to stack my opponent's deck to put the Blessings as the final two cards in his library. I wish to make an attempt to do so anyways. How many tries do I get? 1? 2? 10? The problem with this arbitrary ruling is that it leads to a further arbitrary ruling of how many tries I get. Suppose that a judge decides that "3 is enough". OK, so what if I pass the turn, and on my next turn I want to try again. Will he give me 3 attempts again? I'm also going to be doing this all in a timely matter, and I am trying to win here, so at which point would I be nailed with stalling? After my 6th try? This is all very unsatisfactory because of all of these arbitrary decisions.

But there's another situation:

2) Suppose that I have a Necromancy in hand, a WGD in the grave and Ambassador in play after hardcasting it. When I cast Necromancy, I can generate any desired amount of mana and make attempts at my opponent's library. However, if I fail and completely exhaust my mana (as tiny as the probability might be), the WGD trigger is still on the stack and I can resume generating mana and try again. In other words, there is no fixed amount of mana that I'm operating with. Would the ruling change now? If the answer is "yes", then why can't this logic apply:

There are two events in question

a)the unbounded looping of WGD triggers generating any amount of desired mana.
b)the bounded looping with Ambassador

That is, I can generate a packet of 1 million mana with the WGD loop, then start loop #2: milling. Since there is a chance of failure, we cannot say that loop #2 will produce the desired result.

So I return to loop 1, generate another 1 million mana, and repeat. Again, there will be no guarantees that I get the desired result.

I do this another n times, with similar failure because the expected probability of failure is non zero each time loop 2 kicks in.

I understand that as n approaches infinity, expectation of failure approaches zero. However, n cannot approach infinity according to the rules. Instead, you must state how many WGD loops you wish to perform, but regardless of what you state, you'll never generate a non-zero chance of failure.

Thoughts?

[matt_v]

If you have proven a loop that only involves actions from your side, you'll decide how many times you want to loop, your opponent will decide how many times he wants you to loop, and you will loop an amount of times equal to the minimum of the two. If your opponent wants you to play everything entierely, you are in the right to call a judge and tell him that your opponent claims he has a solution for your plays that he could draw off Timetwister, for example. Judge will likely pick the player off the table and have a quick talk with him to analyse his options. If no Orims Chant or similar, he would have been caught trying to abuse the time limit by telling you he has a solution to your plays, which is bad news for him.

Not quite. If it only involves actions from your side, you chose how many times you repeat it unless the other player intervenes.

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.

-Matt

[Khahan]

While I accept either of the two arbitrary judgements regarding the WGD question, I want to ask this:

1) Suppose that the judge rules that I am not allowed to stack my opponent's deck to put the Blessings as the final two cards in his library. I wish to make an attempt to do so anyways. How many tries do I get? 1? 2? 10? The problem with this arbitrary ruling is that it leads to a further arbitrary ruling of how many tries I get. Suppose that a judge decides that "3 is enough". OK, so what if I pass the turn, and on my next turn I want to try again. Will he give me 3 attempts again? I'm also going to be doing this all in a timely matter, and I am trying to win here, so at which point would I be nailed with stalling? After my 6th try? This is all very unsatisfactory because of all of these arbitrary decisions.

But there's another situation:

2) Suppose that I have a Necromancy in hand, a WGD in the grave and Ambassador in play after hardcasting it. When I cast Necromancy, I can generate any desired amount of mana and make attempts at my opponent's library. However, if I fail and completely exhaust my mana (as tiny as the probability might be), the WGD trigger is still on the stack and I can resume generating mana and try again. In other words, there is no fixed amount of mana that I'm operating with. Would the ruling change now? If the answer is "yes", then why can't this logic apply:

There are two events in question

a)the unbounded looping of WGD triggers generating any amount of desired mana.
b)the bounded looping with Ambassador

That is, I can generate a packet of 1 million mana with the WGD loop, then start loop #2: milling. Since there is a chance of failure, we cannot say that loop #2 will produce the desired result.

So I return to loop 1, generate another 1 million mana, and repeat. Again, there will be no guarantees that I get the desired result.

I do this another n times, with similar failure because the expected probability of failure is non zero each time loop 2 kicks in.

I understand that as n approaches infinity, expectation of failure approaches zero. However, n cannot approach infinity according to the rules. Instead, you must state how many WGD loops you wish to perform, but regardless of what you state, you'll never generate a non-zero chance of failure.

Thoughts?

I believe you are arguing that the playing performing the WGD loop should be able to stack his opponents deck, correct?  If so, then there is still 1 resource you are ignoring: Time.

Time is a resource. You do not have infinite time in a game of MTG. In order to make the argument that you could do the loop infinite times and shuffle infinite times and eventually get that 1 library order you must also have infinite time. Period. End of story. The two resources must go hand in hand.   The blessing foils your win condition. Tough cookies. Use [card]reckless embermage[/card].

[Harlequin]

Time is a resource. You do not have infinite time in a game of MTG. In order to make the argument that you could do the loop infinite times and shuffle infinite times and eventually get that 1 library order you must also have infinite time. Period. End of story. The two resources must go hand in hand.   The blessing foils your win condition. Tough cookies. Use [card]reckless embermage[/card].

Thats not true at all... If you have a non-interactive loop then you can make a summary of your actions to save time.  Take a look at the Possessed Portal, Double Squee, Mountain Goat example.  You can just say: "I attack a ba-zillion times" to widdle down your bazzillion -1 life.  Even if there is 1 min left in the round.  However astablishing this lock on turn 5 after time is called doesn't get you a win.

Its a similar Idea.  I have an unbounded amount of tries.  Ok so you make me pick an arbirarily high number. At the end of "failing" that many times, I still have priority to pick another arbirarily high number (in the double Animate example).

Lastly:  Everyone know there are better wins than laquatus.  Shivan Hellkite, Sliver Queen, and Caller of the Claw are all good examples of "better" wins.  But this isn't the deck improvement forum... its the rules forum... so anything goes as a theoretical example.

[bomholmm]

OK let say you have a Wu Spy in play and Ancestral in hand.

Wu Spy
U1
Creature — Soldier
P/T:   1/1
Rules Text (Oracle):   When Wu Spy comes into play, look at the top two cards of target player’s library. Put one of them into his or her graveyard.

Then you animate Worldgorger Dragon with no other legal animate targets so that you can't end the loop.  If your opponent has two blessings in his library how would this game end?

This is a loop you can't end but you have decisions to make and you can kill your opponent within the confines of the loop.

The answer to this is probably that the game is a draw but I find it interesting that the game would end when there is a possible win.

[Anusien]

Time is a resource. You do not have infinite time in a game of MTG. In order to make the argument that you could do the loop infinite times and shuffle infinite times and eventually get that 1 library order you must also have infinite time. Period. End of story. The two resources must go hand in hand.   The blessing foils your win condition. Tough cookies. Use [card]reckless embermage[/card].

Thats not true at all... If you have a non-interactive loop then you can make a summary of your actions to save time.  Take a look at the Possessed Portal, Double Squee, Mountain Goat example.  You can just say: "I attack a ba-zillion times" to widdle down your bazzillion -1 life.  Even if there is 1 min left in the round.  However astablishing this lock on turn 5 after time is called doesn't get you a win.

Its a similar Idea.  I have an unbounded amount of tries.  Ok so you make me pick an arbirarily high number. At the end of "failing" that many times, I still have priority to pick another arbirarily high number (in the double Animate example).

Lastly:  Everyone know there are better wins than laquatus.  Shivan Hellkite, Sliver Queen, and Caller of the Claw are all good examples of "better" wins.  But this isn't the deck improvement forum... its the rules forum... so anything goes as a theoretical example.

Actually, that doesn't work.  The whole point about the looping X times and just shortcutting it is that you can't go again.  It's like the both players have Time Vault and want to skip their turns situation.  If you name to do it X times, and they do it X + 1 times, you can't turn around and enter the loop again.

[Khahan]

Thats not true at all... If you have a non-interactive loop then you can make a summary of your actions to save time.  Take a look at the Possessed Portal, Double Squee, Mountain Goat example.  You can just say: "I attack a ba-zillion times" to widdle down your bazzillion -1 life.  Even if there is 1 min left in the round.  However astablishing this lock on turn 5 after time is called doesn't get you a win.

Actually, it IS true. Time is a resource. Generally, you have 40-50 mins for a round.

As for your example, its not entirely accurate. If you do that loop you stll have to go thru the motions. Its up to your opponent to scoop out of common sense. You win when you:
A) get your opponent to 0 or less life
B) your opponent has 10 or more poison counters
C) your opponent must draw from an empty library
D) you meet the conditions on an 'instant-win' card (battle of wits, test of endurance etc).
E) your opponent concedes

Just showing you have the loop does NOT accomplish any of those things (though it may cause your opponent to do E). 9 times out of 10, you will get the scoop. But if game 1 took 40 mins and you got that lock in game 2 in 3 mins...you can bet your ass I won't scoop. I'll  make you go through each turn, knocking me down 1 point at a time like you are supposed to in a game of Magic.

And when game 3 comes along and you don't have enough time to establish the lock and go through the motions...we draw instead of me losing.

Add in the fact that its a poor example to hold the laquatus/blessing to.  For one, the hard turn lock w/ a mountain goat WILL end after X turns where X is equal to my life. So, I'll scoop most times when its painfully obvious there is no point to playing it out.

The laquatus/blessing scenario  end after X turns where X is whatever number you set. However, at that point, your win is still not 100% in the bag.

[Harlequin]

It's not a matter of you scooping to the goat.  It's a matter of you have no possible way to do anything other than stall when you have:
0 cards drawn each turn
0 cards in hand
0 cards in play

This came Up in extended before the tempest block cycled out (so tempest -> kamegawa)

Squee, Portal, welder; and Cleric Life .. all legal

Lets say you combo up to infinite life.
If there is 30 seconds on the clock and I have demonstrated my "loop" 3 times, and you meat those 0-constrants above - then I win.  I attack you [your life] + 1 number of times in 0 time ... and I win the game before Time is called.

At least this is the way the head judge ruled during the Boston PTQs for extended.

[Khahan]

It's not a matter of you scooping to the goat.  It's a matter of you have no possible way to do anything other than stall when you have:
0 cards drawn each turn
0 cards in hand
0 cards in play

This came Up in extended before the tempest block cycled out (so tempest -> kamegawa)

Squee, Portal, welder; and Cleric Life .. all legal

Lets say you combo up to infinite life.
If there is 30 seconds on the clock and I have demonstrated my "loop" 3 times, and you meat those 0-constrants above - then I win.  I attack you [your life] + 1 number of times in 0 time ... and I win the game before Time is called.

At least this is the way the head judge ruled during the Boston PTQs for extended.

He is getting his loops confused/mis-applying the infinity rule.

For the record, here is the infinity rule, right out of the comp rule book:
421.1. Occasionally the game can get into a state in which a set of actions could be repeated forever. These rules (sometimes called the “infinity rules�) govern how to break such loops.


The bolded part is what makes the difference. You cannot repeat the 'loop' in the mountain goat sequence forever because eventually you DO win.  If you choose not to attack with the mountain goat, you won't win. That will meet the condition of the infinite loop. But guess what.. you are not killing me.

The rules for breaking 'infinite loops' do not apply to the mountain goat situation because it is a finite sequence. Yes, its repeatable. Yes its a lock.  Yes, I cannot win.  But, if I do not want to, I will not scoop and you do not have an infinite loop to 'fall back on' to force the win.

It's a matter of you have no possible way to do anything other than stall when you have:

As long as I don't take an inordinate amount of time to pass priority when its passed to me, I am not stalling.

Again, you do NOT win the game by setting a hard lock. Here's a more realistic example.
I won game 1 with a VERY MUC deck. There are 4 mins left on the clock and I know your only win condition is Karn. On turn 2, you drop lotus, crucible, strip and have a trinisphere in play. I have no answers in my deck.

But, Karn is nowhere to be seen. Should I lose there just because you have the lock? Nope. You have about 2 mins left to get to Karn, play him and attack enough times to take me to 0 life.

How is that any different?

[LordHomerCat]

In the portal-2 squee-goat example, nothing about the game state changes in between iterations of the loop (no one draws cards or sees anything new), and you have no optional actions to take to interrupt the game state (in the MUC example, you can lay lands, draw and use ESG's), so there is no reason he cannot demonstrate how it is a loop and repeat it X times.  It doesn't make a difference that "Well, he's hurting you, so it isnt infinite" vs. an animated dragon with no other critters in sight;  Its still a loop that can be repeated infinitely (or at least until one player dies).  In the karn-MUC example, there is no loop to speak of; Return Strip Mine, strip a land is NOT an infinite loop since theres all kinds of optional actions (what if you don't lay a land?), and the gamestate is undergoing changes as both palyers draw cards.

As a similar example, lets say that I go to 10million life with my Cleric-Life combo deck.  However, on my opponent's turn, he gets Auriok Salvagers, Black Lotus, and Pyrite spellbomb all on the table.  He then generates 100million mana with his salvagers (by demonstrating the loop with lotus and specifying how many times).  At this point, it is rather academic.  Are you saying that, because he is dealing damage to me and my life total changes (like the Goat), he should have to manually announce every step?  In reality, he is allowed to demonstrate the Spellbomb loop and Fire me 5million times to kill me, instead of trying to do it as many times as he can in the time left.

[Khahan]

In the portal-2 squee  In the karn-MUC example, there is no loop to speak of; Return Strip Mine, strip a land is NOT an infinite loop since theres all kinds of optional actions (what if you don't lay a land?), and the gamestate is undergoing changes as both palyers draw cards.

That's pretty much the point. Its no different from the mountain goat example in that its not truly a loop. Therefore, the rules of infinite loops do not apply.  Its a very, very bad situation to be in for 1 player. Its a situation that you won't survive IF, your opponent has enough time to play it out.

But its not infinite and neither is the mountain goat example some have fixated on. It illustrates the differences between a lock and a loop.

If you compare the WGD loop to the mountain goat or Karn example, the difference is pretty obvious. But there is also a parallel: that time is of the essence and cannot be ignored. You cannot cut that corner, nor should you expect your opponent to cut that corner for your convenience.

The WGD loop itself, the rules deal with: You state how many times to repeat it, then get that mana and now you can do what you wish with the mana. If it fails, you can do it again. But you still must go thru the motions before time runs out.

In the mountain goat example, yes, you've locked me out of my turns and I will eventually lose. If you can go thru the motions before time runs out.

[warble]

On turn 2, you drop lotus, crucible, strip and have a trinisphere in play. I have no answers in my deck.
Should I lose there just because you have the lock?

A note to all that play Khahan or any other player if you have a hard lock.  Call a judge at this point.  If the opposing player takes more than 0.000001 seconds for their turn they are stalling.  Period.  It's up to the player who has locked you out to win, but you can't take your turns or the time for them.  It's not just rude, it's against the rules.

[Harlequin]

On turn 2, you drop lotus, crucible, strip and have a trinisphere in play. I have no answers in my deck.
Should I lose there just because you have the lock?

A note to all that play Khahan or any other player if you have a hard lock.  Call a judge at this point.  If the opposing player takes more than 0.000001 seconds for their turn they are stalling.  Period.  It's up to the player who has locked you out to win, but you can't take your turns or the time for them.  It's not just rude, it's against the rules.

Its not impossible for your opponent to make a play mistake.  So saying that you have "No Win conditions" left is a mistake.  Mana crypt is a win condition, also if they accidentally tap the trinisphere with tanglewire or karn.  Then you get your chance. 
Opp: "I tap Tolarian, animate everything and attack"
Me: "Everything? even moxen?"
Opp: "no not the moxen, but everything else"
Me: "ok, I take it"
*Opp taps all his artifacts including trinisphere*
*I go to my turn and drop -> jet, for double rit*
Opp: Oh wait, I didn't want to attack with Trinisphere, he is still untapped, you have 3 more life..."
Me: "Judge!"

In a case where I still draw cards, and there are many ways for you to kill yourself / screw up your combo... If there's time left i want to play it out.  Also I want to see more cards in your deck... do you run null rod, cap, karn, trike, etc.  I want to see a windcondition.  I might scoop to Trinisphere Crucible strip if you let me look threw your deck before we board.  Otherwise I'm not obligated to scoop.

[warble]

I might scoop to Trinisphere Crucible strip if you let me look threw your deck before we board.

Good point, in fact that's the typical resolution to this sort of lock.  "Let me see your win condition" flip cards from the top until you reach it, and voila we're on to game 3.

[Khahan]

A note to all that play Khahan or any other player if you have a hard lock.  Call a judge at this point.  If the opposing player takes more than 0.000001 seconds for their turn they are stalling.  Period.

I never said I'd stall and I never said or implied that I approve of stalling. I said I'd make my opponent go thru the motions to make sure he has the win condition and enough time to use it to kill me. So please don't imply that I'd stall the game out.

Obviously if its game 1 and the lock is there and I know I can't recover, I'll scoop. If its game 2 and I won game 1 and there is still 1/2 hour left in the round, I'll scoop.


But the question being posed isn't 'should you scoop,' its 'does a hard lock=automatic win?' And the answer is no. I'm just illustrating one situation where its beneficial not to simply scoop.

Play properly. Play fairly. But expect the same from your opponent. And sometimes that means expecting your opponent to actually beat you.

It's up to the player who has locked you out to win,

At least we agree on that.

[LordHomerCat]

What about the Salvagers example?  I have the Salvagers, lotus, and Pyrite Spellbomb and enough mana to start looping the lotus, and my opponent is at 10 million life, but has no cards in hand and no cards on the board that can have any effect on my combo.  Can I generate 100million mana with my loop, and then break it and loop spellbomb 5 million times to kill him?  Its a similar situation to the mountain goat:  the opponent has no outs to the loop, and cannot perform any relevant actions.  Sure, the game state is changing in that his life is being reduced each iteration, but that does not mean I don't have an "infinite" loop.  Why is it OK to loop Spellbombs but not Squees and Goats?  Or, if you think its not alright, why not?

[Harlequin]

I think the main difference, is that the squee example requires both infinite time and infinte turns.  (in a sense).  So there is a big difference to astablish lock 30 secs before time is called and 30 secs after time has been called.  as long as your under the clock, you can declare that you take your turns in an infinatesnmaly small amount of time, thus winning you the match.  If your in "turn" then you can't attack that many times because your turns will run out.  Where your Salvager combo will still work on turn 5 after time is called.   But all in all I agree with you, Even if your opponent has cards in hand, once you have demonstrated the loop 3 times with no interuptions from your opponent, then it is assumed they cannot interupt you.  However they can choose to say "when I get to 1 life, I want to do this..."  but the time it takes to fill those action from the first 3 itterations to the final 3 itterations, occurs in 0 time essentially.