A bit of explanation about this column
Rule of Law, as I have explained before, covers the rules of Magic as they are. I will continue to do so with this article. However, I would feel remiss in this case if I didn’t point out what I thought were unusual ramifications that I think should be handled differently. (So, to that end, I will add personal comments in, just like this. Think of it as getting a Rule of Law and a Heretic’s Corner all in the same article.)
Loops and “infinite” actions
Situations come up in Magic where a sequence of events can repeat indefinitely. Whether this is the goal of the deck or something that just appeared in the game, it makes little sense for the game to simply stall on that account if it can be helped. The loop rules, as they exist, enforce this quite well.
The basics of loop rules are as follows. If the game gets caught in a situation where abilities keep triggering, and all of these are mandatory (nothing that says “you may”) the game is a draw. There really is no other game result that makes sense. This is why Worldgorger Dragon/Animate Dead with no other creatures in either graveyard is a draw. The Animate Dead pulls the Worldgorger Dragon out of the graveyard and then becomes an enchant creature card enchanting it. The Worldgorger Dragon’s comes into play effect triggers removing all that player’s permanents from the game, including Animate Dead. This trigger’s Animate Dead’s leaves play ability, which sends the Dragon back to the graveyard. Now Worldgorger Dragon’s leaves play ability triggers, returning all the removed permanents to play, again including Animate Dead. Animate Dead requires you to choose a creature card in a graveyard, and if the only one available is Worldgorger Dragon, the cycle repeats indefinitely.
Now if someone has a plan that may or may not break such a loop, that player may try to do so, but is not forced to take that action. A player might be able to activate a Bazaar of Baghdad and discard a creature card so that the Animate Dead has a choice of creatures to retrieve, for example. But even if such a play is available, no one is forced to use it. And even if it is used, there is no requirement to discard a creature card even if the player can do so.
The most classic cases are the ones where the loop contains optional abilities and one player controls all of them. Virtually all of the intentional “infinite” combos fall under this clause. In these cases, the player chooses a number of times to repeat the loop. The loop “fast forwards” to the result at the end of that number of repetitions, then the game continues from that point with the player taking another action.
This explains why you can’t just stop the game with an active Seeker of Skybreak tapping to untap itself. This is a loop that contains an optional action, and only one player controls it. That player chooses a number of times to repeat the loop, and then takes a different action. Since the net effect of the loop is “No Change”, it won’t affect the outcome of the game.
If the loop requires actions from both players to continue, the active player proposes a number of times for the loop to repeat. If the non-active player agrees, the loop continues that many times, plus whatever fraction of the loop is needed to end it at whatever point the non-active player chooses. If the non-active player doesn’t want it to continue that many times, he or she can choose a lower number of iterations. The loop will only run that many times, but then the active player gets to choose where the loop ends. Once the ending point is determined, the game continues from that point on with the players taking other actions.
If the loop contains actions from both players, but these actions are independent of each other, the active player chooses a number of times to repeat it. Then the non-active player may accept that number or raise it to a higher number. The loop is then repeated that many times, then another action is taken.
(This is all well and good for almost every situation that will come up in a game. The corner cases don’t come up very often. But when they do, I am convinced that the rules as they stand create situations where judges will feel obligated to make decisions that run counter to common intuition. Allow me to present what I will call Example 1.)
(Player A: In play – 1 Island, Platinum Angel. In hand – Nothing. In Library – Nothing. Life Total – -12. )
(Player B: In play – 10 Plains, Kataki, War’s Wage. In hand – Nothing. In Library – Beacon of Immortality. Life Total – 8.)
According to the explanations above, who wins?
First, let’s examine the situation. Assume it’s Player A’s turn. He pays {1} for Platinum Angel’s upkeep, then attacks and knocks Player B down to 4. Player B then untaps, draws the Beacon of Immortality and plays it, doubling her life to 8 again. The Beacon is then shuffled into her library, and will, by the miracle of mathematics, appear on top again.
If it’s Player B’s turn at this point, her life total doubles to 16, then the Angel reduces it to 12, then it doubles again to 24, drops to 20, and so on. B’s life total increases with each turn, but the loop is still intact.
By the rules above, the players are involved in a loop with both players taking actions required to continue the loop. (Player A ends the loop by not paying the cost on Platinum Angel imposed by Kataki, and Player B ends the loop by not playing the Beacon of Immortality and getting decked on her next draw.) So, according to the rules, the active player chooses a number of times to repeat the loop. The non-active player can either accept the number and then choose the point at which it ends, or choose a lower number and let the active player choose the ending point of the loop. In this case, being able to choose the ending point of the loop is far more important than how many times it runs, so the non-active player wins the game by accepting whatever number of iterations the active player wants, and then ending the loop at the end of his or her own turn. The other player is then forced to take another action, which will cause that person to lose. So the answer to the question by a strict interpretation of the rules is: The non-active player at the moment the judge is called will win. (I don’t think I’ve missed any rules interpretations here, but please correct me if I have. If I am correct, I don’t think I’m alone in finding this result a little strange.)
(Now let’s change this example just slightly by replacing Kataki, War’s Wage with Ghostly Prison, which I will call Example 2. In this new example, Player A isn’t doing anything to maintain the loop – all the actions that maintain the loop are controlled by Player B. Note that A can’t even attack in this situation, as he doesn’t have enough to pay for Ghostly Prison. In this situation, Player B must choose a number of times he wishes to cast Beacon of Immortality, then take another action. As the only other action at that point is not casting the spell, player B will lose the next time she draws a card. If you thought the last situation was strange, this should seem even stranger.)
Andy Heckt has posted on DCIJUDGE-L: “Taking actions that _will not_ advance a players position (note: does not advance, but could, is ok) in order to force a draw due to time is stalling.” This was in response to questions about situations just like this one. In another post, “The loop has to advance the game-state, or its stalling.” So what does this mean?
Let’s define what Andy means in our Example 2. Our Player B, cannot, under any conceivable circumstance, demonstrate any sequence of play by which she wins. Player A, on the other hand, has such a circumstance, namely that he will win the turn after B fails to cast her Beacon. Because B has no play that will lead to a win for her, this loop is considered not to be advancing the game state.
(I, on the other hand, find the definition to be flawed. If the situation were that, instead of a single Beacon of Immortality in B’s library, there were 3 Beacons and a Terashi’s Grasp, now there technically is no loop, since at some point the Terashi’s Grasp will be drawn. In both situations, people are playing spells, life totals are changing, and so on. The only difference between this state and the one before is that in this one, there is a sequence of events by which Player B can win. But as a judge, the only way I can tell the difference between someone with three Beacons and a Terashi’s Grasp and someone with four Beacons is to look through the library. When that happens, my ruling gives information to the opponent about what I saw. If I saw a way for the person to remove Platinum Angel, I rule that the game continues, otherwise I rule that the situation is not advancing the game state and order it to end.)
(I see a difference between a person taking an action that does nothing and has as its only meaningful effect the waste of time and that same person taking an action that does something that would advance the game state in 99% of cases – just not this one. Seeker of Skybreak tricks to don’t let you live any number of turns longer than you would if you didn’t use them, but casting Beacons do. Something changes when a Beacon resolves, such as a life total, or the number of permanents in play, or even the turn order in the case of Beacon of Tomorrows. This I see, from a naïve game theory viewpoint, as advancing the game state.)
I have heard through reliable sources that the Powers That Be have no intention of defining the phrase “advancing the game state,” since that would be too hard to do. I don’t see that as all that hard. The official position requires the phrase to be defined as “proceeding in such a way as to allow the possibility of the player’s winning the game (or drawing the game by game rule) to be realized.” In simple terms, there has to be a possibility for you to win (or draw by rule), and you have to play in such a way that allows that possibility a chance to appear. We are talking about “absolute possibility*” here, which means that if the only way you can win is for your opponent to play badly and allow you a chance to recover, that’s fine. If, on the other hand, you have a situation where you can’t win unless a certain card is removed from play, and you have no way to do it with the cards you have available, that’s not acceptable.
(While that is definition enough for what they’re trying to assert, my definition is even easier to define and measure. The game state is advancing if either 1) a player wins or the players agree to a draw, or 2) the turn ends and at least one measurable aspect of the game state other than the fact that we are in the end of the turn instead of the beginning (such as life totals, number of permanents tapped, number of cards in hand or library, number or type of creatures in play, etc.) has changed since the start of the turn. For the purposes of this definition, I would exclude the one specific case of the person who plays first doing nothing on that turn. Technically the game state does not advance on that turn by my definition, but it will change on the next turn. Adopting this definition would mean force us to modify the rules slightly to accommodate it, but that does not bother me. The role of the judge becomes a lot easier, as all they would have to look for are turns ending and elements of the game state changing. It would also mean that, loops that run more than one turn would be allowed to continue if they produce game state changes, which would allow for someone to act in a way to get more turns without worry. Such a game state would likely end in a draw, if there is no way to force a win. This is more in line with what common sense would dictate for these situations, and while I will enforce the rules as they stand, for as long as they stand, I will be a lot happier enforcing the rules as I want them to be, and I think the general public will as well.)
*This is a philosophical term, meaning that if a sequence of events is not a logical contradiction, such as drawing an Oxidize from a deck that doesn’t contain that card, then it is considered possible. It can be so improbable as to make it almost impossible to pull off, but if the situation does not depend on a contradiction, then it’s “absolutely possible.”