I think there's something about that rules section's last line that's sending us in different directions, kairos. I don't believe it's universally agreed upon, but assume for a moment that there is a loop created here.I interpret this to mean that the player who declares the lowest number of iterations would in fact lose out on the exchange; he has given his intention to stop the loop, and then priority is given to him, with the restriction that the next action cannot be the loop-continuing action. As I see it, his opponent has put one more instance of Mephisto's effect on the chain, and by giving the lowest number of iterations he has essentially agreed not to follow suit with his own Mephisto, though he has priority. He is therefore letting his opponent's resolve, removing cards from the KO'd pile.

This doesn't speak to whether or not the situation constitutes a loop, however, nor which player would be responsible for creating it. Merely what I believe happens should a loop occur.

Honestly i am unsure of what i think should be done. I refer you again to the thread linked to above, where i outlined m confusion on the subject.

Hero,

Ah, I see what you mean.

The difference between us is whether the player who stops the loop actually has his loop effect on the chain, correct? I say he stops it after he adds his effect, you say he stops it after the opponent adds his.

I really think this rule speaks to when one player creates a loop himself, using only his own actions, not the actions of the opponent. This two-player loop seems to be ruled by the later 704.3 (I think), which is a loop that neither player is willing and able to break, the only difference being that rule says mandatory, which this action is not.

I'll have to meditate on this and get back to it.

The way it works is as follows:

Player A uses the effect of Mephisto and passes priority.
Player B uses the effect of Mephisto and passes priority.

Both players now have a loop that can be broken and so it goes like so:
Player A is asked how many iterations they wish to do with this loop (we'll say 100 just for the sake of argument).
Player B is then asked if they wish to do fewer than 100 iterations (the proper answer to this is no.)

Fast forward to 100 iterations ahead. Player A now has priority and is not allowed to add Mephisto's effect to the chain. Player A can add another effect or pass. Gameplay will resume as normal until it comes time for the chain to resolve at Mephisto's effect. The last player to put Mephisto's effect on the chain is Player B. As a result, Player B will get the effect and will remove the character cards from the appropriate KO pile and Mephisto will gain the ATK boost. The chain will resolve down as normal (quickly, since while there are a lot of effects on the chain, they will do nothing further in the game as the KO pile is empty.)

End result: Player B gets the effect. Player A started the loop, so Player B gets the last word.

I think there is a separate argument that Player B is the player that initiated the loop.

Player A uses Mephisto's effect but there is no loop because of the single effect. Player B chooses to use Mephisto's effect which then begins a loop.

So wouldnt Player B be the one that actually started the loop? :p

No. Player A started it by putting the first link on the chain. Player B is reacting (and continuing to react). The loop is a repeat of AB not BA (I hope that made sense).

EDIT/ADD: Additionally, it is Player A who is the first one to repeat an action, so it is Player A who is starting the loop.

It is all outlined in the thread that Uly posted. The discussion about when the loop started is also argued. Dlaanan's statement is exactly what I have said on the posted thread. The player that makes the first action that creates a loop will lose out if the player who did not initiate the action chooses.

A loop is only started when actions begin to repeat themselves. The first activation is not a repetition, neither is B's response to the activation with their own, however the 2nd activation by A is where the loop begins, as an action has been repeated.

Also, there is no "official answer" in that post much like there are no "official answers" given in most of the threads here, it is simply an answer given by someone who used the rules and explained the answer based upon them. Uly perhaps used the phrase a little lightly, but the fact remains the answer is correct.

I can still argue the opposite way from what that thread said, because the rule still can be read several ways. I've shown a couple different players and judges, and they've all had different interpretations.

Did you discuss it with experienced MTG judges?

They would be the people to discuss this with, as they have the experience in this field necessary.

Looking "loop" up in a dictionary would work too.

Regardless this is how the rule works, whether you feel that it is arbitrary or not.

Dark,

It's kind of regardless who the judges were, as long as they are Vs judges, right? Some have Magic experience, some have YuGiOh experience, all have Vs experience. I am insulted by your post, as I have years of Magic experience, dating back to 1993, when the game was released.

Actually, this is almost exactly how I said the rule is to work. But Dlannan is not an official answer either, just as the old thread didn't end with an answer. At this point, I'd like someone from Upper Deck to respond with an answer. Dlannan's looks correct, but it could still be argued the other way.

The only way the ruling makes even a little sense to me is to consider AP/NAP. When the AP passes priority, the NAP must still pass for an effect to resolve. But when the NAP passes, an effect reolves. This seems to indicate that the NAP has ultimate control over when effects resolve. Now we all know that functionally, it plays out a bit differently, but unbounded sequences are outside the realm of functionality.

Ultimately someone will be robbed of their priority in order for the game to continue. The NAP generally seems to have more control over resolutions at other times so I'd continue the trend in this case.

Ok ... here's just an example to throw out there ...

Let's say one player uses Mephisto's ability, targeting the opponent's KO'd pile. The other Mephisto uses his ability to put it on the chain in responce. Player A now targets his OWN KO'd pile ... and THEN target's his opponents. Since he added another effect to the chain before 'continuing' the loop ... is it still a loop. And if both players go back and forth targetting both KO'd piles [but in different orders ... i.e. each player targets their own KO'd pile, and then their opponent's then invert the order on each iteration] ... is it still a loop when they keep changing the order?

However, ultimately having the decision fall onto the player that DOESN'T use Mephisto 'first' seems to be the easiest way to deal with it [essentially ... if you have a mirror match, no one will activate their Mephisto until the other Mephisto is dealt with] ... no one has the advantage [as no one would 'start' the loop if they knew their opponent could shut them down, where as if you knew your opponent couldn't do anything about it you'd just use the ability as soon as you have priority].

This is the best solution, because it leads to a Cold War standoff: no one will use their own weapon because the opponent will retaliate in kind.

Also, the point you make about changing the actions involved in the loop is interesting. The last line should be "No action that would continue the loop can be taken until the chain resolves" or something, rather than "The next action cannot continue the loop."

I maintain this situation is not a loop as defined by the particular section of rules that most you guys are trying to govern it by. Yes, it is a series of repeated actions, but it is not repeatable by a single player. Here's a situation where that rule would apply (sorry, it's a Magic scenario -- honestly can't think of any simple loops in VS):

1.) Use Aluren to play Cavern Harpy.
2.) Wirewood Savage triggers, draw a card.
3.) Harpy's comes into play ability triggers, return it to my hand.
1.) Use Aluren to play Harpy.

Now I have demonstrated a repeatable loop, and I can state a number of iterations. My opponents may then decide at which iteration and at which step they wish to interrupt my loop, with the opponent choosing the lowest iteration receiving priority first.

If you cannot personally repeat every step in the loop, it is impossible to state a number of iterations since part of that "loop" is beyond your control.

What you are describing is an internal loop, one that the opponent has no control over, so the player who activated it can do as many iterations as they want (after they state the number and the opponent agrees with that number, they just go through the result as if they had done it that number of times).

With two players, however, it still is a loop. Each player is adding to it with the same thing as before. Each player does have the choice to stop, but would refuse, so to determine the number of iterations, you need to ask both players, starting with the player who started the loop how many times they are going to repeat their action if their opponent does. You then essentially ask the next player 'Will you be repeating your action each time your opponent repeats his/hers?' If they say no, then they need to say at what iteration they will stop (although I honestly can't see anyone saying no). So, both players do have the choice to stop, but they don't, so the loop is formed that way.

It may not be as simple as a recurring internal loop, but it is still valid as a loop.