Hello!

I have a question that was about to happen to me in GP Lille, it didn't happen, but this was a possible outcome. I was playing Lantern Control against Tron, my opponent has in play a Platinum Angel and I have a Mox Opal and an Academy Ruins in play, and another Mox Opal in the graveyard. Let's assume I can “mill” all my opponent's deck but he will not lose because of the Platinum Angel and has no cards in hand or in play relevant to affect the game state or break my loop. I have a “loop” using the Academy Ruins to return the Mox Opal in the graveyard to the top of my deck at the end of my opponent's turn, draw it in my turn, play it, using the legendary rule put one of them on my graveyard, pass the turn and repeat these actions every turn, and I have no way to deal with the Platinum Angel in my deck. I cannot win this game, neither can my opponent unless I mess up my loop, and none of us can lose, again if I don't mess up my loop. We are in the second game, I am winning 1-0.

What happens? Do we draw? Can I refuse to draw knowing that if we keep playing we will eventually run out of time and with a draw I will win the match, taking no more than 2 seconds in my turn to draw the card, play it and put it in my graveyard? What if we are in a top 8 or tournament without time limit, again assuming I'm 1-0 in games?

Thanks and best regards!

Rui

Sounds like it IS slow play, as repeating the plays does not advance the game state. It's also a loop, which you have the ability to end. So you must decide the number of iterations before you break it. So it's not a draw. You will eventually lose to decking. I recommend going straight to game 3

Hello!

My 2 cents to start the discussion:

719.2a At any point in the game, the player with priority may suggest a shortcut by describing a
sequence of game choices, for all players, that may be legally taken based on the current game
state and the predictable results of the sequence of choices. This sequence may be a nonrepetitive
series of choices, a loop that repeats a specified number of times, multiple loops, or
nested loops, and may even cross multiple turns. It can’t include conditional actions, where the
outcome of a game event determines the next action a player takes. The ending point of this
sequence must be a place where a player has priority, though it need not be the player proposing
the shortcut

My next points depend largely on my interpretation of the CR and could be wrong.
To my understanding this would mean that player A (playing Lantern) can propose that a loop with a certain number of iterations. Like: “I will do blablabla (recursion loop) every time you pass, for 100000 times”. This, however will get us nowhere.

I suspect our answer has to be somewhere within 719.3:

719.3. Sometimes a loop can be fragmented, meaning that each player involved in the loop performs an
independent action that results in the same game state being reached multiple times. If that happens,
the active player (or, if the active player is not involved in the loop, the first player in turn order
who is involved) must then make a different game choice so the loop does not continue.
Example: In a two-player game, the active player controls a creature with the ability “{0}:
gains flying,” the nonactive player controls a permanent with the ability
“{0}: Target creature loses flying,” and nothing in the game cares how many times an
ability has been activated. Say the active player activates his creature’s ability, it resolves,
then the nonactive player activates her permanent’s ability targeting that creature, and it
resolves. This returns the game to a game state it was at before. The active player must
make a different game choice (in other words, anything other than activating that creature’s
ability again). The creature doesn’t have flying. Note that the nonactive player could have
prevented the fragmented loop simply by not activating her permanent’s ability, in which
case the creature would have had flying. The nonactive player always has the final choice
and is therefore able to determine whether the creature has flying.

To me this instinctively means the player playing Lantern needs to take an action that would lead to a different game state outcome (ie: stop recurring+playing Mox Opal). However I can see an argument for the person described as the “active player” not necessarily being the Lantern player.

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

Sounds like it IS slow play, as repeating the plays does not advance the game state. It's also a loop, which you have the ability to end. So you must decide the number of iterations before you break it. So it's not a draw. You will eventually lose to decking. I recommend going straight to game 3

Interesting. If you can avoid to lose, isn't it up to the Lantern player to push through a win? You might just as easily say that the Lantern player to scoop as the Affinity player to scoop?

Originally posted by Paulo Azevedo:

719.3. Sometimes a loop can be fragmented, meaning that each player involved in the loop performs an
independent action that results in the same game state being reached multiple times. If that happens,
the active player (or, if the active player is not involved in the loop, the first player in turn order
who is involved) must then make a different game choice so the loop does not continue.
Example: In a two-player game, the active player controls a creature with the ability “{0}:
gains flying,” the nonactive player controls a permanent with the ability
“{0}: Target creature loses flying,” and nothing in the game cares how many times an
ability has been activated. Say the active player activates his creature’s ability, it resolves,
then the nonactive player activates her permanent’s ability targeting that creature, and it
resolves. This returns the game to a game state it was at before. The active player must
make a different game choice (in other words, anything other than activating that creature’s
ability again). The creature doesn’t have flying. Note that the nonactive player could have
prevented the fragmented loop simply by not activating her permanent’s ability, in which
case the creature would have had flying. The nonactive player always has the final choice
and is therefore able to determine whether the creature has flying.

Bolded for emphasis. All game actions taken to create the loop are:
1. Activate Academy Ruins on your end step.
2. Draw Mox
3. Play Mox
4. Pass the turn.
Repeat ad infinitum.

So, in my view, regardless of who the active player is, the first, and only player in turn order involved in the loop must take a different game choice so that the loop does not continue.

How do you stop yourself losing to the Platinum Angel attacking for 4 each loop?

Edited Gareth Tanner (Sept. 2, 2016 03:59:00 AM)

It can be assumed that the Lantern player also controls Ensnaring Bridge (e.g.) and that he has fewer than four cards in hand, thus the Angel cannot attack.

Originally posted by Lars Harald Nordli:

Mark Mc Govern
Sounds like it IS slow play, as repeating the plays does not advance the game state. It's also a loop, which you have the ability to end. So you must decide the number of iterations before you break it. So it's not a draw. You will eventually lose to decking. I recommend going straight to game 3

Interesting. If you can avoid to lose, isn't it up to the Lantern player to push through a win? You might just as easily say that the Lantern player to scoop as the Affinity player to scoop?

From the description, the Lantern player can't push through a win. The Platinum Angel player has no library, and has no plays. They have no choices to make in the loop. The Lantern player does have choices. So they are obligated to choose a number of iterations of the loop, and then move the game along.

I'm not saying they're obligated to scoop, but they probably should - it has been established that they have no way to deal with the angel, and the angel player is not losing to decking. The lantern player can't keep looping forever (Slow Play, potentially risking Stalling). So they will have to draw a card each turn, eventually decking themselves. Their loss is inevitable - by playing on they risk receiving penalties. It's in their interest to try and win Game 3.

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

Lars Harald Nordli

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

Sounds like it IS slow play, as repeating the plays does not advance the game state. It's also a loop, which you have the ability to end. So you must decide the number of iterations before you break it. So it's not a draw. You will eventually lose to decking. I recommend going straight to game 3

Interesting. If you can avoid to lose, isn't it up to the Lantern player to push through a win? You might just as easily say that the Lantern player to scoop as the Affinity player to scoop?

From the description, the Lantern player can't push through a win. The Platinum Angel player has no library, and has no plays. They have no choices to make in the loop. The Lantern player does have choices. So they are obligated to choose a number of iterations of the loop, and then move the game along.

I'm not saying they're obligated to scoop, but they probably should - it has been established that they have no way to deal with the angel, and the angel player is not losing to decking. The lantern player can't keep looping forever (Slow Play, potentially risking Stalling). So they will have to draw a card each turn, eventually decking themselves. Their loss is inevitable - by playing on they risk receiving penalties. It's in their interest to try and win Game 3.

You are correct! I read the scenario and your answer wrong and thought you instructed the Platinum Angel player to scoop. My bad!

I don't see why we should ever make a player make an decision other than going on playingin this scenario.
Technicaly we dont have a loop, even though one player is doing all the same each of his turns. We are never at a point, where one player is looping actions in his turn to a unreasonable amount to eat up the clock. So please tell me why you think we should intervene.

Originally posted by Philip Wieland:

Technicaly we dont have a loop

What makes you say that? Why does a repeated set of actions have to be confined to a single turn to qualify as a loop?

Originally posted by Philip Wieland:

So please tell me why you think we should intervene.

The scenario assumes that one or both players is asking a Judge what happens. That being said, if we see Slow Play, we should intervene to issue the appropriate penalty.

Originally posted by Philip Wieland:

Technicaly we dont have a loop

I disagree - this is very much a loop. Frankie summed it up nicely:

Frankie Hughes
1. Activate Academy Ruins on your end step.
2. Draw Mox
3. Play Mox
4. Pass the turn.
Repeat ad infinitum.

Originally posted by Philip Wieland:

I don't see why we should ever make a player make an decision other than going on playingin this scenario.

We're not forcing them to make particular decisions, nor can we force the Lantern player to break the loop. But penalising Slow Play is going to heavily incentivise the player to make different choices.

While I agree that the Lantern player has to break the loop, as per 718.3,
I don't believe that playing it out falls under slow play.

The slow play infraction only mentions a single player not shortcutting the
loop: “It is also slow play if a player continues to execute a loop without
being able to provide an exact number of iterations and the expected
resulting game state.”

Philosophically, this doesn't seem to apply to a two player situation,
rather this is a Game Rule Violation if the Lantern player is unaware of
the fragmented loop rules. (If they are intentionally breaking the rules in
order to not lose, then this is cheating.)

On Fri, Sep 2, 2016, 12:18 Mark Mc Govern <

I did have an Ensnaring Bridge in play so the Angel and any other creatures don't attack. The loop is not a locked loop, let's say I can choose not to activate the Ruins on the Mox Opal on one turn, draw a new card, and the next turn I choose to return a different artifact to the top of the library?

Again let's assume I know I have no way to deal with the Angel left on my deck, but my opponent doesn't know that. He cannot lose, and I will not run out of deck because of the Ruins. If we call a judge, with or without the loop active, what would happen then? Do we keep playing? Is the Lantern player forced to concede?

Rui

Neither player is forced to concede. That's not something we as judges can enforce, nor do I think we should recommend it.

Now the Lantern player could put different artifacts on top of their library. But that just adds a few cards, and ultimately won't make a difference. If they can somehow get them into the graveyard again, then it's essentially the Mox Opal loop again. And we're back at the start.

If you were to call a judge, then you would be obliged to play on. Either player can of course concede at any time, but assuming they don't, the Lantern player needs to play at a reasonable pace, and avoid repeating loops. Given the opponent has no available actions, I personally would be expecting the Lantern player to start playing pretty fast. This is regardless of whether they have a win condition left. If they have one, then surely they should want to draw it and end the game. And if they don't have one, then playing slowly to waste time on the clock heads towards Stalling (which is bad).

Ultimately, the Ruins won't prevent you from decking. Eventually there will be zero cards in your library and you'll be looping again.