Originally posted by Robert Langmaid:

Each time the library goes from having 0 cards in it to having one the game state is being advanced.

The same is true for all other loops if you choose to look in the middle of them.


In this case, we return to the same game state after. Like Joshua said, you don't look at what happens in between. In the scenario you are imagining, it goes from 0 cards, to 1 card, to 0 cards, to 1 card, to 0 cards… and so on…

Originally posted by Robert Langmaid:

With this situation I see nothing wrong with the lantern player repeating his action on his turn each turn to keep himself from loosing as long as he does so quickly.

VERY quickly.

Originally posted by Robert Langmaid:

The idea that we should step in here seem opposed to the general philosophy of the game. Each of his plays is legal both on his and his opponents turn. So I think we should let the play on even if each turn

Nobody (certainly not me) is saying we step in. People keep mentioning that though. The assumption is that the players have called us. The only reason to step in is if we need to clarify something or issue a penalty. There's a reasonable chance that this particular situation will lead to Slow Play though.

Originally posted by Robert Langmaid:

Each time the library goes from having 0 cards in it to having one the game state is being advanced.

It's not actually. The game state is technically different alright, but it hasn't gone anywhere. We're still looping. “Advancing” implies moving forward. Repeatedly changing it between 2 or 3 or 4 or however many repeated states isn't an advancement.

Originally posted by Robert Langmaid:

With this situation I see nothing wrong with the lantern player repeating his action on his turn each turn

That, by definition, is a loop, and I can imagine situation, when opponent (Angel player) says “Ok, so I propose a shortcut that you repeat this N time, please select N” By CR 718.2 player can't refuse shortcut, he might however propose another ending point for loop.

I feel like it sucks that in this situation, the Lantern player will lose with enough time on the clock, but a Shared Fate player with nothing on board and no cards in libraries can force an unending game (or at least a tie). I don't see how to read the rules any other way, but it certainly feels bad to have such a similar situation force such a different outcome.

Then again, we get that feel-bad with Four Horsemen, too, so I guess this isn't an isolated scenario.

I wonder, though, if it would work to change the rules to allow a forced draw if a loop created by a player is forced to encompass turns taken by the opponent, and the opponent chooses to/cannot do anything. Then we'd still get the benefit of ending the game to play Magic, but without the player playing-to-not-lose having to give up the game based on the loop.

Don't forget their are two players - if one player can't lose and one player is in the process of losing, making the game a draw doesn't feel great for the player about to win.

Originally posted by David Poon:

I feel like it sucks that in this situation, the Lantern player will lose with enough time on the clock, but a Shared Fate player with nothing on board and no cards in libraries can force an unending game (or at least a tie). I don't see how to read the rules any other way, but it certainly feels bad to have such a similar situation force such a different outcome.

By what rule does the latern player loose. Even if he accepts a short cut which he will, what in the rules (please cite) prevents him from doing actions to prevent citing after the short cut ends?

Originally posted by Robert Langmaid:

David Poon
I feel like it sucks that in this situation, the Lantern player will lose with enough time on the clock, but a Shared Fate player with nothing on board and no cards in libraries can force an unending game (or at least a tie). I don't see how to read the rules any other way, but it certainly feels bad to have such a similar situation force such a different outcome.

By what rule does the latern player loose. Even if he accepts a short cut which he will, what in the rules (please cite) prevents him from doing actions to prevent citing after the short cut ends?

Every permutation of the loop becomes a loop. Repeating N times until he takes a different action. He may declare “I repeat this loop N times” after which he takes a different action. Any action that isn't recurring the Mox results in a card drawn. Assuming he is playing at a reasonable pace, he will draw his deck out and lose. We allow him to declare, “I repeat this loop N times” as often as he'd like. After N iterations of the loop, he must take a different action. If he is playing at a reasonable pace, he will lose. If he is intentionally playing at an unreasonable pace, he will be DQ'd.

Don't forget there are two players - if one player can't lose and one player is in the process of losing, making the game a draw doesn't feel great for the player about to win.

But according to the CompRules, neither player is actually losing; it's the IPG that's forcing the Lantern player to lose. The CompRules say nothing about not repeating a loop unless both players are involved:

718.3: " … each player involved in the loop performs an independent action that results in the same game state being reached multiple times … the active player … must then make a different game choice so the loop does not continue."

Rather, the CompRules explicitly say this:

718.5: “No player can be forced to perform an action that would end a loop other than actions called for by objects involved in the loop.”

Granted, the implication is regarding stopping mandatory loops, but I think it still makes sense applied to this case.

718.5 means that a player isn't forced to use an action from another object not involved in the loop. As has been mentioned on more than 1 occasion, the player that is choosing to take the actions that prolong the loop is forced to choose a different action, he/she cannot just continue taking the same actions, they must indicate how many times they plan to take that action, then choose a different action that does not prolong the loop.

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.

is very relevant. It's fragmented. There is really only 1 player invovled in the loop, the player with the Angel is not taking any choices that prolong the loop.

This is not an argument against enforcing the rules as they stand. This is more of a clarification to see if changing the rules is warranted by whoever might do that.

So we have a game where:
Player A can't win or lose.
Player B can't win, and can choose to not lose.

Why isn't this a draw? Philosophically each player will choose- and should choose- to do what is in their best interest. Why are we forcing Player B to choose to lose?

I understand that the current framework causes this scenario to have a winner and loser. It just strikes me as an opportunity for clarification and education if it's going to be kept as-is, and if at some point it isn't, I'd also love to see what went into that decision =).

-Ben

It seems I need to remind everyone that Toby Elliott's prior post is, in fact, ‘O’fficial.

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

It seems I need to remind everyone that Toby Elliott's prior post is, in fact, 'O'fficial.

Toby Elliott
It's a loop. The game state is being repeated, and loops can cross turn boundaries.

Only one player is taking an optional action here to sustain the loop. Ask them how many times they want to do it, then tell them to stop.

I believe that the last few posts have not disagreed with Toby's post—we acknowledge that the way our tournament rules documents currently stand, the only outcome is that the Lantern player is forced to take a different action. However, I think that some of us would like to explore and question some of the rules that cause this to be the case.

Mark Brown
718.3 is very relevant. It's fragmented. There is really only 1 player invovled in the loop, the player with the Angel is not taking any choices that prolong the loop.

718.3 implies that fragmented loops are defined by having multiple players performing independent actions. If fragmented loops could by definition include loops that only involve a single player, then 718.3 would define all loops as fragmented. (Note that 718.3 does not define fragmented loops as necessarily crossing turns—rather, it's implied that fragmented loops cross turns because fragmented loops involve multiple players.)

Looping discussions of Loop rules have been a perenial issue.

With that in mind I'm closing this thread.