Legacy Weapon, Clone and Azorius Guildmage in Type 4

[filidh]

Hi, this is my first post and I have a though question...

Player1 has a Legacy Weapon and an Azorius Guildmage in play.
Player2 has a Clone that cloned the Guildmage.

We are on Player1 turn. In its main phase he activates the Legacy Weapon to remove the Clone.
Player2 activates Clone ability to counter the Weapon ability.
Player1 activates Guildmage ability to counter the Clone ability.
Player2 activates Clone ability to counter the Guildmage ability.

And we go on and on.

What happens here?
Thanks

[Harlequin]

Basically, its up to you and your T4 group to decide how to handle infinte loops.  There are several ways to handle it (Mr.Type4 uses a list of priorities, the comprehensive rules for normal MtG do have rules for resolving infinite loops that involve was players turn it is etc etc).  Here is how I do it.

Step 0: Remove any "junk" in the loop. (which is already done in your example).  Junk is defined as irrelevant activations of other abilities.  For example I could say "well to make this a non-repeating loop, i'll just use AGM to tap your clone a number of times equal to the next digit in Pi."  All those irrelevant activations are simply removed from the stack. 

Step 1: Break down the stack and assign letters to similar abilites.  So for your example: 
X = Activate Legacy weapon,
A = Clone's Stifle,
B = Guild Mage's Stifle.

Now the stack looks like:  X A B A B A B ....

Step 2: Issolate the simplest loop.   in this case:  X (A B) (A B) (A B) ...

Step 3: Remove all itterations of the Loop past the first and resolve that itteration of the loop, now the stack looks like:
X (A B)

So in this case, I would rule that the clone would be destroyed.  Now the real question is... ah HA what if I keep track of targets?

now you have:
X = Activate Legacy weapon
Y = Clone's Stifle TARGETING Weapon
A = Clone's Stifle TARGETING other Mage.
B = Guild Mage's Stifle.

X Y B A B A B A ...  which would resolve X Y B A and result in the mage surviving.  Typically I don't really care about the target is, esp when it comes to Azorius Guildmage activations because there are often many options on how to target.  When in doubt, break it down to the stack with the least number of steps.   

Note:  In my stack, the Azorius Guildmage is Legendary, doing thiss will eliminate like 75% of your infinite loop situations.

[filidh]

When you say:

"X Y B A B A B A ...  which would resolve X Y B A and result in the mage surviving.  Typically I don't really care about the target is, esp when it comes to Azorius Guildmage activations because there are often many options on how to target.  When in doubt, break it down to the stack with the least number of steps."

the result is the Clone surviving, not the mage, right?

[Harlequin]

Yes, the clone. sorry.  But the point of that example was to point out that I usually don't view the stack in that way.  Think of it this way.  Under example 1, where Y = A... we each 1 mage and get each get to use it once.  In the second example, the clone actually get's used with the target being different ... to me it seams more fair that when we're talking about 2 mages on reduced loop stack, we should each get to use our mages once. 

[filidh]

Well, that's my exact question... To know if it's correct to use the Guildmage's ability only once (X Y=A B) or if by using it on different targets builds up a new ability on the stack (X Y B A). Because the result is completely different... On one case the Clone stays, in the other the Clone is removed from the game...

[Harlequin]

Basically my point is that, its up to you. 

Hopefully Mr.Type4 and others will chime in with thier ways to view infinite loops.  What ever you do, try and get it standardized with your T4 group.  It almost falls under the realm of "house rules."  Its different from stack to stack, owner to owner.  But definately try and make an actual ruleing that can be followed from game to game, situation to situation.  This way everyone will be satified with the outcome.  For my stack, we count it as essentially the same ability X (A B), this way each mage would get used once, and the clone would be in the yard. 

*however we also play that the guildmage is Legendary, so this normally would not come up.  The legendary errata came about when we had some crazy thing involving Ray of Rev, Kiki jiki, confusion in the ranks, and the guild mage.  I forget what happened exactly but it was really really confusing.

[filidh]

OK, many thanks for the fast help. We will indeed define that!

[Luiggi]

I like the idea of making Azorius Guildmage legendary, because in recent games he's just been so busted that I was thinking about removing it from my stack altogether. And while I don't play with Legacy Weapon (I personally think it's too powerful), this situation seems like a nightmare!

Luis

[Mr. Type 4]

I've bent over backwards to make a rules sheet so that we don't have to play the whole X A Y X B B A B A B A C B game.  It's been my goal for sometime to implement simple fixes to type 4 so that we can think out any situation without having absurd infinite stack headaches.  If anyone wants to check out my rules sheet, PM me.

This is one of those situations that I always hope never occurs.  In my stack, having two Guildmages in play would be pretty rare, I don't have clone or anything like it except Soul Foundary, and there's always the absurd possibility that someone could copy the guildmage with sculpting steel if it had been turned into an Artifact by Memnarch (the likelyhood of this happening is astronomically slim, there are few situations where this could logically occur).  Still, this CAN happen, and I don't think that playing with the Guildmage is reason enough to kick cards like Clone or Kiki-Jiki out of your stack (although I think there are a number of uncomfortable dilemmas that can occur from copying creatures)

I have adressed this situation in my rules sheet, but I think that what I have written is extremely poor.  I also think that making the guildmage a legend might be a bit extreme, and could have some unintentional interactions with the rules, or could in the future.  Here's the errata I'm suggesting, and I'm going to implement it in my rule sheet.  It's extremely simple, and I think it ought to clean it up real nice:

Azorius Guildmage's "Counter target activated ability" ability CAN NOT be used to counter the "Counter target activated ability" ability of another Azorius Guildmage. 

There ya go.  fixxed.  Great question, by the way, now just don't start asking me questions about Memnarch!

[Harlequin]

I guess actually now that I think about it.  As a rule of thumb, each ability can only be used once in my infinite loop. So if you have say, 2 Smokespew Invoker (I think thats his name... the black mutant), and I only have 1 Guildmage, then you can kill my guildmage.  Basically its almost like Divergence theory in limits.  If you only have 1 Invoker, then its a tie, and essentially, I win because you play the ability, then I counter it. 

That got me thinking about how I value 2 abilities on the same card.  Namely, I have Gaint Crab, a 3/3 creature with "U: Giant crab can not be the target of spells or abilites this turn."  Lets say its my upkeep and you want to tap my crab.  You essentially have 2 options for how to do with.  You put a Tap on the stack, and I respond by making him untargetable.  You could at this point either Tap him again in response, or Stifle my untargetable ability.  Is this ( A B ) A B -or- X ( B A ) B A B ? I'm actually not sure...  I'll talk to my Type 4 group and get back to you with what we decide.

[jro]

How do the standard rules for handling infinite loops (Rule 421) not work here?  They would say that the non-active player (or the "least" active player in multiplayer) would get the last word.  So on Player 1's turn, Player 2 can stop the Weapon.  On Player 2's turn, he can't.

[Cross]

I think jro has the right idea here.

[parallax]

How do the standard rules for handling infinite loops (Rule 421) not work here?  They would say that the non-active player (or the "least" active player in multiplayer) would get the last word.  So on Player 1's turn, Player 2 can stop the Weapon.  On Player 2's turn, he can't.

That's dangerous. Things work differently every turn. It also means if a removal ability and a protection ability compete, the removal ability will eventually win out, which is opposed to how Type 4 house rules generally work.

[jro]

That's dangerous. Things work differently every turn. It also means if a removal ability and a protection ability compete, the removal ability will eventually win out, which is opposed to how Type 4 house rules generally work.

I've always thought that house rule was bogus, though, because it creates situations like this.  Who's ability is the "protection" ability if they're both trying to counter something?  If instead of killing something with the Weapon, Player 1 was trying to use Planar Portal, who would have the "protection" ability then?  What if Player 1 was trying to regenerate a creature?  You wind up having to just come up with some arbitrary ranking of what beats what, and that seems really tedious.

I also play without the "pitch spells don't count as a spell" rule, though, so maybe I'm just too much of an "originalist" or something.

[Cross]

The game has a rule that works for situations like these, I don't see why not follow it.

[parallax]

The game has a rule that works for situations like these, I don't see why not follow it.

That rule wasn't designed to handle a game where all players have infinite mana at all times. That rule makes Legacy Weapon, etc., too strong to include in the stack. That rule makes creatures which can protect themselves much less useful. Legacy Weapon should not be able to hit Morphling.

The "defensive" rule allows people to actually play with their cards without them being blown up all over the place. Yes, it has semantic issues, but Harlequin and Mr. Type 4 are trying to resolve those issues.

The best reason to use the "defensive" rule over the actual game rule is that the house rule makes the games more fun.

[Godder]

Can't beats can, so maybe you can use that instead e.g. Legacy Weapon targets Morphling ('can') but Morphling can't be the target of spells or abilities ('can't'), so can't beats can means Morphling wins.

[Mr. Nightmare]

Here's the errata I'm suggesting, and I'm going to implement it in my rule sheet.  It's extremely simple, and I think it ought to clean it up real nice:

Azorius Guildmage's "Counter target activated ability" ability CAN NOT be used to counter the "Counter target activated ability" ability of another Azorius Guildmage. 

There ya go.  fixxed.  Great question, by the way, now just don't start asking me questions about Memnarch!

As an alternative, you could limit the ability to only being played once per turn.  This way, you don't have the guy with the Guildmage Stifling the hell out of everyone, and he has to choose wisely what will be the most important thing to Stifle each turn.

[Mr. Type 4]

I went ahead and defined what abilities are trump for my rules sheet.  It's sometimes tricky to figure out otherwise: 

Defensive Abilities Rule B: More specifically, abilities that can be considered defensive are ones that perform one of the following functions:
Protection from a color(or creature type, card type, etc.)
Regeneration
Returning a permanent to its owner's hand(when the effect is controlled by the permanent's controller)
Phasing out (when the effect is controlled by the permanent's controller)
+ Toughness
Damage prevention
Untargetability

If you go by the standard infinite rule you make removal too powerful which greatly limits what you can include in your deck.  I think that the interaction between cards like Masticore and cards that can survive it are pretty interesting, and creates fun game states.  You shouldn't be able to just lay down Masticore and kill EVERYTHING, that makes Masticore either too powerful or "defense" abilities too weak.    Honestly, I'm pretty sure that playing with the idea that "defense abilities are trump" opens up the most possibilities for the inclusion of more fun cards to the stack.  Think about it.

I want to argue that the situations that can occur by relying on rule 421 just get too complicated.  Often there are multiple players that all want to throw their infinite ability into the mix.  Seriously, I've been playing type 4 for almost 8 years now, and the last thing I want to do durning my games is waste 15 minutes figuring out how ten infinite abilities all eventually resolve, it's a pain in the ass and leads to arguments. 

Now, maybe your play group is different.  Maybe they're a bunch of tournament caliber Magic players that are well versed in handling multiple infinite abilities, but I would say that such players are few.  Seriously now, how many games of real Magic have you played where both players managed to get infinite mana and had all kinds of stuff to do with it?  I, personally, want the game to be accessable.  I often get new players interested in playing, and I think it's a turn-off to have to think out all these really complicated situations when you could just as easly say, "Legacy Weapon can't get Morphling if he makes it untargetable".  A lot of people in my regular play group are casual players, many of which don't own cards and just play type 4 with me once a week.  They don't want to be thinking about stuff like this:

Living Death puts Memnarch into play for player A, Glarecaster and Masticore for player B. Player B has Privileged Position and Copy Enchantment, while Player C has Ivory Mask, 0 Life, Soul Echo (which has Enfeeblement and a Conclave's Blessing on it), and Opalescence.

I'm just saying what works for us.  I'm not suggesting you change what works for you just because this works for me, because I think that the way the rules are handled has a heavy hand in how your stack is constructed.  If your playgroup is comfortable with handling all these situations, then go for it.  We used to do that for a long time, but we eventually just got tired of it, and over time I figured out some simple fixes to make things work better for us.