Infinite creatures VS infinite creatures

21 posts / 0 new
Last post
I was wondering...
What happens if my opponent attacks me with infinite tokens created by the Deceiver Exarch and Splinter Twin combo. And I respond by creating infinite tokens using the same combo to block them. So who wins?

Thanx for your time.  

A typical   trying to get somewhere in the Multiverse, allons-y?

DOCTOR WHO OOOOOOOOEEOOOOOOOO OOOOOOEEOOOOOOO (I'm weird, cant help it)

Famous Quotes:

144543765 wrote:
I was browsing through some cards in gatherer and I noticed something really odd - the transforming cards from Innistrad like Mayor of Avabruck have separate comments and ratings for each side. Isn't that totally stupid? It feels as senseless as having two different pages for each side of a split card or having different pages for Nimble Mongoose with and without threshold.

56965528 wrote:
*mutters under his breath* Squinty's Wife: "What was that!?!?" Umm, I said.... umm..... ahhh.... *another smack upside the head* Squinty's Wife: "Care to try again?" *shakes head vigerously* Squinty's Wife: "That's better." ~SE++ *whimpering*

Current deck goals:

NON-AGGRO, NON-MONO RED deck (Not getting very far with it though)

Standard mono red deck for FNM next Friday

That can't happen.

Magic doesn't let you choose "infinite" when he was going through his loop has has to choose a finite number, like 10 billion.
Then when he attacks you can choose to go through your loop 11 billion times.

Good luck getting through that game.
MTG Rules Advisor
What would happen if both players created tokens in response to other player's action?
- I create million tokens!
- Me too! Plus one!
- Two millions.
- Ten millions.
...

Draw?
I think that can qualify as a loop, and it's on the active player to do something other than "I create a bunch of tokens."

Note that I'm ruling this subjectively. I'm not actually certain how it would be resolved.
I think this is not a loop. The rules say that a player has to make another action if the gamestate is the same. Here, it's not the same. Number of tokens on the battlefield is different.
Judge!
I think this is not a loop. The rules say that a player has to make another action if the gamestate is the same. Here, it's not the same. Number of tokens on the battlefield is different.


That rule can't be taken very literally and probably needs a thorough rewrite. If an action has been taken it can't be the same gamestate, since it differs in at least one respect that a card could easily care about - how many times that action has been taken this turn.
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
"how many times an ability was activated" and "number of creatures on the battlefield" are hardly at the same rank.
couldn't this be "stopped" by the same rule that killed "Four Horsemen"?
proud member of the 2011 community team
I was just thinking that, but I'm not sure what the "defending" player's choices are in that case. What does one do if this combo appears and you happen to be holding the answer?

Additionally, the same fix would amount to banning the use of Exarch Twin just to avoid a corner case in a mirror match.
couldn't this be "stopped" by the same rule that killed "Four Horsemen"?


Elaborate please? I'm not sure what you mean by this.
Rules Advisor
couldn't this be "stopped" by the same rule that killed "Four Horsemen"?


Elaborate please? I'm not sure what you mean by this.


It is slow play to repeat a loop that cannot be shortcutted. Four horsemen is a deck which is prone to bumping into this rule, because it uses a nondeterminstic loop.

The four horsemen deck mills itself until it hits emrakul, then shuffles, then repeats. The goal is to get narcomoebas into the graveyard, but the player cannot say how many times the loop will execute or what the ending gamestate is, so the loop can't be shortcutted. Thus you have no choice but to do it manually, which means that once you repeat the loop without advancing the gamestate, you are comitting slow play and will be advised by the judge to do something else.
Tournament Error — Slow Play
Definition
A player takes longer than is reasonably required to complete game actions. If a judge believes a player is intentionally playing slowly to take advantage of a time limit, the infraction is Unsporting Conduct — Stalling.

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.

in case you aren't aware of the combo, it is an infinite selfmill deck that reshuffles itself with Emrakul until the right cards are in the graveyard

basically it has been ruled that the combo results in "stalling", because you have no way of knowing the end result after X loops and don't know how many loops you actually need to get the cards in your graveyard
proud member of the 2011 community team
To answer the OP's question: You will not lose. Your opponent has to choose a number of creatures he wants to make. He then attacks you with all of them. All you have to do is generate enough tokens to block all his attackers.

Rules Advisor

Please autocard: [c]Shard Phoenix[/c] = Shard Phoenix.

What would happen if both players created tokens in response to other player's action?
- I create million tokens!
- Me too! Plus one!
- Two millions.
- Ten millions.
...

Draw?

It's not a draw. This isn't a loop of mandatory actions.

But you both can't keep doing what you're doing; the game needs to advance. As such, this is a case of Slow Play. You're both taking unreasonbly long to create your creatures. The judge would instruct the players to do something something different. While 716.3 isn't quite pertinent, it does suggest the Judge would instruct the Active Player to do something different.

Besides, it's silly do what you describe. As the blocker, you wait for your opponent to declare his attackers. Then you create the necessary number of tokens to block the opponent. It would be useless for your opponent to create more tokens at this point since it's too late to attack with them.

What would happen if both players created tokens in response to other player's action?
- I create million tokens!
- Me too! Plus one!
- Two millions.
- Ten millions.
...

Draw?

It's not a draw. This isn't a loop of mandatory actions.

But you both can't keep doing what you're doing; the game needs to advance. As such, this is a case of Slow Play. You're both taking unreasonbly long to create your creatures. The judge would instruct the players to do something something different. While 716.3 isn't quite pertinent, it does suggest the Judge would instruct the Active Player to do something different.

Besides, it's silly do what you describe. As the blocker, you wait for your opponent to declare his attackers. Then you create the necessary number of tokens to block the opponent. It would be useless for your opponent to create more tokens at this point since it's too late to attack with them.




Why is it unreasonable for the first player to respond and make enough creatures to outnumber his opponent and create a winning advantage again? I wouldn't want to leave things "as is" down one billion creatures when I could just as easily be "up" one billion. That isn't stalling, that's trying to win and reacting to your opponent's changed game state.

bulletd Guidelines: 5.0: I will take this card no matter what. Creature 1 or playable 1 or hate 1.Archangel of Thune 4.5: Bomb and splashable. Creature 1-2, playable 1-2, removal 1. Jace, Memory Adept 4.0: Excellent first pick first pack, will sway me into same colors. Creatures 1-4, removal 1. Haunted Plate Mail 3.5: Excellent first pack pick two, will confirm colors or possibly sway into second color. Doom Blade 3.0: Good in-color addition, or splashable removal/creature. Creatures 3-9, removal 1-3. wall of Frost 2.5: Solid pick in-color; creatures 5-12, removal 3-5. Dark Favor 2.0: Creatures 10-16; removal 6-7. Elvish Mystic 1.5: My 23rd or 22nd card, depending on removal. Act of Treason 1.0: 23rd card if I don't maindeck an additional land. Lay of the Land 0.5: This card will sometimes be sideboarded in. Brave the Elements 0.0: I will shred this card for counters. Darksteel Forge
Do you seriously think it's reasonable to believe one of the players could create more creatures than their opponent?

Furthermore, as I explained in the third paragraph of my post, it's impossible for the attacker to create a "winning advantage". Even if the attacker has 1 million creatures and the blocker has 10, the blocker will win the combat.

The two players are involved in a loop of upping each of their creature count. You can't single-step (or billion-step) a 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.

Since there's no advantage to their actions, both players are conspiring to stall the game.
If a judge believes a player is intentionally playing slowly to take advantage of a time limit, the infraction is Unsporting Conduct — Stalling.

I'm not saying the judge should or would dish out the penalties assigned to those infractions, but there's definitely room for judge interference.

Anyway, I'm not a judge, so this is my final word on the matter unless you ask me a question.

As it's been said: it is not a loop. As the active player has to go to attack, so then defending player can do the same and create as many tokens as he likes.

But when there's really a "loop" in such a way that both player want to reactivate the loop after their opponnent, I think it's the active player that gets the worse end of the deal.

Let me see, there's an example with gains/loses flying in the CR...

716.3. 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}: [This creature] 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.



Well, reading this again, we can see that in the present situation, the game state is NOT the same, but it could be compared.

And either way this is NOT the same situation... we could have a similar one with:
"0: regenerate target creature"
"0: destroy target creature"

Here, too, the non active player would decide...

Anyway...

Rules Advisor

The Basic rulebook, read it! A lot of basic questions are answered there!

How to autocard :
Type [c]Black Lotus[/c] to get Black Lotus.
Type [c=Black Lotus]The Overpowered One[/c] to get The Overpowered One.

As it's been said: it is not a loop.

Oh but it is. It's not a loop of mandatory options, so it doesn't end in a draw. But they are in a loop.

  1. Player 1 creates creatures to beat player 2's creature count.

  2. Player 2 creates creatures to beat player 1's creature count.

  3. Goto 1.


And either way this is NOT the same situation

Correct. This isn't covered by the CR.
The fact that this example uses the combat step does not negate the problem. Warstorm Surge vs Angelic Chorus for example.
That's not the question the OP asked, Zauzich. Different questions have different answers.