"Infinite" loop - precise definition?

[dicemanx]

Here's the scenario:

Opponent has a billion life (he used a life-gaining combo). You have an Isochron Scepter with Final Fortune imprinted, and a Platinum Angel in play. Can the judge rule that you have created an "infinite loop" and allow you to pick a number (multiple of 4) and have you do that amount of damage to your opponent? Or is the game a draw because you cannot win in the time alloted (or within this century for that matter ).

[Lockdown]

It seems that you should win.  According to the comprehensive rules, which I linked in the FAQ above:

#  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. [CompRules 2003/07/01]

Isochron Scepter/Final Fortune/Platinum Angel is definitely a set of actions that could be repeated forever

[JSexton]

Here's the scenario:

Opponent has a billion life (he used a life-gaining combo). You have an Isochron Scepter with Final Fortune imprinted, and a Platinum Angel in play. Can the judge rule that you have created an "infinite loop" and allow you to pick a number (multiple of 4) and have you do that amount of damage to your opponent? Or is the game a draw because you cannot win in the time alloted (or within this century for that matter ).

It's never been definitively established whether unbounded loops can carry over past the current turn, but nothing in the rules seems to prevent it. Most judges would probably give the Final Fortune player the win here.

And is that you, Milk?

[dicemanx]

It's never been definitively established whether unbounded loops can carry over past the current turn

If that's the case, then it begs the question of *why* it hasn't been definitively established.

And who or what is Milk?

[DavidHernandez]

It seems to me that the judge should rule in favor of the player with Platinum Angel, since the wording on the card is that you can't lose and your opponents can't win.

Has a scenario like this occured in a tournament?  I'm curious to know how it was ruled.

Dave

[dicemanx]

This is what I posted elsewhere:
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Compare the Isochron + Angel to a scenario like the following:

You have a two Moxes, 2x Icy Manipulator, a Nether Void and a Winter Orb in play. You have essentially locked the opponent completely if all he has are tapped lands. Now suppose that you had a 1/1 beater in play, but the time is running out and you don't think you can win in time. Can you say that you have created an essentially endless loop, as you intend to repeat the same actions over and over: Ice their land or two (if they play one),and swing with the 1/1? Can the judge be allowed to accelerate the process for you? Or is the Isochron + Angel scenario somehow different so that a judge could rule that you win in that scenario?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, so its not really an endless loop, as you can deck yourself, or the opponent could theoretically discard Nether Shadows or Nether Spirit. But then let's start by replacing the random 1/1 with a Platinum Angel, and put the opponent at a billion life once again. Does that change anything? What if your opponent argues that you might forget to Ice a land?

[DavidHernandez]

This may be a technical nit-pick, but the wording on the Angel does NOT mean that your "opponent can't win, therefore YOU win..."<âr />
So, after mulling this over a bit, I think that if time is called, then the game is a draw.

In the case you present, your opponent can't win (and doesn't), while you can't lose (and, in fact, you don't).

Dave.

[rvs]

I'd say Dave is correct, although, when time is called, the game is NOT a draw. It's simply unfinished.

[Zhalfirin]

I'd say Dave is correct, although, when time is called, the game is NOT a draw. It's simply unfinished.

Actually, in every sanctioned tournament I have attended, the judges have been very specific to tell players to mark such "unfinished" games (i.e. time ran out) as a draw.  The judges did present this information in such a way to make me believe that such games were not supposed to marked as a draw in the past.

[Tristal]

I'd give MoreFling the benefit of the doubt and say he was just nitpicking the language used - when time's called, the game IS unfinished - there are 5 extra turns after.  If at the end of those 5 extra turns, the game is undecided, THEN it's a draw.

Of course, if I'm wrong, that's a BadThing(tm) not to mark down drawn games.

[JSexton]

It's never been definitively established whether unbounded loops can carry over past the current turn

If that's the case, then it begs the question of *why* it hasn't been definitively established.

And who or what is Milk?

Why? Well, I don't know. The last time I saw a question like this, David Delaney (the usenet netrep) said he would pass it on and get back to us. I presume they're still mulling it over.

Milk is a poster on another board that uses that same picture in his signature. Thought you might be one and the same.

[Lockdown]

I'll reiterate.  As I posted before, the comprehensive rules specifically state any action that can be repeated indefinitely is treated using the rules regarding such loops and how to break them (a.k.a the "infinity rules").  While it is true that this "loop" is not bounded within a single turn, it can be repeated indefinitely, and is just as hard to stop as an infinite loop that is bounded within a single turn.  Nowhere in that last statement does anything contradict rule 421.1  So, in my opinion, it does constitute an infinite loop and can be treated as such (meaning you would win with your Platinum Angel).  However, don't take my word on this, let's get some of our certified judges to chime in.

[mouth]

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 the other player
intervenes, whichever comes first.

One sticky spot about this particular loop, it seems, is the passing of priority. However, players often pass priority without any indication, most notably during their upkeep, draw and end of turn step (also during other infinite loops, ala WGD). With that in mind, I'd venture that the other major limiting factor would be your draw step. That is to say, every turn you *must* draw a card, but once you have 7 cards in your hand, you could conceivably just put the rest of your library into your graveyard.

Something to consider is that the section on "Infinite" Loops (421) is rather thin and loosely defined, to allow judges a comfortable degree of freedom in their rulings.

Can anyone make a sound argument for why this wouldn't be allowed?

[Jebus]

I hate this question, and for some reason, it keeps coming back.

It really would come down to the discretion of the Judge.

Personally, I'd let you keep the loop going, although I'd make you go through each turn while you are still drawing cards.  After that, I'd you could arbitrarily repeat the loop, unless you opponent has an answer.

One sticky spot about this particular loop, it seems, is the passing of priority.

How is this sticky?  It doesn't stop any other loops.  There are plenty of Priority Passes during the Dragon loop.  This doesn't affect that.

[mouth]

Yeah, I meant to edit that out, but I guess I didn't.

[dicemanx]

From Wagamer on MOTL:

Ok not from Gill but the answer from Sheldon Menery.
what I asked.

player A : no cards in hand, 40 cards in library, insane amount of life, in play: 3 plains, 1 nomad-en-kor and diamond valley;in graveyard Task force

player B: in play Urzas power plant, urzas mine,urzas tower, wasteland, isochron septer imprinted with final fortune, platinum angel: 40 cards in library.

the question is this: player b has a lock on the game, he can keep playing final fortunes via th septer never giving player A another turn. But he cannot kill player A before the time expires by just attacking. Is this considered a loop? Can player B make player A conceed? Can a judge give the game to player B even though he dosn't actually kill player A?

Your answer is much appreciated


The reply:

No, it's not a loop, player B cannot make player A concede, and a Judge can never "give" a game to a player. If you can't win within time, even though the other player can't, too bad for you.

Sheldon

[Jebus]

I really must say I disagree there.  I do believe this could be considered a loop.

It's up to your head judge.  Your results may vary.

[rvs]

I agree with Sheldon here. There simply is no loop like it is defined in the rules. If your deck locks someone down, but can't kill, then there's something wrong with your deck. Otherwise, why would workshop decks play win conditions?

[Jebus]

I agree with Sheldon here. There simply is no loop like it is defined in the rules. If your deck locks someone down, but can't kill, then there's something wrong with your deck. Otherwise, why would workshop decks play win conditions?

But, they can kill you.  They just would run out of time while attacking.

Similarly, adding an arbitrariliy large amount of mana to your mana pool through the Dragon combo takes a long time and in order to do it properly, would take the entire match time.

How is that any different?

[rvs]

There's actually very little option for anything else happening during the Dragon combo. Nobody is taking turns, nobody is drawing cards, etc etc. Unless you ofcourse, are going to do something. However, there's no turn changes or anything like that. If you can lock your opponent down and can't win in time, then I'd say that's just too bad.

[Jaapmans]

Hi. I was asked to give my opinion on this.

Jebus is like (almost) always right, but in this case I have to claim the opposit of what Jebus claims. My personal definition of a loop includes "a single stack, or sequence of stacks without a step or phase transition. *Note* this is part of my personal definition and does not represent DCI policy.

This personal definition is effectively backed up by jurisprudence:
http://oracle.wizards.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0210D&L=dcijudge-l&D=0&m=14319&P=2281

In this message, RuneH (NetRep DCIJUDGE-L) states that if one player is totally deprived from resources (in any way) then the judge may declare the win. As long as the player on the loosing end still has access to new resources (mana, turns, cards etc) the player does not loose and the players should play it out.

It is not the responsibility of any player to *not loose* but to *win*. If you can't realy win within time, it's your problem and you won't win according to the rules.



On the subject of if an unfinished game must be recorded as a draw:

http://www.wizards.com/protour/images/HighlevelRules.pdf, see section "Using result entry slips".

"Draws are also recorded. Unfinished games are counted as draws."

My cents.
Jaap
(also certified judge)

[Jebus]

I really hate that this isn't more clear.  I don't like rules to have to come down to opinion.

I don't see why having a turn, step,  or phase change makes this any different from another loop.

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 the other player intervenes, whichever comes first.

Activating the Scepter and attacking seem like optional actions to me, and this should be loopable.

So, I'm sorry, but I'll still have to respectfully disagree.

My only wish is that these rules were overhauled.  It seems as they were meant to be ambiguous, but that doesn't seem to be working out.

[Jaapmans]

I really hate that this isn't more clear.  I don't like rules to have to come down to opinion.

I don't see why having a turn, step,  or phase change makes this any different from another loop.

Reason for this is that within a stack, step or phase, normally there is no change in available resources. All players can see and determine their options. As soon as the available resources change, the game state might be changed and basically the outcome is non-predictable.

With resources I mean: cards in hand, cards in graveyard, availability of mana, permanents in play and everything else that might influence what happens next.

I don't understand why you (Jebus) have difficulties seeing this line of reasoning and thus not understanding that the rules covering loops cannot be applied in situation where the so-called 'loop' is spanning more than one turn. It's all about the availability of resources and thus what can happen within a 'loop'

Jaap

[Jacob Orlove]

In this message, RuneH (NetRep DCIJUDGE-L) states that if one player is totally deprived from resources (in any way) then the judge may declare the win. As long as the player on the loosing end still has access to new resources (mana, turns, cards etc) the player does not loose and the players should play it out.

But the losing player will get no new cards, mana, or turns, because of the Final Fortune/Scepter combo.

[Jebus]

If the opponent is never getting another turn, then his resources are not going to change.

I understand that if the opponent could take action then this wouldn't be the case, but the Scepter Combo keeps this from happening.

[dicemanx]

After some thought, I would agree with Jebus on this specific example. However, what if I gave an entirely different example where the opponent was completely locked out, but they still got their turns and could still draw cards, What then? For instance, say that you are playing Artifact Prison, and have 4 Spheres of Resistance out with 2 Icy Manipulators and a Winter Orb in play along with a Platinum Angel beating down.  Your opponent is completely helpless, and the turns he gets or the cards he draws are meaningless. What then? Is it important to make the distinction between not getting any turns or drawing cards *period* (as in the Final Fortune on a Scepter example), versus getting those turns and cards, even though they are of absolutely of no value as far as influencing the game is concerned?

[Jebus]

If he is drawing cards, then resources are chaning.  So, I can't say it would be repeatable for the reasons everyone else has given.

[Jaapmans]

Okay, I think I misread the beginning of the thread. So we agree on the resources. If new resources will be added to play, then you can never ever call it a loop, unless the player playing the loop will be the one that controls all the added resources.

In the case described the 'loosing' player does not have access to extra or changing resources over time. So this line of reasoning is not a reason not to call it a loop.

Now on to the next motivation why this cannot be defined as a loop (you guys really make me think, my gratitude for that )
Over the course of a couple of turns, too many parameters in the environment of that game change: like life totals, library sizes (of the loop-controller), cards in hand etc.
It is not the responsibility of the defending player to prove that he can break the lock, but the responsibility of the 'winning' (or should it be whining?) player to prove that he will win without doubt. As soon as there is a chance for the 'winning' player that he can make a mistake (forgetting to leave the right mana open so he can counterspell or something like that) that player should play it out. Even the suggestion that a card might exist that can break the lock is enough to have the 'winning' player forced to play it out. Even if the chances of the 'loosing' player having and playing that cards is merely theoretical.

I already stated that it is not the responsibility of a player to show that his opponent can't win and that he won't loose (as the Angel exactly states) but simply to win the game. Up untill that moment, there is no winner.

So I will still stick to my ruling that this is not a loop and therefore let the 'winning' player not win but let him play it out.

Unless some other interesting material is added to this discussion, I will refrain from making any more comments. This mostly is a theoretical discussion that except for nitpicking does not contribute to a broader understanding of the comprehensive rules within this community.

Jaap

[Jebus]

As per my initial post, I'd at least force the "winning" player to play it out until he ran out of cards in his libary.

Then there shouldn't be any more unknown variables, or any opportunity to make a mistake.

[JSexton]

After some thought, I would agree with Jebus on this specific example. However, what if I gave an entirely different example where the opponent was completely locked out, but they still got their turns and could still draw cards, What then? For instance, say that you are playing Artifact Prison, and have 4 Spheres of Resistance out with 2 Icy Manipulators and a Winter Orb in play along with a Platinum Angel beating down.  Your opponent is completely helpless, and the turns he gets or the cards he draws are meaningless. What then?

What if the opponent draws, over the course of several turns, Abolish, Plains, and 4 Elvish Spirit Guides? Angel is toast, then. Since the contents of the deck are unknown, you can't necessarily say that the draws are meaningless.

Is it important to make the distinction between not getting any turns or drawing cards *period* (as in the Final Fortune on a Scepter example), versus getting those turns and cards, even though they are of absolutely of no value as far as influencing the game is concerned?

I think if the opponent is gaining 0 resources (cards, turns, mana, creatures, whatever) then it is not a loop that can be repeated by stating a number. You simply have to play it out.

Otherwise, if the game state does not change for the locked opponent, then it should be considered a loop.