Community

Renevith wrote:

That is wrong. I'm not sure how else to say it. There are many cards that work like this, and they have all been ruled to stop once the library is empty. Goblin Charbelcher , Proteus Staff , etc. This is not an open question, nor is it what the rest of the thread is about.

with regard to Charbelcher, I think it needs to be rewritten (see prior post)

with respect to Proteus Staff (assuming no other creature cards in library)
if the creature put on the bottom is a card, it will find that card - no issue
if the creature put on the bottom is a token, it will continue until it reaches that token which is not a "creature card" so it will trudge on unto infinity never resolving

Kedar wrote:

Helm of Obedience says to put cards from library into graveyard; if there are no cards in the library, this action is impossible even to attempt, so the action is ignored and the effect stops.

not according to the ruling

the process never stops

here is the instruction
1 - Do action X
2 - Repeat until condition Y

let's walk through it
1 - impossible action (ignored see Rule 100.3)
2 - condition Y not met ->repeat (fine by the rules)
1 - impossible action (ignored see rule 100.3)
2 - condition Y not met -> repeat (fine by rules)
and so on...

the loop isn't impossible, just the component action inside it is.

if it was Do X and Y until Z and one of X or Y became impossible you would just ignore that action not the whole loop, right?

RootBreaker wrote:

It explains what it means by "never stop" in the second sentence. If it meant that the game would be a draw, it would say so instead of just saying that "Your opponent's entire library will be removed from the game, even if X is 1."

will never stop is different than will stop once the library is empty

I'm not disputing your interpretation because the logical extension that isn't written is The game will end in a draw. and I don't see that in the ruling.

Either way the ruling is flawed.

If the process never stops then the game is a draw, though it doesn't say that.
If the process stops once the library is empty, then it shouldn't say it never stops.

Kedar wrote:

So you think Goblin Charbelcher will cause the game to draw, as it's worded right now, if no lands are in the library?

I may be wrong, but by the RAW and the text on Charbelcher - yes I think it should.

My interpretation of 103.3 says to ignore the action.

the abilities on Charbelcher, Helm and Proteus are loops with nested actions.

literally, it seems to me that you should continue the loop until it ends, even if it only contains an action that is impossible. Is the loop impossible or just the action inside it?

103.3. If an instruction requires taking an impossible action, it’s ignored. (In many cases the card will specify consequences for this; if it doesn’t, there’s no effect.)
416.3. If an effect attempts to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible.

when I read the above 2 rules with Charbelcher in mind
it means the following:
Reveal card in library and repeat until land card found
once I run out of cards, I can not reveal a card because there aren't any to reveal (ie. impossible action)
but can I check the exit condition? yes, therefore I'm following 416.3 by doing as much as possible
I think the loop continues on because there are 2 actions
1) revealing the card
2) checking the exit condition
1 is impossible but 2 is not


if I had a hypothetical ability that said

Choose a card in your graveyard and shuffle it into your library then put the top card of your library into your graveyard, repeat until you put a land card into your graveyard.

if you have no cards in your graveyard, the first and second actions are impossible so they are ignored but the loop continues along just fine.

what if there are no lands in the library? the loop will continue on without end
how would you know if the whole loop instruction is impossible in your view?

the loop is not impossible, it is the actions within it that may be.

whether or not my interpretation is correct or not is irrelevant
the rules should be more clear and the rulings should be more clear

I suggested a wording that would make Charbelcher consistent with the RAW
by adding an extra out of the loop until you reveal a land or there are no cards to reveal

perhaps I'm in the minority for how 103.3 should be interpreted
but this whole mess could be cleaned up by either giving loops a default out in extreme cases or by clarifying how loop abilities and 103.3 interact.