Consider the following case:

Player A controls Archangel of Thune and Spike Feeder.
Player B controls Melira, Sylvok Outcast, Viscera Seer and Murderous Redcap.

What happens if one of each Player tries to “go off” everytime in response to another?
Do we have to call this game a Draw because every Player can name a N+1 Number of Iterations to execute his loop in response to the other Player?
Or is Player B commiting an Infraction because he can not progress the Gamestate? Player A is putting counters on his creatures so he should be surely evolving the gamestate enough to not beeing eligible for stalling in this case.

How would the resolution be if this was not under REL competetive?

Well….I believe this is a bit of a non-issue as long as the players know
what they are doing.
If Player A starts executing his combo, then Player B should be winning
this game, because he can respond to the Archangel trigger, nullifying
Player A's combo (unless there are more than 2 counters on the Spike
Feeder).
If Player B is the one who starts executing his combo, then he should
probably be able to find an answer to the Archangel by scrying through his
deck. Making the lifetotal of his opponent irrelevant.

If the two players can't figure it out, I try to go through the steps of
their combo's with them.
If they still don't figure it out, I ask them if either thinks they can
still win. If both say they can't, I declare the game a draw.
If they think they can still win, but aren't doing anything to advance the
game state then Slow play penalties are in order.

Kind regards,
Richard Drijvers


2013/8/23 Joaquim Neumann <forum-5573-f93b@apps.magicjudges.org>

Originally posted by Richard Drijvers:

If the two players can't figure it out, I try to go through the steps of their combos with them

It almost sounds like you're risking coaching one of the players into figuring out he can shoot the spike feeder. It sounds like both players know their own combos well enough to “win the game” under normal circumstances, but not well enough to think outside the box. I would skip that and go straight to you askin them if they think the game can be won or not, and, if not, suggest a draw and move on

Don't the rules of loops with decisions apply here?

If both players repeatedly try to go off in response to each other, we are in a ‘loop’, so active player has to decide how often he wants to do so, then non-active player has to decide the same thing (probably saying yours+1), then active player HAS to do something else, right?

So, if it is Player A's turn, B will kill him.
If it is B's turn, A will gain some amount of life of his choosing. Then, in A's upkeep, if he understood your ruling, B will probably kill A.

EDIT: Let me find the according paragraph in the documents.

EDIT2: Comprules 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.

Edited Philip Ockelmann (Aug. 23, 2013 07:45:05 AM)

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

It almost sounds like you're risking coaching one of the players into figuring out he can shoot the spike feeder. It sounds like both players know their own combos well enough to “win the game” under normal circumstances, but not well enough to think outside the box. I would skip that and go straight to you askin them if they think the game can be won or not, and, if not, suggest a draw and move on.

That is something to be careful about indeed. I make an effort of not telling them anything other then asking them what happens during the resolution of their spells/abilities.

Neither player can go off safely, so they play until one decks himself or
finds an out, no?


2013/8/23 Richard Drijvers <forum-5573-636d@apps.magicjudges.org>