that would be excellent manipulation of the chain. That way you force your opponent to either start the loop and lose, or forgo the loop altogether with the same result.

I have a nit to pick about this one description, assuming once again that we're applying Rule 704.1; I agree with Chad that there are some problems applying the rule to this particular loop, as it's rather newly unique. But In any case---if your opponent chooses four loops, then I think the chain would appear as ABCBCBCBCB, and if he chose six loops, then it would appear as ABCBCBCBCBC.

To justify, however, I have only another question-y comment to offer; when announcing how many iterations of the loop you will allow, you are basically committing yourself to performing your looping actions that number of times. From your quoted diagrams, it looks like you're only allowing loops to occur as full action-pairs, which I don't believe is the intent. In my own view, until a player has completed their announced number of iterations, that player is committed to using Mephisto. In this case, if your opponent chooses 4 iterations, he will reveal Mephisto 4 times, unless something occurs before his 4th reveal. You chose 5, however, and so you will reveal Mephisto 5 times, unless something occurs before your 5th reveal.

Going back to the chain above: ABCBCBCBCB. Your opponent's final reveal is C, after which you make your final reveal B, and finally your opponent gets priority. Assuming the chain makes it far enough, your opponent reveals until he reaches his magic number of iterations, at which point he stops revealing...but there's no reason you wouldn't reveal one last time. It is after this reveal that he ends up with priority as instructed by the rules.

In the case of him picking six loops: ABCBCBCBCBC. Your opponent is willing to reveal 6 times, but can't because you end the loop after five iterations. You reveal 5 times, as promised, and he reveals only 5 as well, since he will not have a choice to reveal a 6th time, and you end with priority after each player has revealed a 5th time.

In your description, determining which player had priority was the only factor in choosing a number of iterations. This is not the case, however; the number of iterations also determines which player benefits from effect resolution, as the player who chose highest will have his effect resolve first (assuming no Recon Program-style monkey wrenches).

And having typed all that out, I have gone cross-eyed thinking of the loop potential. Enjoy.

yeah EvilBaby..thats what I was going for. I wrote that sentence and just never looked back. I was kind of in a rush...if you got the point it worked though.

=)

This is an arguement about "what is a loop". It cannot be resolved because obviously people have different opinions about what constitutes a loop. I had discussed this already with a UDE personage on IRC before posting a reply because the MTG rules actually differ on this.

Apologies to anyone I offended, my point was merely that VS judges as a whole have not garnered much experience from judging VS because it is a new game, so yes chatting with experienced MTG judges does help out in a lot of circumstances, especially when we are talking about definitions.

For the record I am a level 2 DCI judge and have been an active judge for Magic for going on 4 years now. The basic fact is, the current rules are inadequate and I am sure they will be updated in the next rules update.

Dlannan and our Australian colleagues explained it correctly. The only problem 704.1 has is that is says that one person is responsible for the loop. In this case both players are responsible. You can still use 704.1's logic to resolve the situation (refer to Dlannan's post on how). I'll ask the rules team to expand 704.1 to better cover this for the next rules release.

A number of you posted a question about what happens if the players start getting creative and vary the loop's iterations.

For example this loop looks like:

ABABABAB...AB with an iteration 'AB'

A = A targeting B's KO'd pile
B = B targeting B's KO'd pile

704.1 applies

So what happens when guy A realizes that he will never have the last word and starts doing something else like removing card from his own KO'd pile? Assuming B understands the rules he will always do the same thing as A so your loop might look like:

ABAB(A realizes he is getting nowhere)CDCDABABCDCD....ABABCDCD with an iteration 'ABABCDCD'

A = A targeting B's KO'd pile
B = B targeting B's KO'd pile
C = A targeting A's KO'd pile
D = B targeting A's KO'd pile

704.1 still applies

A might get as creative as pseudo randomizing the loop (for example basing his decision of what KO'd pile to target with a coin flip). What do you do here? You privately ask the player what his intention is. Assuming he doesn't have a legitimate reason as to why he is doing this, you can tell him to stop or be faced with slow play penalties.

Like I said in the previous post. 704.1's only flaw is that it assumes that the loop is governed by one player. It doesn't have to be and 704.1 still handles it just fine.

Well, when clarifying the rule, it might be prudent to really consider an example like this, because naming a number of iterations isn't really valid.

You technicaly maintain priority. If i play Mephisto and name 500000.... they will all occur before priority passes to my opponent. It is not a requirement for me to respond to his action in this scenario. So when my opponents turn comes up, all he names is 1 iteration and he still wins.

So where i see where a triggerred event will hit the iterations, in this scenario we really don't have that to apply.

In short, the player who first used Mephisto's power gets hosed?

Yes

What do you mean naming a number of iterations isn't really valid? At some point when you establish what the iteration of the loop is, you have to determine the number of times that the loop will run. Otherwise you won't be able to resolve it.

Sure. And 704.1 still applies, if I want to play something 500,000 times. I demonstrate what I want to do (the iteration - in this case announce the ability) and name how many times I want to do it (the number of iterations - in this case 500K). Unless the other player wants to stop the loop at less iterations, the loop happens.




I am not sure I follow. Player A can't maintain priority and keep adding the same thing to the chain. If he does he is creating a loop which is governed by 704.1. 704.1 is worded in such was as to allow any other player to "break" the loop at any time by allowing them to name less iterations as the player that started the loop wants to do.

Can you elaborate on this? I am not following

!3ullseye, the key is in defining the loop and it's iteration---here, it's been defined as having an iteration AB; the loop being repeated involves the actions of both players, and so priority is being passed back and forth each iteration.

If it makes it easier, you can think of the loop as having iteration AaBb, instead, where A and B are uses of Mephisto by the respective players, while a and b are passings of priority by the respective players. The discussion hasn't been about one player using his power an enormous number of times, but the players each adding to the other's links in the chain.
This strikes me as curious, though. In !3ullseye's example, Player B would have priority at no point in the loop until after the final iteration; does 704.1 still allow him to break the loop and receive priority? It just strikes me as a bit odd, is all.

Eh... my post didn't get through.

Is it just me or is Mephisto a bit overpowered? In testing last night, it seems that his ability to target cards in ANY KO'd pile is the problem. There is no drawback.

Alex: Is there a way to ask R&D if that was the intent of his ability?

If he was just able to target cards in his own KO'd pile, it would be much more balanced and you wouldn't have this looping problem.

Sorry went a bit too far. 704.1 allows B to break the loop, but B doesn't have priority inside the iteration or in between the iterations so he really can't do anything

Here's how this loop would be played out.

A demonstrates it, then chooses N numbers to repeat it. B has the option to stop the loop after any number of iterations, but really can't act even if he does stop. Then the loop happens. Then we find player A with priority with N Mephisto powers on the chain (he can't put any more, but can do other things).

Heh sorry, I only explain how cards work within the current rule set. I'll leave the subtle power level comments to Development. Maybe Dave H. can comment on this, feel free to ask him. I think he leaves his email at the end of every metagame article.

Where would we get level 3/4 vs rules quesitons then?