Infinite Turns without a win condition

[Grand Inquisitor]

From:

http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=38818.msg541900;boardseen#new

Is the following true:

if you cant win bc they Extract/plowshare your Iona, or they have 8+ toughness flying blocker (basically marit lage) and you have no bounce vs non artifact creatures main, then if you can assemble time+volt, w twister+regrowth in your library. once you demonstrate you have an infinite loop where they never get another turn, the game is officially a draw. so this deck has the same out as worldgorger, where if they answer your wincon, you can force a draw relatively easily and try again next game. this makes reclaim important so you can cast twister on non-yawgwill turn and recur it indefinitely.

?

Or is it more like:

I can't find anywhere in the rules/ DCI floor rules/ infraction guide that says a game is declared a draw because a player could hypothetically (for instance they don't forget to activate Time Vault) not lose, but their deck is seemingly incapable of winning.

Now, I imagine that refusing to take actions that would win the game in, say, game one until thirty seconds to the end of the match would be considered stalling, even though they don't give an example like that.

[Bill Copes]

I can recall some time in the past few months where a situation like this came up, and the ruling was that eventually turn priority would be passed back to the other player.  The loop you are creating isn't one that can't resolve on its own and breaks the rules of the game (like dragon with no other reanimation targets).  You eventually have to make a different choice other than recycling your deck over and over again during the course of infinite turns.

I could be wrong?

[meadbert]

I can recall some time in the past few months where a situation like this came up, and the ruling was that eventually turn priority would be passed back to the other player.  The loop you are creating isn't one that can't resolve on its own and breaks the rules of the game (like dragon with no other reanimation targets).  You eventually have to make a different choice other than recycling your deck over and over again during the course of infinite turns.

I could be wrong?

I am pretty sure that is wrong.  For instance in Dragon you can declare a draw after animating Dragon even with Bazaar in play.  You do not need to eventually tap your Bazaar. 

You should be able to Regrowth and Timetwister as much as possible.  Since Timetwister is random it is impossible to enter into any loop.

[Bill Copes]

You should be able to Regrowth and Timetwister as much as possible.  Since Timetwister is random it is impossible to enter into any loop.

Isn't this considered stalling, though? (I'm admittedly ignorant of this subject -- just chiming in.)

[Norm4eva]

Unless I'm terribly mistaken, I believe the bold text is the relevant rule here.

421. Handling "Infinite" Loops
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.
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.
421.3

If a loop contains optional actions controlled by two players and actions by both of those players are required to continue the loop, the first player (or the first involved player after the active player in turn order) chooses a number. The other player then has two choices. He or she can choose a lower number, in which case the loop continues that number of times plus whatever fraction is necessary for the active player to "have the last word." Or he or she can agree to the number the first player chose, in which case the loop continues that number of times plus whatever fraction is necessary for the second player to "have the last word." (Note that either fraction may be zero.) This sequence of choices is extended to all applicable players if there are more than two players involved.
Example:

In a two-player game, one player controls a creature with the ability ": [This creature] gains flying," and another player controls a permanent with the ability ": Target creature loses flying." The "infinity rule" ensures that regardless of which player initiated the gain/lose flying ability, the nonactive player will always have the final choice and therefore be able to determine whether the creature has flying. (Note that this assumes that the first player attempted to give the creature flying at least once.)
421.4

If the loop contains only mandatory actions, the game ends in a draw. (See rule 102.6.)
421.5

If the loop contains optional actions controlled by different players and these actions don't depend on one another, the active player chooses a number. In APNAP order, the nonactive players can each either agree to that number or choose a higher number. Note that this rule applies even if the actions could exist in separate loops rather than in a single loop.

--

Basically since no game action is forcing you to continue to take infinite turns, you and the opponent are basically to assume that you've actually executed it an arbitrary number of times and then move the game state forward to what it would look like on that last time.

Like when a player illustrates they can generate infinite mana with a bunch of Elves, Priest of Titania and Staff of Domination, you just say "Ok here's the combo, see?  I'm going to do this a jillion times and generate 14G^56 mana."  This is not unlike your Vault + Key example; you simply agree to take 93 million turns and then advance the game state to such a point as to assume it's been done.  Adding Twister and Regrowth doesn't change this at all - it's just another step in the series of optional actions.

[Vegeta2711]

this has been gone over before. If there's an optional way to stop the loop at some point, you make that move or risk being called for stalling. If you can go 'infinite' you still need to set a certain amount of repetitions unless it's an unbounded loop (see: dragon combo w/o any other creatures in grave). You are only trapped in a loop if there are no optional actions to be made. Otherwise you eventually have to give the opponent back his turn or you can be called for stalling if the other player calls a judge.

It's the equivalent of untapping Seeker of Skybreak a billion times.

Now you can certainly OFFER the draw, but the opponent doesn't have to accept it.

[vroman]

alright, lets make situation slightly more concrete:

my opponent has no win conditions on board, but presumably can still win w whats left in his library. I take as many turns as necessary to play every permanent in my deck, then take more turns to get a hand of 7 counterspells, and then pass the turn. I counter everything he plays, and after every one of his turns, I twister repeatedly until I again have 7 counterspells, and pass back. now is it not clear that my opponent actually CANT win either?
assuming this were untimed round, how is it not a draw? As soon as he plays something and I counter it, the gamestate has changed, and I should be free to use my engine to rebuild an unstoppable counter wall over and over.

[meadbert]

I still say this is not a loop.  Vroman is basically pointing it out the hard way.  Just because you fail to win on a turn does not mean you are creating a loop.  Instead a loop is when the same game state is repeated which is not happening here.  Twister is random and thus no loop.

[Clariax]

What is described here is not a loop.  A loop requires the same actions being performed over and over (and only those actions to constitute a loop).  However, the issue of stalling is not nearly as concrete.  Stalling is much more subjective, and if the judge determines you are taking actions specifically to run out the clock (and also to avoid advancing the game state), he could interpret this as stalling.

[Godder]

Depending on the exact game state, it may not actually be possible to advance it, although it's probably possible to change it (whether by playing lands, permanents, Timetwister or whatever).

That said, that's a lot more thinking than the rules really allow for, so it can't be a loop.

[MirariKnight]

One solution that was proposed is declaring you do this 999,999,999,999 times and stop only when you have all permanents in your deck in play and a hand of 7 counterspells (which would EVENTUALLY happen off Twister. Is it possible to ask your opponent to shortcut to this, then pass the turn and hope to then deck since they are drawing before you are, assuming you can't even Ancestral them.

The thing I don't understand is how the judge would know there are no win-cons left in the deck and why the player performing the Twister recursion couldn't just pretend there are and that he is digging for them. This wouldn't be stalling then if it's the only way of winning, unless I'm wrong. If there was a Fire/Ice left in the deck then it wouldn't be stalling...so proceed with Twister recursion as if there is?

[Clariax]

This is full of problems.  First of all, as already stated, this is not a loop, you cannot declare you're doing it X times.  Second, the judge can have access to whatever information he needs to figure these details out.  He can check the decklist, look at the deck itself, question the player, etc.  And if the player is going to lie to the judge about having a fire//ice in his deck, then it's a much more clear-cut cheating situation than whether or not he is stalling.

To put it as simply as possible, if your plan is to just perform the same actions over and over with the intent of running out the clock and not advancing the game state, you need to find a better plan.

One solution that was proposed is declaring you do this 999,999,999,999 times and stop only when you have all permanents in your deck in play and a hand of 7 counterspells (which would EVENTUALLY happen off Twister. Is it possible to ask your opponent to shortcut to this, then pass the turn and hope to then deck since they are drawing before you are, assuming you can't even Ancestral them.

The thing I don't understand is how the judge would know there are no win-cons left in the deck and why the player performing the Twister recursion couldn't just pretend there are and that he is digging for them. This wouldn't be stalling then if it's the only way of winning, unless I'm wrong. If there was a Fire/Ice left in the deck then it wouldn't be stalling...so proceed with Twister recursion as if there is?

[SiegeX]

EDIT:  Clariax is too quick on the draw for me. What he said...

The thing I don't understand is how the judge would know there are no win-cons left in the deck and why the player performing the Twister recursion couldn't just pretend there are and that he is digging for them. This wouldn't be stalling then if it's the only way of winning, unless I'm wrong.

The only ways I see this happening is if you are the only match left so all eyes are on you and you've had numerous iterations of twister with the gamestate basically going nowhere. Of if your opp calls the judge on you for stalling. In both situations I would imagine the judge calling you aside and asking you your intent. If you don't have a convincing answer you're likely to be called for stalling.  

If there was a Fire/Ice left in the deck then it wouldn't be stalling...so proceed with Twister recursion as if there is?

This was my next question as well. I would believe as long as you can show that given sufficient time you could win I highly doubt you would be called for stalling. Now the question given a win condition still left in the deck like fire//ice or Extract etc. can we shortcut to our opp being at 0 life or all cards remaining is his library to be exiled?    Since Clariax says twister recursion is not a loop (rightfully so) I would say we can't shortcut as that would be having our cake and eating it too.

[Norm4eva]

Apparently my 'tangent' wasn't actually tangential; I assumed that I was shifting the topic away from "What constitutes an infinite loop/Can I win this way" to "Particulars of Stalling - Judge Using Decklist".  Sorry for making an extra thread, I'd like to continue my line of question here.

This is full of problems.  First of all, as already stated, this is not a loop, you cannot declare you're doing it X times.  Second, the judge can have access to whatever information he needs to figure these details out.  He can check the decklist, look at the deck itself, question the player, etc.  And if the player is going to lie to the judge about having a fire//ice in his deck, then it's a much more clear-cut cheating situation than whether or not he is stalling.

To put it as simply as possible, if your plan is to just perform the same actions over and over with the intent of running out the clock and not advancing the game state, you need to find a better plan.

I've got qualms over several aspects of this.  Maybe this is example specific, and so I'm being too paranoid, but I'm really concerned with what this allows for.

Theoretically, if I establish what I consider my deck's 'lock' to be and my opponent doesn't seem to be doing anything besides draw-go, am I within rights to ask a judge if the opponent actually has an answer to my lock?  And if they do not, are they summarily warned for not scooping?

As an opponent, if I can still draw cards and say go, I'm not convinced that the game is over.  I'm not sure why I don't have the right to fake an answer, whether it's Fire//Ice or Shock or Lava Dart or 1996 World Champion or whatever the relevant technology is.  Hell if I'm playing 9-land Stompy and my opponent's at 2, I should be able to fake Unyaro Bee Sting.  There's what now, 12000+ cards in Magic?  You shouldn't know what my decklist is, even in obscurities like having a judicial appraisal which results in "No, he's got no answer.  He's stalling."

[Phoenix888]

To add to that, what if you know your opponents wife is nine months pregnant?  There's a very real possibility that his cell phone could ring and he'd have to forfeit the match and rush to the hospital.  Is it still stalling if I'm out of win conditions, but I continue playing in hopes that his pregnant wife calls him?  Would the same apply if he had a terminal parent or grandparent that hadn't been doing so well lately?  What if it were just a terminal pet, like a dog or a cat?  Am I stalling in any of those cases?  Could the judge call the opponents wife to verify her pregnancy?

[Harlequin]

This is full of problems.  First of all, as already stated, this is not a loop, you cannot declare you're doing it X times.  Second, the judge can have access to whatever information he needs to figure these details out.  He can check the decklist, look at the deck itself, question the player, etc.  And if the player is going to lie to the judge about having a fire//ice in his deck, then it's a much more clear-cut cheating situation than whether or not he is stalling.

To put it as simply as possible, if your plan is to just perform the same actions over and over with the intent of running out the clock and not advancing the game state, you need to find a better plan.

I've got qualms over several aspects of this.  Maybe this is example specific, and so I'm being too paranoid, but I'm really concerned with what this allows for.

Theoretically, if I establish what I consider my deck's 'lock' to be and my opponent doesn't seem to be doing anything besides draw-go, am I within rights to ask a judge if the opponent actually has an answer to my lock?  And if they do not, are they summarily warned for not scooping?
[/quote]

Yeah I actually thought a Judge couldn't reveal information about EITHER players deck. 

Also If my opponent goes Turn 1 Shop, Trinisphere, turn 2 Cruicble Strip.  If I don't immediately scoop, I can get called for slow play?  There are 2 reasons I could be refusing to scoop:

- I could have an out, like Trip-SSG Shatting Spree!  Or simply I could be running Shop-crucible of my own.  Or more likely...
- I could want to see what he is running.  There are plenty of decks that run those 4 cards: Stax, Uba, Mono-Red Shop-Agro, 5c... Metalworker.  This might be highly relevant to  my sideboarding strategy.  For example, how likely is it that my opponent is running null rod?  Jitte is strong against some of those decks, and very weak against others. 

I agree that it seems odd that a judge could come over, grab my deck, rifle through it and say "nope he isn't running ESG or SSG or Workshop - Go to game 2 now enjoy sideboarding!  Oh and you get a warning for slow play"

[Norm4eva]

Yeah I actually thought a Judge couldn't reveal information about EITHER players deck. 

Also If my opponent goes Turn 1 Shop, Trinisphere, turn 2 Cruicble Strip.  If I don't immediately scoop, I can get called for slow play?  There are 2 reasons I could be refusing to scoop:

- I could have an out, like Trip-SSG Shatting Spree!  Or simply I could be running Shop-crucible of my own.  Or more likely...
- I could want to see what he is running.  There are plenty of decks that run those 4 cards: Stax, Uba, Mono-Red Shop-Agro, 5c... Metalworker.  This might be highly relevant to  my sideboarding strategy.  For example, how likely is it that my opponent is running null rod?  Jitte is strong against some of those decks, and very weak against others. 

I agree that it seems odd that a judge could come over, grab my deck, rifle through it and say "nope he isn't running ESG or SSG or Workshop - Go to game 2 now enjoy sideboarding!  Oh and you get a warning for slow play"

Bolded for truth.  A quick win does not always lead to a logical sideboard strategy.  If a scoop or blitzkrieg can be avoided, and if you can glean more information about what the other guy might be running, then hell yes play it out.

Don't want to start another Player vs Clock thread, but this aspect of it is really pushing it, IMO.

[meadbert]

Here is a related question.  In this same situation, if my opponent has Mana Crypt or better yet Dark Confidant in his deck can I simply get my hand to 6 counters + Bounce ever turn and then insist that my opponet play his Dark Confidant so I can have him lose life to it and then bounce it?

If my opponent refuses to play Dark Confidant when he draws it, is he in fact delaying and refusing to advance the game?

[smasher]

It seems ridiculous to think your opponent must play spells. Why would they have to play dark confidant. If we start requiring spells to be played when you have the capability to do so then you would always have to play your spell then burn your own force of will to counter it.

[Harlequin]

The rules are clear on this example, in that case you are not forced to -do- something.  The rules don't require you to play Confidant

Here is a interesting illustration of this...
Player A - is playing Dragon
Player B - is playing Turbo Phage!!

Player A has Dragon in his yard, and player B has Phage in the yard.  No other creatures are in any graveyards. 
Player B also has Relic of Progenitus in play untapped.

Player A starts the loop via animate thinking hes going to win - however Player B cunningly cast crop rotate to get stripmine thus destroying player A's onl Bazaar.   Now things are awkward at best.

Player A, is in an infinte dragon loop - that has one way to end -> by animating phage and thus lossing the game to the phage trigger.  Player B however -can- "end" this loop in one of two ways:  by targeting Player A with relic at the right momoent to allow him to remove WGD, or Player B can target himself and remove phage and draw the game in a forced loop.

In this case, the rules clearly say that Player B doesn't have to do anything he can sit there with untapped relic all day long.  The judge and the rules won't tell him otherwise, Player B can choose NOT to do anything dispite having dirrect plays to advance the gamestate. Conversely Player A DOES eventually have to target Phage after some number of WGD loops.  And the Judge should enforce the rules that instruct Player A to do so and thus lose the game.

The "right" way this should resolve is that Player B does nothing with relic, and the judge tells A that he must at some point target Phage and lose; chalk up a win to Turbo-Phage!

[meadbert]

There is no rule that says he must play Dark Confidant, but is refusing to play your win conditions considered stalling?

[Harlequin]

421.4  If the loop contains only mandatory actions, the game ends in a draw.

421.5  If the loop contains more than one set of optional, independent actions, each controlled by different players, then the active player (or, if the active player is not involved, the first involved player after the active player in turn order) chooses a number for his or her set of actions. Knowing that number, the remaining players, in turn order, each choose a number for his or her sets of actions. It can be higher, lower, or the same. Then each set of actions occurs the appropriate number of times.

421.6  If the loop contains an effect that says "[X] unless [Y]," where [X] and [Y] are each actions, no player can be forced to perform [Y] to break the loop. If no player chooses to perform [Y], the loop will continue as though [X] were mandatory.

As I understand it, 421.6 covers why you wouldn't have to play your confidant.  However It doesn't allow you to turn WGD into a draw if there are other options that would not draw the game.

This is probably a better question for Clariax or some other judge to talk about why 421.6 covers Player B's choice to not activate Relic and not Player A's choice to not animate phage in my example above.  I'm not sure how best to articulate it.

[Clariax]

There seem to be a few misunderstandings concerning my last post, so hopefuilly I'll clear them up here.

As an opponent, if I can still draw cards and say go, I'm not convinced that the game is over.  I'm not sure why I don't have the right to fake an answer, whether it's Fire//Ice or Shock or Lava Dart or 1996 World Champion or whatever the relevant technology is.  Hell if I'm playing 9-land Stompy and my opponent's at 2, I should be able to fake Unyaro Bee Sting.  There's what now, 12000+ cards in Magic?  You shouldn't know what my decklist is, even in obscurities like having a judicial appraisal which results in "No, he's got no answer.  He's stalling."

When it comes to bluffing/pretending you have cards in your deck that you don't, yes, you can definitely bluff.  What I mentioned was in talking to the judge.  Bluffing to your opponent and lying to the judge are two very different things.  And there's no reason why any information the judge requires you to divulge to him need be divulged to your opponent as well.  What's more, if ever a judge asks you a question during a match that you don't think your opponent should be hearing the answer to, just ask the judge if you can step away from the table, and talk to him privately.  (Judges are human, it's possible he may ask a question publicly he should ask privately, yes)

Also If my opponent goes Turn 1 Shop, Trinisphere, turn 2 Cruicble Strip.  If I don't immediately scoop, I can get called for slow play?  There are 2 reasons I could be refusing to scoop:

Not scooping even when you can't do anything is very very different.  No, a player is not required to concede, no a player is not going to be penalized because he chooses not to concede.  If, given the situation a player is continually thinking each and every turn when he can't do anything at all, then it's quite possiblly stalling.  Given this particular situation, even 10 seconds a turn thinking could make for stalling.  (6 turns works out to killing a minute, 12 turns, 2 minutes.  10 seconds each turn can certainly add up.) 

And before anyone tries to jump on this one, no there's no set amount of time you're allowed to think for every situation.  In one situation 30 seconds thinking can be OK, in another 5 seconds "thinking" could be stalling.  This bit really is not a topic for discussion, so don't go there (I'll probably delete it)

The issue with stalling is when you're taking actions specifically to use up the clock.  Wanting to see how your opponent will kill you (or if they can kill you) is perfectly fine.  Giving them opportunity to mess up and kill themselves in the process is, of course, also fine.  The original scenario asked about involved taking infinite turns expressly to make the game a draw, so the opponent cannot do anything while you run down the clock.  This really isn't any different that tapping and untapping a seeker of skybreak over and over for 30 minutes (except, of course, that's a loop and clearly prevented by the rules) or spending 30 minutes thinking until the clock expires.

[MirariKnight]

To be clear I wasn't advocating lying to the judge, I was talking about pretending you have a win con in the deck to prevent the opponent from even calling a judge.

Where do the rules stand on the "shortcut" to all your permanents in play + perfect hand and then you pass the turn?

[Rico Suave]

Where do the rules stand on the "shortcut" to all your permanents in play + perfect hand and then you pass the turn?

There is no shortcut.

Timetwister recursion is not a loop, so it's not possible to say "I do this X times until I achieve a specific state."

Furthermore, at the end of the day the "perfect hand" scenario is still random.  It is quite possible that even after 10^99999999 times of Timetwister recursion that you will never end up with the perfect hand. 

The only legitimate way to go about this is manually.  Of course if the judge comes over, knows that you have no win condition, and deems it appropriate you could still be nailed with stalling and a game loss anyway.

[Clariax]

Of course if the judge comes over, knows that you have no win condition, and deems it appropriate you could still be nailed with stalling and a game loss anyway.

Just to make sure there's no confusion here with anyone, the penalty for stalling is Disqualification, not a game loss.

[SiegeX]

Timetwister recursion is not a loop, so it's not possible to say "I do this X times until I achieve a specific state."

I think the more correct statement is that *this* particular scenario, where we eventually draw into regrowth to cast timetwister, is not a loop.  Correct me if I'm wrong, Clariax, but a true Timetwister recursion where you can play the same cards in the same sequence to cast Timetwister an arbitrary amount of times would result in you being able to shortcut to a hand of your choosing; might not necessarily be 7.

[Clariax]

Timetwister recursion is not a loop, so it's not possible to say "I do this X times until I achieve a specific state."

I think the more correct statement is that *this* particular scenario, where we eventually draw into regrowth to cast timetwister, is not a loop.  Correct me if I'm wrong, Clariax, but a true Timetwister recursion where you can play the same cards in the same sequence to cast Timetwister an arbitrary amount of times would result in you being able to shortcut to a hand of your choosing; might not necessarily be 7.

Basically for it to be a loop would require only 7 other cards between hand, graveyard, and library, so that every iteration of the loop would be the same.  Yes, there are other possible ways (and we don't need 5 posts here of people trying to come up with such ways).  The situation being discussed, however, is not a loop, of course.

[MirariKnight]

I understand that it's not a loop but I still don't get why you can't just shortcut -> pass turn, especially if the opponent agrees to the shortcut.

[Rico Suave]

I understand that it's not a loop but I still don't get why you can't just shortcut -> pass turn, especially if the opponent agrees to the shortcut.

Magic is a game of rules.  You must follow those rules.  You must follow those rules even if your opponent says you can break them for a specific situation. 

The only possible way I can see winning in this situation is if you explain to your judge that you are going to attempt to deck your opponent.  You would have to convince him that you are confident your opponent is unable to win if you can assemble 7 counters in hand, and that you will deck him by using Vault to skip enough turns such that your opponent will run out of cards first.

This *might* hold water in specific situations, especially combo decks or specific control decks who have already lost important cards to the RFG zone (counters pitched to Force, Will, etc).  Successfully pulling it off is an entirely different matter...

However if you present a valid path to victory, I don't believe the judge can stop you from attempting it.  I could be wrong though.