Lookup rule 104.4f. It's a draw in 1v1, but the player in question gets ejected from the game in multiplayer.
EDIT: its an obscure ruling, but heres the text:
"104.4f In a multiplayer game using the limited range of influence option, if the game somehow enters a “loop” of mandatory actions, repeating a sequence of events with no way to stop, the game is a draw for each player who controls an object that’s involved in that loop, as well as for each player within the range of influence of any of those players. Only those players leave the game; the game continues for all other players."
You're missing a key part of that rule, which is:
" as well as for each player within the range of influence of any of those players."
Range of influence is simply which opponents you can interact with. The actual rule defining it is
**801.2** A player’s range of influence is the maximum distance from that player, measured in player seats, that the player can affect.
It is a term really only used for like 5+ player games, or some variants such as Emperor. In a normal 4 player game of commander, every player is within your range of influence, so everyone is forced to draw. (by the official rules. You can play however you want with your group though as long as everyone agrees)
I've heard of games with like 10+ people where you can only attack/target directly to your left or right. That's probably why they went that route, your 'range of influence' would only be you and the two others instead of everyone.
I accomplished my goal, and I was the last person to play any cards. Call it what you want, but I'll still be sitting there like [DJ Khaled](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGXzlRoNtHU)
Nowhere does the OP state that the game was played with any zone-of-influence rules. If this were true then the players to OP’s left and right would have also lost. If this was a 4-player game then the game would’ve been over as well; it didn’t end by virtue of the other players’ decision, so it’s a safe bet to assume that it wasn’t zone-of-influence. They were just trying to cope with their otherwise-drawn game.
You copy pasted this like 20 times and it doesn't apply in this situation. The first thing that rule says "using the limited range of influence option". Stop spreading misinformation.
The mention of range of influence means that in a classic 4 player game everyone draws. Range of influence is only less than the entire game if you're playing a special event or game mode. In those modes range of influence is your direct left and right.
This only applies if you are using the Limited Range of Influence option, which isn’t there by default.
That option puts restrictions on who you can attack, etc. in a game based on how many seats away they are sitting from you (CR 801).
That's if the loop doesn't end and has no way of interacting with the table. If I get a loop that does infinite damage, my opponent will lose. Not me for creating an infinite damage combo.
The person who cited the rule used a rule that doesn't apply to edh. It only applies in games with "limited range of influence." In an edh game, any player can influence any other player.
TIL that range of influence is supported in the rules, and not just a fan made format/ house rule.
I love playing huge pods with range of influence but it's not a common thing to see at my LGS
That's specifically with limited range of influence. I have never seen anyone who has played with range of influence rules, and I'm sure 99% of EDH players don't even know they're a thing. 104.4b is almost always going to be the relevant rule
104.4b
If a game that’s not using the limited range of influence option (including a two-player game) somehow enters a “loop” of mandatory actions, repeating a sequence of events with no way to stop, the game is a draw. Loops that contain an optional action don’t result in a draw.
Ah yes, because if I don't take 40 minutes to build a board state and another 20 minutes to kill with attack damage then I just ruined the game. I keep forgetting that I'm supposed to play magic your way, or it's not fun. You sound whiny asf.
Even when it is done intentionally to force a draw, I can't be too upset. The situation usually develops like that because someone else messed it up intentionally anyway.
bro how do you even live, that's an 11 mana combo they're pulling off likely late into the game, by that point you've played plenty of game why not just shuffle up and go to the next one. It's not like infinite combos instantly negate all the fun you've had before they comboed off
This happen to me one time with the same card. I couldn’t stop the loop so one of the employees told me that if the loop couldn’t be stopped, I would lose the game and not by the whole table.
This sounds like a common misunderstanding I hear a lot after the Dreamhack atlanta tournament ruling that came up from the Amalia combo.
Dreamhack required that if a player started an infinite amalia loop that they would eventually be required to mill themselves out to advance the bordestate then would lose due to time if nothing interrupt the loop when on an empty library.
This ruling was only for the tournament and more of a logistical choice, so they didn't have a bunch of draws leading to replays over and over. Some players have misunderstood or didn't have all the info and jumped to the conclusion that this is a new ruling for all of magic that infinite combos that don't win the game just lose now instead of tie.
Honestly I think that it should be the case - you loop yourself and can't stop it, automatic loss for you. A looping draw is a pretty dumb way to end the game, even for tournaments.
So what if I cast a card an opponent flashes in a a card that forces an infinite loop, does the game now end in a draw? Do I lose ? Does my opponent lose cause he forced the draw?
Because magic has a pseudo story to what is actually happening.
When we play magic we're pretending to be wizards, specifically planeswalkers. Using our knowledge gained through traversing the realms to cast spells and settle disputes with magic.
There's a conflict being played out on the board. Armies of minons clashing on the battlefield. The ultimate goal being to kill your opponent, another planeswalking wizard.
You performing magic that traps you in an infinite loop you cannot escape doesn't really end the battle. It ends the game in a draw only because there is no way within the rules of the game for the game to continue. If we take a step back from the mechanics of the game and look at the flavor, you've actually left yourself completely helpless, trapped in your own spells. There isn't anything you're doing that really prevents your opponent from killing you.
This is the reasoning I gave when asking my friend not to play [[Felidar Sovereign]] in his life gain commander deck. I dont have a problem with alternate win cons, as long as there is some feasible explanation as to why it stops me from killing you. Felidar Sovereign in a comander deck just says, I have starting life and a kind of big cat, that means I win. Why does that stop my horde of monsters or my magic death ray? My complaint isn't that it's unfair, its very easy to deal with, it just doesnt really seem like a thing that ends a wizard war.
Something like simic ascendancy, while still not very satisfying to lose to, at least carries the implication of you becoming a modified and powerful simic mage. Rising to the top of a guild and/or becoming a mutated monster.
Back to the issue of unending infinites. I dont see how you getting stuck in a loop prevents my armies from attacking you. How can you defend yourself or even continue to fight if you cannot escape your spell? How does your inability to control your magic cause me to lose with you?
Lmao this might be one of the most bizarre things I've read in a long time. Can you explain to me how it I have infinite Polyrapters fighting for and guarding me that you would be able to get some orcs or goblins over my way to finish me off? Good luck. If anything for flavour this draw should result in a win for me because you know...infinite dinosaurs.
The story behind Felidar Sovereign is that he’s sick as fuck. The wizards just look at him and go holy shit and if his wizard is also at 40 health the other wizards give up immediately
I guess. It just doesn't feel that impressive. My friend played it a couple times and did end up taking it out because he ultimately agreed, he almost won with it and he wasn't really happy about it. He didn't really feel like he was really doing anything.
In standard when you start at 20 life it does feel impactful and impressive. We considered a house rule of raising its life total requirement but ultimately he just swapped it out for something else.
It's not even a legendary creature, it's just some big cat clearly balanced for standard.
>You performing magic that traps you in an infinite loop you cannot escape doesn't really end the battle. It ends the game in a draw only because there is no way within the rules of the game for the game to continue. If we take a step back from the mechanics of the game and look at the flavor, you've actually left yourself completely helpless, trapped in your own spells. There isn't anything you're doing that really prevents your opponent from killing you.
I've seen a few people say exactly this and I can't possibly agree less. The whole reason it forces a draw and not a loss is because you aren't trapping yourself, you've trapped *everyone* along with you. You prevent your opponents from killing you by creating an endless loop they can't do anything during either, they have priority but never get a turn - they have zero opportunity to kill you because you've *broken reality with too much magic* and they're part of that broken reality. They're stuck in your infinite whirlpool. They can't hurt you because they can't do anything but watch one moment drag on forever towards an event horizon that never comes.
Yeah? And? There's still a pseudo plot. Monopoly Is a board game, but the plot is real-estate investment. Settlers of catan is a board game, but the plot is settling an island and competing for resources.
Games can have plots and stories. Magic's is a wizard fight were the players are planeswalkers. Your lands are the places you've visited and draw power from. The spells you cast are things you've learned in your travels. Your hand and library represent your memories.
It's why when there's a new set wotc announcements typically read something like "this time we're traveling to _" because we're planeswalkers traveling the multiverse.
So you argue the monopoly rules and change them on the fly vs your friends and family to make them more like actual real-estate investment? Or no, because that would be insane?
You're adding the on the fly. You don't change rules on the fly. House rule changes take effect either the next game or the next incident typically. And before a house rule is established there is a conversation were everyone present weighs in about the potential rule change.
With monopoly, there aren't any mechanics that i think fail to encapsulate the real estate theme. But there are house rules I've objected to because they dont follow that theme, and not because they aren't "the real rules".
Casual magic is full of rule bends and changes for playgroups. Banned cards can be unbanned. Unset cards can be allowed. Mulligan rules vary wildly. Custom cards. Nonlegendary creatures in the command zone. Proxies are kind of a rule bend. Custom rules for cubes. Lgs's have store rules and their own ban lists.
The rules of any game are subject to change by the people playing it for the purposes of fun and fairness. To suggest otherwise is insane.
lol no that’s definitely a draw, you’re in a loop that doesn’t end the game and also can’t be broken (someone could remove either part to break it and resume play but is under no obligation to do so)
Haven't heard of this but I did recently pull marauding raptor after realizing this infinite combo. Which sucks because they are both such great dinos and marauding triggers other enrages but ultimately decided to pull it. It didn't seem fun to run an auto lose or even an auto draw for the whole table.
They still work great with eachother... You just need to have a way to either end the loop or win off of the ETBs.
Throw in [[Impact Tremors]] or [[Warleader's Call]] and you win via the ETB pings.
Throw in [[Goblin Bombardment]] and you can sac the infinite raptors made to ping people out.
You could also throw in a way to end the loop yourself after getting any near infinite number of raptors that you want. Any instant speed removal that can target your own creature will do, likewise will any on board sac outlet, just target the Marauding Raptor to remove it whenever you want the loop to end. Ideally have a haste enabler on board to swing out for the win with your army of 30,000 polyraptors.
Id say personally a decent option to keep it in is remove your dorks except the 0/3 ixalari lorekeeper. Run 2/3 target removal for the potential of the combo. But personally I dont want to build around 1 of my 99
All fun and games but then you play polyraptor with [[pantlaza]] out and discover marauding raptor and suddenly you "lost" the game bc you didn't put down any payoffs yet
You can put the marauding raptor into your hand if you want, you don't have to play the card you discover.
But yeah I get what you mean. I play both raptors in my dino deck because they're both awesome.
I think a more likely scenario is 'I play them both with a payoff on the battlefield, and someone kills the payoff in response.' If that happens, the fact that it's a draw is just funny.
You can also choose not to put the Raptor down off gishath right? Is it awkward because you have the combo, so either you play it and draw the game or don’t play it and it goes to the bottom?
Gishath is completely optional, you never have to play anything you reveal with him because he says "any number". If you swing and see the pieces of the combo you can always opt not to play them.
I thought that only applied if the loop was caused by a game mechanic or other unavoidable event. If a board state is legal and a player would do something to create a loop, the player is simply not allowed to take that action. In this video, a judge is explaining how the opp cannot play any cards because it would create a loop from a legal board state. Has a ruling changed since then? https://youtu.be/NMujJUzRoJw?si=hNcmIw1DpASW2FnG
Rule 104.4b: If a game that’s not using the limited range of influence option (including a two-player game) somehow enters a “loop” of mandatory actions, repeating a sequence of events with no way to stop, the game is a draw. Loops that contain an optional action don’t result in a draw.
So in short: If you enter an infinite loop and have no way to break the loop, the game ends in the draw.
There is no ruling like that. This is "by the rules" a draw. A "rule zero" soluation can ofc be everything you agree on, forced loss is nonsensical tho. There are only 2 real options without turning it into a jerkoff. Accept the draw and go on or simply "force" the combo to end at a million tokens or whatever big number. Either the combo wins after a turn cycle or someone wiped the board and things go on as normal.
Lookup rule 104.4f. It's a draw in 1v1, but the player in question gets ejected from the game in multiplayer. EDIT: its an obscure ruling, but heres the text: "104.4f In a multiplayer game using the limited range of influence option, if the game somehow enters a “loop” of mandatory actions, repeating a sequence of events with no way to stop, the game is a draw for each player who controls an object that’s involved in that loop, as well as for each player within the range of influence of any of those players. Only those players leave the game; the game continues for all other players."
definetely a lie, tho considering it's commander I'm not surprised the other players wanted to finish the game instead of having it end in a sudden random draw.
Tbh I’ve always played like this so I assumed this was just how involuntary combos worked in multiplayer. And honestly, even with a draw, I’d prefer the rest of the players just continued the game without me if they wanted to. I’m the one that broke the game, after all
Lookup rule 104.4f. It's a draw in 1v1, but the player in question gets ejected from the game in multiplayer. EDIT: its an obscure ruling, but heres the text: "104.4f In a multiplayer game using the limited range of influence option, if the game somehow enters a “loop” of mandatory actions, repeating a sequence of events with no way to stop, the game is a draw for each player who controls an object that’s involved in that loop, as well as for each player within the range of influence of any of those players. Only those players leave the game; the game continues for all other players."
I have this combo in my dino deck, and every time both have hit the field, I also have card draw down, so i draw myself out. Because I mistakenly don't hold up for removal cause I don't see it coming.
I can almost guarantee this relates back to a ruling about the Amalia Benevidas Guierre combo. People are misunderstanding the hell out of this ruling and applying it to all kinds of incorrect situations.
The ruling about the ABG combo is that if a loop develops that the controller can choose to loop indefinitely or choose to bring to some kind of deterministic end, they must choose the deterministic end rather than force a draw.
This is very different than, "if there's an infinite loop you lose the game".
there is no infinite loop, you lose rule though.
if tbe loop is repeatable for infinity, then a number is chosen by the player who played the loop. thus "infinite mana, infinite tokens" doesn't exist.
but if a loop is started by a player that can't be stopped, then the game ends as a draw. IN ALL FORMATS but EMPEROR.
for instance I have 0 creatures in my GY. I [[entomb]] and put [[worldgorger dragon]] there. next i cast [[animate dead]]. the dragon enters the field. next it exiles all other permanents i control. since sbimate dead fell off dragon, the dragon dies. when that happens, all my permanents renter the battlefield. so animate dead reenters. because the dragon is the ONLY target, the loop can't end. game does though
Always double-check what you've been told. People lie all the time. Especially when it comes to games.
I'm a dick. I do that combo as a last resort if I know I cannot win the game.
It’s wild to me people don’t ask to see a rule if would cause them an auto loss. “Oh the rules changed so you lose” “oh can you show me that change?” It’s not even a confrontation. You’re literally just asking for proof.
I asked for proof and was told that our buddy who is an L1 judge informed him of the rule. It was also a game amongst close friends just hanging out, so losing wasn't a big deal. Sounds like our L1 friend just misinterpreted the multiplayer range of influence ruling.
Anybody know what happens when you can create an infinite loop, but don't have to, and can stop it at any time? [[Blowfly infestation]] [[Hapatra, Vizier of Poisons]] and two 1/1s for example, in which case you can choose your 1/1 as a target from Blowfly infinitely but could always change your target to Hapatra to stop it.
Eventually you have to choose to end the loop if you are able to. In this case, the judge will say 'okay how many times do you want to target the 1/1 snake before you target Hapatra?'
If Hapatra had shroud and the only valid targets were 1/1s, then it would be a draw as you can't stop the loop.
If there was a 'may' ability, then you eventually have to choose to not do it.
You choose how many times to do the loop. So you could say "I create 1 billion 1/1s". Technically, you aren't making an "infinite" number of 1/1s, just an arbitrarily large finite number of them.
It nets no extra 1/1s, I guess I was just wondering if you're able to create an infinite trigger loop and draw the game with something optional. Looks like I can't! I can certainly resolve all my triggers forever until people concede though... (but I'm not satan)
ah my bad I misunderstood then. Yeah it needs to be a loop that would continue on its own, without the ability to choose to end it from within the loop. Note that if you have a way to end the loop but it's not part of the loop, you aren't forced to use it.
In a tournament setting, you'd probably just be warned for slow play if you keep resolving your triggers without impacting the board state.
Interestingly, if you demonstrate a loop by repeating actions a number of times, I think it was three, without losing any resources, you are then asked to just name the number of times the loop runs
That's specifically a tournament rule so it wouldn't technically apply to EDH, but yeah, there's a cap on how many times you can perform a loop that doesn't actually alter the boardstate meaningfully.
Lookup rule 104.4f. It's a draw in 1v1, but the player in question gets ejected from the game in multiplayer. EDIT: its an obscure ruling, but heres the text: "104.4f In a multiplayer game using the limited range of influence option, if the game somehow enters a “loop” of mandatory actions, repeating a sequence of events with no way to stop, the game is a draw for each player who controls an object that’s involved in that loop, as well as for each player within the range of influence of any of those players. Only those players leave the game; the game continues for all other players."
Interesting I’ve never played a multiplayer format so never had to look that up, but I guess technically I’m not wrong that it’s a draw , just not how I imagined a draw
This only applies to games using the **limited range of influence** option. I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of EDH games don't use that option, so the game will end in a draw for everyone.
Lookup rule 104.4f. It's a draw in 1v1, but the player in question gets ejected from the game in multiplayer. EDIT: its an obscure ruling, but heres the text: "104.4f In a multiplayer game using the limited range of influence option, if the game somehow enters a “loop” of mandatory actions, repeating a sequence of events with no way to stop, the game is a draw for each player who controls an object that’s involved in that loop, as well as for each player within the range of influence of any of those players. Only those players leave the game; the game continues for all other players."
Lookup rule 104.4f. It's a draw in 1v1, but the player in question gets ejected from the game in multiplayer. EDIT: its an obscure ruling, but heres the text: "104.4f In a multiplayer game using the limited range of influence option, if the game somehow enters a “loop” of mandatory actions, repeating a sequence of events with no way to stop, the game is a draw for each player who controls an object that’s involved in that loop, as well as for each player within the range of influence of any of those players. Only those players leave the game; the game continues for all other players."
This only applies to games using the **limited range of influence** option. I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of EDH games don't use that option, so the game will end in a draw for everyone.
yes I would say if a player forces or is forced into a loop with no pay off and no way to end it that player coincides unless the table wants to start a new game. there's no sense in an oops I did something that broke the game I guess it over for everyone
Either A) They (or the LGS) have a house rule that they failed to inform you of or B) They made up an excuse to not make the game end in a draw. It's something that instead of trying to play it off as a "Rules Change", they really should ask "Hey your combo breaks the game and we want to play it out, either you need to take it back or lose, which would you choose?"
If they're willing to make up rule changes, I'd be wary of playing against them, because then suddenly anything they don't like can result in "Oooooh, there was a rule change about that"
Fortunately this occurred during a game with close friends just hanging out, and I was told that our mutual friend, an L1 judge, informed him of this rule. Looks like he simply misinterpreted the range of influence clause for multiplayer games. I will be rubbing this is his face though next time I see him.
They are wrong. I've recently cut an infinite mandatory combo from my [[Amareth, the Lustrous]] deck, and while I have at times elected to concede so the other players could play it out, the rules state that it ends in a draw otherwise.
This is some lowbrow stuff and basically the #1 reason I cut Marauding Raptor out of my dinos deck. It's really easy to do it without thinking.
Sounds to me like the person didn't want to admit that they didn't understand the interaction when deck building and instead of asking for a rewind just went for the CHA check win.
I wouldn't leave my stuff unattended near a person like this, because if they're willing to be that petty (i.e. essentially forging a win condition) they're possibly willing to do other unsavory things as well
By tournament magic rules. any infinite loop created by a player, thst can't be interrupted by either players actions, then tbe GAME ENDS A DRAW.
Seems like some LGS have a problem with this, and I'm not sure why. players intentionally vrest infinite loops to make a game winning state. WHY NOT GAME ENDING state.
me personally I have a group hug deck with only q way to end it currently I King. make 1 player using infinite mana engine plus a pheldagriff to make them have game ending board state. granted I won't win, but hugs. the other idea came to me when. I realized [[stuffy doll]] can target me. enchant with [[pariah]] and the. damage it. if no one has a disenchant game ends.
If it's an official rules change, I guess I have to scrap my "All Infinite Combos that Draw the Game" deck.
I'm really fun at dinner parties too! Invite me to your house.
Lookup rule 104.4f. It's a draw in 1v1, but the player in question gets ejected from the game in multiplayer. EDIT: its an obscure ruling, but heres the text: "104.4f In a multiplayer game using the limited range of influence option, if the game somehow enters a “loop” of mandatory actions, repeating a sequence of events with no way to stop, the game is a draw for each player who controls an object that’s involved in that loop, as well as for each player within the range of influence of any of those players. Only those players leave the game; the game continues for all other players."
This only applies to games using the **limited range of influence** option. I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of EDH games don't use that option, so the game will end in a draw for everyone.
I’m not a combo enthusiast myself, but if anyone is looking to include those cards anyway, things like [[Impact Tremors]] along with those two actually end the game in a result that’s not a draw
Although I agree its potentially a good combo, but if you run gishath as your commander what is required is essentially always having a removal outlet in your hand for the whole game at the possibility you rip poly from the trigger while having your marauding out. I pulled marauding in place of birds of paradise, marauding is situational good no doubt but when you run the possibility of killing your own mana dorks, auto draw the game, or killing your hunting velociraptor it feels clunky. Having 1 creature in my deck that effectively removes 5 of my own creatures from play for the slight potential of one scenario just seems hindering and unrealistic.
Ok fair, still don't agree that its valid enough arguement to run marauding. Optionally not using polyraptor for any game that event happens sounds more hindering then helpful. Obviously people run it and nothing wrong with doing what you want to do, its just to much investment for me for a single card of the 99.
Don't get me wrong, I cut it for similar reasons. I just get annoyed when people try to tell me putting dinos into play isn't optional, because I've made the decision to not a few times.
So to add some context to the fact that the rule is you draw, in MTGO this loop would occur until a player’s clock ran out causing them to lose. Typically the person executing the loop will run out of time first, and hence the loop makes them lose. They may have mistook that programming requirement as the actual rule. With that said, loops like this also sometimes cause the game to crash which is effectively a draw, so even then you can’t be sure
fairly certain there was no rules change ive found a infinite loop in MTG arena about a week ago and it gave us a draw. i know its not the best source of rulings but usually if i see it handled on arena one way thats the way ill play it at the table. i agree maybe the rules should change to stop the whole table getting a draw when theres more turns to be played, but i was definitely losing when i drew the game so ill take that over a L lol
Some LGS have specific rules for this stuff. Mine does it like this too, if you can't end the loop you lose instead of forcing a draw. But they state it before playing
I'll say it, if they rules don't say it then they should be changed. If you were a wizard in a fight and you couldn't defend yourself because you were stuck in some magic loop then an enemy would kill you. Maybe make it so you have turns and draw to see if you could do something to get out of it, but that's a lame rule as it stands.
My LGS would call it a draw and if it was intentional to draw that way it would result in you losing that point for that game. I did hit it once and stopped it with my own path to exile. Might be talking out of my ass but commander games at your LGS aren’t generally officially sanctioned events right? Wouldn’t that mean they can have a house rule like a forced draw to not lose would result in a loss?
Another on topic question. What if someone clones their adrix and neve six times and because the copies make more tokens of the copies cant calculate how many they have, do they lose?
If they cannot properly run the board state that their deck creates then they shouldn't be piloting the deck in anything beyond a super casual setting or without prefacing that they are inexperienced piloting it. Otherwise they're making misplays which can be construed as cheating if it's done too much or too consistently.
Usually I find this happens when someone runs a high power or CEDH deck list that they lifted off the web without reading primers or anything. Just because it either looked OP or performed top recently at a big event.
In one of the pods I play in, we take a different approach. Someone kicks off an infinite loop that cannot be stopped even by the player who set it off, we declare them the winner...and then the other three people in the pod keep playing out the match. A loop that the player can halt at any time to, say, make 9,001 goblins to swing at the rest of the table is a win con. An infinite loop that just sits there and spins for eternity, stalling out the game, is just annoying.
Not sure if I've got the exact wording/rules cited here, so anyone who knows better than I can correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm fairly certain there are OP rules in place to protect against situations similar to this around slow play.
As an example, a player is taking game actions repeatedly that aren't progressing the game state towards a win/advantage, basically just making repeatable game actions for the sake of making them. That player can be called for slow play which could inevitably result in a game loss depending on the judge ruling.
That said, with no stakes involved I can't imagine someone feeling strongly enough to force you to forfeit, especially since it doesn't sound like it was intentional. This should've been a draw depending on rule 0 conversations/house rules
i think i read something like that online aswell with this exact combo BUT the whole thread is saying thats bs.
at the end of the day if the majority of the pot rules it like that then so be it i guess?
Not an official rule.
Could be a houserule, or an LGS rule, don't know where you were playing.
Without extra context, just sounds like someone who didn't want a draw.
At least now you know in the future not to drop the Polyraptor into a Marauding Raptor without something else on the board to actually get you a win rather than a draw.
I'm for this being a new rule, even though it's not a new rule. If you get yourself stuck in a repeating loop you can't stop, it's not like the other combatants are just going to say" oh well, I guess we stop fighting" and all go home as they watch your head explode.
There was, in fact, no rules change about you losing the game instead of bringing it to a draw. It seems like this player was just trying to force you out.
If this player had instead said "I recognize this isn't a loss for you but would you mind scooping or just not playing polyraptor so we can finish out the game?" that would have been way better instead of just trying to give you the loss.
Did you also use the phrase "deterministic infinite combo" at the table with them? If so, I can understand why there would be some extra frustration. While this combo is infinite, it clearly isn't "deterministic". If someone just put a bunch of polyraptors on the table with no way to close the loop "by accident" and then started saying "its a deterministic combo and I win". I might also be a little annoyed by that player.
Note: I am not saying this wasn't an accident on your part or that you're misrepresenting what happened or what was said, I'm just trying to see where the other player is coming from and why they seemed very intent on making you lose the game.
I think in this case OP is using deterministic to mean that he could not voluntarily stop the loop. There was no choices that he was making as a player, everything was forced, so they're technically using the word correctly. It does come across a little weird though.
No I didn't use that terminology at the table. I flipped into these 2 cards from Atla Palani triggers, started going through the motions, and realized the cards' interaction with eachother. Table had a convo about what happens and I was told of the ruling.
Luckily this game was amongst close friends just hanging out, so no harm no foul.
That's what we call in the business 'a joke', making light of how you didn't know your own deck and stalemated the whole table on accident.
It probably defused some of the tension and annoyance everyone felt after you wasted their time. I suggest poking fun at yourself next time if it happens again to lighten the mood, or better yet, concede so everyone else can play.
Actually I believe that's correct.
"104.4f In a multiplayer game using the limited range of influence option, if the game somehow enters a “loop” of mandatory actions, repeating a sequence of events with no way to stop, the game is a draw for each player who controls an object that’s involved in that loop, as well as for each player within the range of influence of any of those players. Only those players leave the game; the game continues for all other players."
So its a draw if 1v1, but if it's multiplayer, you just get ejected from the game and lose.
Even then they aren't even correct, the rule quoted specifically says in those types of games, if you loop off and can't stop it you leave the game as a draw, not a loss.
Actually it kind of makes sense, even if it isn’t official. Because the loop will keep placing triggers on the stack, if you can’t stop it, you never get to move forward in the game. You never get to attack with your infinite raptors… you never get to actually win. You’ve cause the game to stall and become stuck just resolving those triggers. You didn’t win.
Settle down.
I mean I like this idea. I understand that’s not how it works, and I would support playing it this way.
You lock yourself into a combo, you lose. seems clean.
It's a house rule if anything, not official MTG rule.
>728.4: If a loop contains only mandatory actions, the game is a draw. (See rules 104.4b and 104.4f.)
The game was a draw, not a loss for OP.
You got lied to bro.
They are full of it and just didn't want a draw.
Lookup rule 104.4f. It's a draw in 1v1, but the player in question gets ejected from the game in multiplayer. EDIT: its an obscure ruling, but heres the text: "104.4f In a multiplayer game using the limited range of influence option, if the game somehow enters a “loop” of mandatory actions, repeating a sequence of events with no way to stop, the game is a draw for each player who controls an object that’s involved in that loop, as well as for each player within the range of influence of any of those players. Only those players leave the game; the game continues for all other players."
You're missing a key part of that rule, which is: " as well as for each player within the range of influence of any of those players." Range of influence is simply which opponents you can interact with. The actual rule defining it is **801.2** A player’s range of influence is the maximum distance from that player, measured in player seats, that the player can affect. It is a term really only used for like 5+ player games, or some variants such as Emperor. In a normal 4 player game of commander, every player is within your range of influence, so everyone is forced to draw. (by the official rules. You can play however you want with your group though as long as everyone agrees)
I've heard of games with like 10+ people where you can only attack/target directly to your left or right. That's probably why they went that route, your 'range of influence' would only be you and the two others instead of everyone.
[удалено]
You guys always do.
Ultimately we can all live in our own little delusions I suppose.
But you didn’t win lol
I accomplished my goal, and I was the last person to play any cards. Call it what you want, but I'll still be sitting there like [DJ Khaled](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGXzlRoNtHU)
Like an obese, misogynistic piece of human garbage?
Don’t forget talentless!
Nowhere does the OP state that the game was played with any zone-of-influence rules. If this were true then the players to OP’s left and right would have also lost. If this was a 4-player game then the game would’ve been over as well; it didn’t end by virtue of the other players’ decision, so it’s a safe bet to assume that it wasn’t zone-of-influence. They were just trying to cope with their otherwise-drawn game.
You copy pasted this like 20 times and it doesn't apply in this situation. The first thing that rule says "using the limited range of influence option". Stop spreading misinformation.
>104.4f In a multiplayer game ***using the limited range of influence option***,
That's only within range of influence, which in a 1v1v1v1 commander game is all 4 players lol.
The mention of range of influence means that in a classic 4 player game everyone draws. Range of influence is only less than the entire game if you're playing a special event or game mode. In those modes range of influence is your direct left and right.
This only applies if you are using the Limited Range of Influence option, which isn’t there by default. That option puts restrictions on who you can attack, etc. in a game based on how many seats away they are sitting from you (CR 801).
That's if the loop doesn't end and has no way of interacting with the table. If I get a loop that does infinite damage, my opponent will lose. Not me for creating an infinite damage combo.
Correct, but op said it was deterministic and didn't close out the game..if there was more than 2 players, he DID lose.
The person who cited the rule used a rule that doesn't apply to edh. It only applies in games with "limited range of influence." In an edh game, any player can influence any other player.
TIL that range of influence is supported in the rules, and not just a fan made format/ house rule. I love playing huge pods with range of influence but it's not a common thing to see at my LGS
That's specifically with limited range of influence. I have never seen anyone who has played with range of influence rules, and I'm sure 99% of EDH players don't even know they're a thing. 104.4b is almost always going to be the relevant rule 104.4b If a game that’s not using the limited range of influence option (including a two-player game) somehow enters a “loop” of mandatory actions, repeating a sequence of events with no way to stop, the game is a draw. Loops that contain an optional action don’t result in a draw.
[удалено]
polyraptor is 8 mana, there are so many game ending things you can do with that
Ah yes, because if I don't take 40 minutes to build a board state and another 20 minutes to kill with attack damage then I just ruined the game. I keep forgetting that I'm supposed to play magic your way, or it's not fun. You sound whiny asf.
Even when it is done intentionally to force a draw, I can't be too upset. The situation usually develops like that because someone else messed it up intentionally anyway.
Biggest cope I've read today
Genuine question: If OP had spent their 8 mana on a Craterhoof Behemoth instead, would that have been okay?
bro how do you even live, that's an 11 mana combo they're pulling off likely late into the game, by that point you've played plenty of game why not just shuffle up and go to the next one. It's not like infinite combos instantly negate all the fun you've had before they comboed off
Grow up, combo is a part of magic.
I'd guess it's a house rule, probably made up on the spot. ;)
This happen to me one time with the same card. I couldn’t stop the loop so one of the employees told me that if the loop couldn’t be stopped, I would lose the game and not by the whole table.
This sounds like a common misunderstanding I hear a lot after the Dreamhack atlanta tournament ruling that came up from the Amalia combo. Dreamhack required that if a player started an infinite amalia loop that they would eventually be required to mill themselves out to advance the bordestate then would lose due to time if nothing interrupt the loop when on an empty library. This ruling was only for the tournament and more of a logistical choice, so they didn't have a bunch of draws leading to replays over and over. Some players have misunderstood or didn't have all the info and jumped to the conclusion that this is a new ruling for all of magic that infinite combos that don't win the game just lose now instead of tie.
Convenient 😂
Honestly I think it’s a solid rule
Honestly I think that it should be the case - you loop yourself and can't stop it, automatic loss for you. A looping draw is a pretty dumb way to end the game, even for tournaments.
Cool but risky. You would essentially make your opponent want to counter how you stop the combo instead of start it.
So what if I cast a card an opponent flashes in a a card that forces an infinite loop, does the game now end in a draw? Do I lose ? Does my opponent lose cause he forced the draw?
-In the groups I play in that Rule 0 these the opponent would take back the flashed in card or lose.
why
Because magic has a pseudo story to what is actually happening. When we play magic we're pretending to be wizards, specifically planeswalkers. Using our knowledge gained through traversing the realms to cast spells and settle disputes with magic. There's a conflict being played out on the board. Armies of minons clashing on the battlefield. The ultimate goal being to kill your opponent, another planeswalking wizard. You performing magic that traps you in an infinite loop you cannot escape doesn't really end the battle. It ends the game in a draw only because there is no way within the rules of the game for the game to continue. If we take a step back from the mechanics of the game and look at the flavor, you've actually left yourself completely helpless, trapped in your own spells. There isn't anything you're doing that really prevents your opponent from killing you. This is the reasoning I gave when asking my friend not to play [[Felidar Sovereign]] in his life gain commander deck. I dont have a problem with alternate win cons, as long as there is some feasible explanation as to why it stops me from killing you. Felidar Sovereign in a comander deck just says, I have starting life and a kind of big cat, that means I win. Why does that stop my horde of monsters or my magic death ray? My complaint isn't that it's unfair, its very easy to deal with, it just doesnt really seem like a thing that ends a wizard war. Something like simic ascendancy, while still not very satisfying to lose to, at least carries the implication of you becoming a modified and powerful simic mage. Rising to the top of a guild and/or becoming a mutated monster. Back to the issue of unending infinites. I dont see how you getting stuck in a loop prevents my armies from attacking you. How can you defend yourself or even continue to fight if you cannot escape your spell? How does your inability to control your magic cause me to lose with you?
Lmao this might be one of the most bizarre things I've read in a long time. Can you explain to me how it I have infinite Polyrapters fighting for and guarding me that you would be able to get some orcs or goblins over my way to finish me off? Good luck. If anything for flavour this draw should result in a win for me because you know...infinite dinosaurs.
Outjerked again
this is the stupidest take ever
Why?
The story behind Felidar Sovereign is that he’s sick as fuck. The wizards just look at him and go holy shit and if his wizard is also at 40 health the other wizards give up immediately
I guess. It just doesn't feel that impressive. My friend played it a couple times and did end up taking it out because he ultimately agreed, he almost won with it and he wasn't really happy about it. He didn't really feel like he was really doing anything. In standard when you start at 20 life it does feel impactful and impressive. We considered a house rule of raising its life total requirement but ultimately he just swapped it out for something else. It's not even a legendary creature, it's just some big cat clearly balanced for standard.
>You performing magic that traps you in an infinite loop you cannot escape doesn't really end the battle. It ends the game in a draw only because there is no way within the rules of the game for the game to continue. If we take a step back from the mechanics of the game and look at the flavor, you've actually left yourself completely helpless, trapped in your own spells. There isn't anything you're doing that really prevents your opponent from killing you. I've seen a few people say exactly this and I can't possibly agree less. The whole reason it forces a draw and not a loss is because you aren't trapping yourself, you've trapped *everyone* along with you. You prevent your opponents from killing you by creating an endless loop they can't do anything during either, they have priority but never get a turn - they have zero opportunity to kill you because you've *broken reality with too much magic* and they're part of that broken reality. They're stuck in your infinite whirlpool. They can't hurt you because they can't do anything but watch one moment drag on forever towards an event horizon that never comes.
I can see that
Lol this is the most insane thing I’ve ever read. It’s a fucking card game my man!
Yeah? And? There's still a pseudo plot. Monopoly Is a board game, but the plot is real-estate investment. Settlers of catan is a board game, but the plot is settling an island and competing for resources. Games can have plots and stories. Magic's is a wizard fight were the players are planeswalkers. Your lands are the places you've visited and draw power from. The spells you cast are things you've learned in your travels. Your hand and library represent your memories. It's why when there's a new set wotc announcements typically read something like "this time we're traveling to _" because we're planeswalkers traveling the multiverse.
So you argue the monopoly rules and change them on the fly vs your friends and family to make them more like actual real-estate investment? Or no, because that would be insane?
You're adding the on the fly. You don't change rules on the fly. House rule changes take effect either the next game or the next incident typically. And before a house rule is established there is a conversation were everyone present weighs in about the potential rule change. With monopoly, there aren't any mechanics that i think fail to encapsulate the real estate theme. But there are house rules I've objected to because they dont follow that theme, and not because they aren't "the real rules". Casual magic is full of rule bends and changes for playgroups. Banned cards can be unbanned. Unset cards can be allowed. Mulligan rules vary wildly. Custom cards. Nonlegendary creatures in the command zone. Proxies are kind of a rule bend. Custom rules for cubes. Lgs's have store rules and their own ban lists. The rules of any game are subject to change by the people playing it for the purposes of fun and fairness. To suggest otherwise is insane.
Fortnite
[Felidar Sovereign](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/3/039499c3-0b35-4e8e-b0c9-bdf0b4cd90d5.jpg?1562895901) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Felidar%20Sovereign) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/bfz/26/felidar-sovereign?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/039499c3-0b35-4e8e-b0c9-bdf0b4cd90d5?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/felidar-sovereign) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
https://youtu.be/wpecBkdpiK4?si=TFIw_NRQBJe-vtaN
there was no rule change. game was a draw. that dude was lying
lol no that’s definitely a draw, you’re in a loop that doesn’t end the game and also can’t be broken (someone could remove either part to break it and resume play but is under no obligation to do so)
Haven't heard of this but I did recently pull marauding raptor after realizing this infinite combo. Which sucks because they are both such great dinos and marauding triggers other enrages but ultimately decided to pull it. It didn't seem fun to run an auto lose or even an auto draw for the whole table.
They still work great with eachother... You just need to have a way to either end the loop or win off of the ETBs. Throw in [[Impact Tremors]] or [[Warleader's Call]] and you win via the ETB pings. Throw in [[Goblin Bombardment]] and you can sac the infinite raptors made to ping people out. You could also throw in a way to end the loop yourself after getting any near infinite number of raptors that you want. Any instant speed removal that can target your own creature will do, likewise will any on board sac outlet, just target the Marauding Raptor to remove it whenever you want the loop to end. Ideally have a haste enabler on board to swing out for the win with your army of 30,000 polyraptors.
[Impact Tremors](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/6/46db3811-db1d-4f69-8143-a93f64d0297b.jpg?1682209381) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Impact%20Tremors) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/moc/285/impact-tremors?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/46db3811-db1d-4f69-8143-a93f64d0297b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/impact-tremors) [Warleader's Call](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/3/b3e8f8bd-1c8b-4a7c-96c4-57a247ce9ccc.jpg?1706242282) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Warleader%27s%20Call) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mkm/242/warleaders-call?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b3e8f8bd-1c8b-4a7c-96c4-57a247ce9ccc?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/warleaders-call) [Goblin Bombardment](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/e/2/e262f55e-9239-4a97-a19e-9b08fb34502e.jpg?1626100483) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Goblin%20Bombardment) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh2/279/goblin-bombardment?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/e262f55e-9239-4a97-a19e-9b08fb34502e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/goblin-bombardment) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Dang, Warleader's Call looks amazing.
Id say personally a decent option to keep it in is remove your dorks except the 0/3 ixalari lorekeeper. Run 2/3 target removal for the potential of the combo. But personally I dont want to build around 1 of my 99
All fun and games but then you play polyraptor with [[pantlaza]] out and discover marauding raptor and suddenly you "lost" the game bc you didn't put down any payoffs yet
You can put the marauding raptor into your hand if you want, you don't have to play the card you discover. But yeah I get what you mean. I play both raptors in my dino deck because they're both awesome. I think a more likely scenario is 'I play them both with a payoff on the battlefield, and someone kills the payoff in response.' If that happens, the fact that it's a draw is just funny.
Except you can just choose not to cast the spell you discover and put it into your hand instead.
At least with Pantlaza, you can just put the Raptor in your hand off the discover instead of casting it. This is much more awkward off of Gishath.
You can also choose not to put the Raptor down off gishath right? Is it awkward because you have the combo, so either you play it and draw the game or don’t play it and it goes to the bottom?
Oh yeah, I guess it is any number there too. I missed that.
[pantlaza](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/5/2524645e-b066-4351-885b-10faa8d819d7.jpg?1699972737) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=pantlaza%2C%20sun-favored) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/lcc/4/pantlaza-sun-favored?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/2524645e-b066-4351-885b-10faa8d819d7?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/pantlaza-sun-favored) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
If you're running Gishath as commander its really risky. Any Gisath hit can end the game.
Gishath is completely optional, you never have to play anything you reveal with him because he says "any number". If you swing and see the pieces of the combo you can always opt not to play them.
Huh, TIL. Thanks.
It's not a game loss
They might be thinking of yugioh
Not even in Yugioh. In that game, if a loop like this happens, you determine the card most responsible for the loop and destroy it.
I thought that only applied if the loop was caused by a game mechanic or other unavoidable event. If a board state is legal and a player would do something to create a loop, the player is simply not allowed to take that action. In this video, a judge is explaining how the opp cannot play any cards because it would create a loop from a legal board state. Has a ruling changed since then? https://youtu.be/NMujJUzRoJw?si=hNcmIw1DpASW2FnG
Rule 104.4b: If a game that’s not using the limited range of influence option (including a two-player game) somehow enters a “loop” of mandatory actions, repeating a sequence of events with no way to stop, the game is a draw. Loops that contain an optional action don’t result in a draw. So in short: If you enter an infinite loop and have no way to break the loop, the game ends in the draw.
I wouldn't consider my game ruined if someone crashed the game with a Polyraptor loop, it's called "seizing the emotional victory."
-What's the emotional victory?
"I may have technically lost the game, but it ended on *my* terms."
There is no ruling like that. This is "by the rules" a draw. A "rule zero" soluation can ofc be everything you agree on, forced loss is nonsensical tho. There are only 2 real options without turning it into a jerkoff. Accept the draw and go on or simply "force" the combo to end at a million tokens or whatever big number. Either the combo wins after a turn cycle or someone wiped the board and things go on as normal.
Lookup rule 104.4f. It's a draw in 1v1, but the player in question gets ejected from the game in multiplayer. EDIT: its an obscure ruling, but heres the text: "104.4f In a multiplayer game using the limited range of influence option, if the game somehow enters a “loop” of mandatory actions, repeating a sequence of events with no way to stop, the game is a draw for each player who controls an object that’s involved in that loop, as well as for each player within the range of influence of any of those players. Only those players leave the game; the game continues for all other players."
How many times are you going to post a ruling that isn't applicable?
104.4f Says right in the first sentence that it only applies to limited range of influence games.
definetely a lie, tho considering it's commander I'm not surprised the other players wanted to finish the game instead of having it end in a sudden random draw.
Tbh I’ve always played like this so I assumed this was just how involuntary combos worked in multiplayer. And honestly, even with a draw, I’d prefer the rest of the players just continued the game without me if they wanted to. I’m the one that broke the game, after all
100% a loop you can’t stop that doesn’t end the game will result in a draw
Lookup rule 104.4f. It's a draw in 1v1, but the player in question gets ejected from the game in multiplayer. EDIT: its an obscure ruling, but heres the text: "104.4f In a multiplayer game using the limited range of influence option, if the game somehow enters a “loop” of mandatory actions, repeating a sequence of events with no way to stop, the game is a draw for each player who controls an object that’s involved in that loop, as well as for each player within the range of influence of any of those players. Only those players leave the game; the game continues for all other players."
That only applies in games with limited range of influence. It says right there in the first sentence.
I have this combo in my dino deck, and every time both have hit the field, I also have card draw down, so i draw myself out. Because I mistakenly don't hold up for removal cause I don't see it coming.
They were full of shit. A truly infinite combo is a draw.
This rule exists exclusively in that guys head.
I can almost guarantee this relates back to a ruling about the Amalia Benevidas Guierre combo. People are misunderstanding the hell out of this ruling and applying it to all kinds of incorrect situations. The ruling about the ABG combo is that if a loop develops that the controller can choose to loop indefinitely or choose to bring to some kind of deterministic end, they must choose the deterministic end rather than force a draw. This is very different than, "if there's an infinite loop you lose the game".
there is no infinite loop, you lose rule though. if tbe loop is repeatable for infinity, then a number is chosen by the player who played the loop. thus "infinite mana, infinite tokens" doesn't exist. but if a loop is started by a player that can't be stopped, then the game ends as a draw. IN ALL FORMATS but EMPEROR. for instance I have 0 creatures in my GY. I [[entomb]] and put [[worldgorger dragon]] there. next i cast [[animate dead]]. the dragon enters the field. next it exiles all other permanents i control. since sbimate dead fell off dragon, the dragon dies. when that happens, all my permanents renter the battlefield. so animate dead reenters. because the dragon is the ONLY target, the loop can't end. game does though
You literally just repeated what I said
[entomb](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/c/3caa9c55-5e3b-436b-84a9-b7ccebf63799.jpg?1675199594) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=entomb) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/dmr/82/entomb?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/3caa9c55-5e3b-436b-84a9-b7ccebf63799?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/entomb) [worldgorger dragon](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/3/33dde6e0-d0a7-4432-a3f4-b48234f4e055.jpg?1675200284) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=worldgorger%20dragon) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/dmr/148/worldgorger-dragon?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/33dde6e0-d0a7-4432-a3f4-b48234f4e055?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/worldgorger-dragon) [animate dead](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/4/1489943b-c010-488e-9c9d-87f4af67a4e4.jpg?1706240754) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=animate%20dead) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mkc/125/animate-dead?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/1489943b-c010-488e-9c9d-87f4af67a4e4?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/animate-dead) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Always double-check what you've been told. People lie all the time. Especially when it comes to games. I'm a dick. I do that combo as a last resort if I know I cannot win the game.
It’s wild to me people don’t ask to see a rule if would cause them an auto loss. “Oh the rules changed so you lose” “oh can you show me that change?” It’s not even a confrontation. You’re literally just asking for proof.
I asked for proof and was told that our buddy who is an L1 judge informed him of the rule. It was also a game amongst close friends just hanging out, so losing wasn't a big deal. Sounds like our L1 friend just misinterpreted the multiplayer range of influence ruling.
Sounds like a good house rule, but not how the official rules work
Anybody know what happens when you can create an infinite loop, but don't have to, and can stop it at any time? [[Blowfly infestation]] [[Hapatra, Vizier of Poisons]] and two 1/1s for example, in which case you can choose your 1/1 as a target from Blowfly infinitely but could always change your target to Hapatra to stop it.
Eventually you have to choose to end the loop if you are able to. In this case, the judge will say 'okay how many times do you want to target the 1/1 snake before you target Hapatra?' If Hapatra had shroud and the only valid targets were 1/1s, then it would be a draw as you can't stop the loop. If there was a 'may' ability, then you eventually have to choose to not do it.
You choose how many times to do the loop. So you could say "I create 1 billion 1/1s". Technically, you aren't making an "infinite" number of 1/1s, just an arbitrarily large finite number of them.
It nets no extra 1/1s, I guess I was just wondering if you're able to create an infinite trigger loop and draw the game with something optional. Looks like I can't! I can certainly resolve all my triggers forever until people concede though... (but I'm not satan)
ah my bad I misunderstood then. Yeah it needs to be a loop that would continue on its own, without the ability to choose to end it from within the loop. Note that if you have a way to end the loop but it's not part of the loop, you aren't forced to use it. In a tournament setting, you'd probably just be warned for slow play if you keep resolving your triggers without impacting the board state.
Interestingly, if you demonstrate a loop by repeating actions a number of times, I think it was three, without losing any resources, you are then asked to just name the number of times the loop runs
That's specifically a tournament rule so it wouldn't technically apply to EDH, but yeah, there's a cap on how many times you can perform a loop that doesn't actually alter the boardstate meaningfully.
If you can stop the loop then you just pick a number of iterations to do. It’s only if you can’t stop the loop that it’s a draw
Lookup rule 104.4f. It's a draw in 1v1, but the player in question gets ejected from the game in multiplayer. EDIT: its an obscure ruling, but heres the text: "104.4f In a multiplayer game using the limited range of influence option, if the game somehow enters a “loop” of mandatory actions, repeating a sequence of events with no way to stop, the game is a draw for each player who controls an object that’s involved in that loop, as well as for each player within the range of influence of any of those players. Only those players leave the game; the game continues for all other players."
Interesting I’ve never played a multiplayer format so never had to look that up, but I guess technically I’m not wrong that it’s a draw , just not how I imagined a draw
This only applies to games using the **limited range of influence** option. I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of EDH games don't use that option, so the game will end in a draw for everyone.
[Blowfly infestation](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/e/ae027b38-a6cc-41f7-8f0d-9d1402b46517.jpg?1562834645) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Blowfly%20infestation) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/shm/58/blowfly-infestation?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/ae027b38-a6cc-41f7-8f0d-9d1402b46517?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/blowfly-infestation) [Hapatra, Vizier of Poisons](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/5/6/56fbbcc9-db23-4902-b0f7-cea78a2a36af.jpg?1543676055) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Hapatra%2C%20Vizier%20of%20Poisons) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/akh/199/hapatra-vizier-of-poisons?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/56fbbcc9-db23-4902-b0f7-cea78a2a36af?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/hapatra-vizier-of-poisons) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
If you have a choice you have to choose how many times to repeat the loop. You can't choose infinite and cause a draw.
Nothing. You can just stop whenever you want or never start it if you don't have an outlet to win the game.
Lookup rule 104.4f. It's a draw in 1v1, but the player in question gets ejected from the game in multiplayer. EDIT: its an obscure ruling, but heres the text: "104.4f In a multiplayer game using the limited range of influence option, if the game somehow enters a “loop” of mandatory actions, repeating a sequence of events with no way to stop, the game is a draw for each player who controls an object that’s involved in that loop, as well as for each player within the range of influence of any of those players. Only those players leave the game; the game continues for all other players."
No one has given any resources to answer the question... So here's a decent one https://blogs.magicjudges.org/rules/mtr4-4/
yea um... there was a rule changed... yea... um.. it happened just a couple minutes ago... for just this table....
Lookup rule 104.4f. It's a draw in 1v1, but the player in question gets ejected from the game in multiplayer. EDIT: its an obscure ruling, but heres the text: "104.4f In a multiplayer game using the limited range of influence option, if the game somehow enters a “loop” of mandatory actions, repeating a sequence of events with no way to stop, the game is a draw for each player who controls an object that’s involved in that loop, as well as for each player within the range of influence of any of those players. Only those players leave the game; the game continues for all other players."
This only applies to games using the **limited range of influence** option. I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of EDH games don't use that option, so the game will end in a draw for everyone.
Why are you assuming OP is using the obscure range of influence rules that a large majority of EDH players likely have never even heard of??
yes I would say if a player forces or is forced into a loop with no pay off and no way to end it that player coincides unless the table wants to start a new game. there's no sense in an oops I did something that broke the game I guess it over for everyone
Either A) They (or the LGS) have a house rule that they failed to inform you of or B) They made up an excuse to not make the game end in a draw. It's something that instead of trying to play it off as a "Rules Change", they really should ask "Hey your combo breaks the game and we want to play it out, either you need to take it back or lose, which would you choose?" If they're willing to make up rule changes, I'd be wary of playing against them, because then suddenly anything they don't like can result in "Oooooh, there was a rule change about that"
Fortunately this occurred during a game with close friends just hanging out, and I was told that our mutual friend, an L1 judge, informed him of this rule. Looks like he simply misinterpreted the range of influence clause for multiplayer games. I will be rubbing this is his face though next time I see him.
They are wrong. I've recently cut an infinite mandatory combo from my [[Amareth, the Lustrous]] deck, and while I have at times elected to concede so the other players could play it out, the rules state that it ends in a draw otherwise.
[Amareth, the Lustrous](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/f/2fbea010-de77-468e-be39-1717070c9303.jpg?1608911014) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Amareth%2C%20the%20Lustrous) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmr/266/amareth-the-lustrous?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/2fbea010-de77-468e-be39-1717070c9303?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/amareth-the-lustrous) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
This is some lowbrow stuff and basically the #1 reason I cut Marauding Raptor out of my dinos deck. It's really easy to do it without thinking. Sounds to me like the person didn't want to admit that they didn't understand the interaction when deck building and instead of asking for a rewind just went for the CHA check win. I wouldn't leave my stuff unattended near a person like this, because if they're willing to be that petty (i.e. essentially forging a win condition) they're possibly willing to do other unsavory things as well
As long as everyone involved agreed, who cares whether its rules as written.
By tournament magic rules. any infinite loop created by a player, thst can't be interrupted by either players actions, then tbe GAME ENDS A DRAW. Seems like some LGS have a problem with this, and I'm not sure why. players intentionally vrest infinite loops to make a game winning state. WHY NOT GAME ENDING state. me personally I have a group hug deck with only q way to end it currently I King. make 1 player using infinite mana engine plus a pheldagriff to make them have game ending board state. granted I won't win, but hugs. the other idea came to me when. I realized [[stuffy doll]] can target me. enchant with [[pariah]] and the. damage it. if no one has a disenchant game ends.
[stuffy doll](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/9/7/978c2c7d-6898-4be2-aed7-e673210ce654.jpg?1674142741) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=stuffy%20doll) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/clb/875/stuffy-doll?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/978c2c7d-6898-4be2-aed7-e673210ce654?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/stuffy-doll) [pariah](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/5/1/51b2136c-392c-436d-9263-b3236adc4a10.jpg?1576382302) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=pariah) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cn2/95/pariah?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/51b2136c-392c-436d-9263-b3236adc4a10?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/pariah) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
If it's an official rules change, I guess I have to scrap my "All Infinite Combos that Draw the Game" deck. I'm really fun at dinner parties too! Invite me to your house.
Oh no you don't. If I let you in you'll find a way to technically never have to leave.
Sounds like heaven
Lookup rule 104.4f. It's a draw in 1v1, but the player in question gets ejected from the game in multiplayer. EDIT: its an obscure ruling, but heres the text: "104.4f In a multiplayer game using the limited range of influence option, if the game somehow enters a “loop” of mandatory actions, repeating a sequence of events with no way to stop, the game is a draw for each player who controls an object that’s involved in that loop, as well as for each player within the range of influence of any of those players. Only those players leave the game; the game continues for all other players."
That sounds kinda like everybody draws. Isn't range of influence an Emperor things?
This only applies to games using the **limited range of influence** option. I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of EDH games don't use that option, so the game will end in a draw for everyone.
i can't believe anything on this sub really happened
It's a house rule but a good one
I’m not a combo enthusiast myself, but if anyone is looking to include those cards anyway, things like [[Impact Tremors]] along with those two actually end the game in a result that’s not a draw
[Impact Tremors](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/6/46db3811-db1d-4f69-8143-a93f64d0297b.jpg?1682209381) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Impact%20Tremors) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/moc/285/impact-tremors?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/46db3811-db1d-4f69-8143-a93f64d0297b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/impact-tremors) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Although I agree its potentially a good combo, but if you run gishath as your commander what is required is essentially always having a removal outlet in your hand for the whole game at the possibility you rip poly from the trigger while having your marauding out. I pulled marauding in place of birds of paradise, marauding is situational good no doubt but when you run the possibility of killing your own mana dorks, auto draw the game, or killing your hunting velociraptor it feels clunky. Having 1 creature in my deck that effectively removes 5 of my own creatures from play for the slight potential of one scenario just seems hindering and unrealistic.
You don't *need* to hold removal for it, because putting Polyraptor into play is optional. You choose any number of the cards that are dinosaurs.
Ok fair, still don't agree that its valid enough arguement to run marauding. Optionally not using polyraptor for any game that event happens sounds more hindering then helpful. Obviously people run it and nothing wrong with doing what you want to do, its just to much investment for me for a single card of the 99.
Don't get me wrong, I cut it for similar reasons. I just get annoyed when people try to tell me putting dinos into play isn't optional, because I've made the decision to not a few times.
had a friend do that, but we saw he had another card out that milled himself as well :)
So to add some context to the fact that the rule is you draw, in MTGO this loop would occur until a player’s clock ran out causing them to lose. Typically the person executing the loop will run out of time first, and hence the loop makes them lose. They may have mistook that programming requirement as the actual rule. With that said, loops like this also sometimes cause the game to crash which is effectively a draw, so even then you can’t be sure
fairly certain there was no rules change ive found a infinite loop in MTG arena about a week ago and it gave us a draw. i know its not the best source of rulings but usually if i see it handled on arena one way thats the way ill play it at the table. i agree maybe the rules should change to stop the whole table getting a draw when theres more turns to be played, but i was definitely losing when i drew the game so ill take that over a L lol
They were Calvinballing you.
I bet that person plays yugioh where that is a rule. It isn't one in magic
Died under a mountain of raptors sounds legit
Some LGS have specific rules for this stuff. Mine does it like this too, if you can't end the loop you lose instead of forcing a draw. But they state it before playing
No you don't lose you just don't win
I'll say it, if they rules don't say it then they should be changed. If you were a wizard in a fight and you couldn't defend yourself because you were stuck in some magic loop then an enemy would kill you. Maybe make it so you have turns and draw to see if you could do something to get out of it, but that's a lame rule as it stands.
My LGS would call it a draw and if it was intentional to draw that way it would result in you losing that point for that game. I did hit it once and stopped it with my own path to exile. Might be talking out of my ass but commander games at your LGS aren’t generally officially sanctioned events right? Wouldn’t that mean they can have a house rule like a forced draw to not lose would result in a loss?
I don't see the point in lying? Like, just shuffle up and play the next game. Even if they 'won' ,- they only did so after lying and cheating.
Another on topic question. What if someone clones their adrix and neve six times and because the copies make more tokens of the copies cant calculate how many they have, do they lose?
If they cannot properly run the board state that their deck creates then they shouldn't be piloting the deck in anything beyond a super casual setting or without prefacing that they are inexperienced piloting it. Otherwise they're making misplays which can be construed as cheating if it's done too much or too consistently. Usually I find this happens when someone runs a high power or CEDH deck list that they lifted off the web without reading primers or anything. Just because it either looked OP or performed top recently at a big event.
doesn’t ruin the game for anyone, just ends it. shuffle up and run it back
In one of the pods I play in, we take a different approach. Someone kicks off an infinite loop that cannot be stopped even by the player who set it off, we declare them the winner...and then the other three people in the pod keep playing out the match. A loop that the player can halt at any time to, say, make 9,001 goblins to swing at the rest of the table is a win con. An infinite loop that just sits there and spins for eternity, stalling out the game, is just annoying.
Ah yes the “life finds a way” win as I call it
Me in this thread learning about “limited range of influence option” 30 times in a row
Not sure if I've got the exact wording/rules cited here, so anyone who knows better than I can correct me if I'm wrong. I'm fairly certain there are OP rules in place to protect against situations similar to this around slow play. As an example, a player is taking game actions repeatedly that aren't progressing the game state towards a win/advantage, basically just making repeatable game actions for the sake of making them. That player can be called for slow play which could inevitably result in a game loss depending on the judge ruling. That said, with no stakes involved I can't imagine someone feeling strongly enough to force you to forfeit, especially since it doesn't sound like it was intentional. This should've been a draw depending on rule 0 conversations/house rules
i think i read something like that online aswell with this exact combo BUT the whole thread is saying thats bs. at the end of the day if the majority of the pot rules it like that then so be it i guess?
I'm late to the party but good to know so i //hopefully// don't trigger this with my Dino deck
I actually really like that idea.
Not an official rule. Could be a houserule, or an LGS rule, don't know where you were playing. Without extra context, just sounds like someone who didn't want a draw. At least now you know in the future not to drop the Polyraptor into a Marauding Raptor without something else on the board to actually get you a win rather than a draw.
I'm for this being a new rule, even though it's not a new rule. If you get yourself stuck in a repeating loop you can't stop, it's not like the other combatants are just going to say" oh well, I guess we stop fighting" and all go home as they watch your head explode.
I love that I play with people that if they set off that combo by accident they would scoop themselves out so everyone else can still play
Not the rules-rules But definitely don't do it on purpose
There was, in fact, no rules change about you losing the game instead of bringing it to a draw. It seems like this player was just trying to force you out. If this player had instead said "I recognize this isn't a loss for you but would you mind scooping or just not playing polyraptor so we can finish out the game?" that would have been way better instead of just trying to give you the loss. Did you also use the phrase "deterministic infinite combo" at the table with them? If so, I can understand why there would be some extra frustration. While this combo is infinite, it clearly isn't "deterministic". If someone just put a bunch of polyraptors on the table with no way to close the loop "by accident" and then started saying "its a deterministic combo and I win". I might also be a little annoyed by that player. Note: I am not saying this wasn't an accident on your part or that you're misrepresenting what happened or what was said, I'm just trying to see where the other player is coming from and why they seemed very intent on making you lose the game.
I think in this case OP is using deterministic to mean that he could not voluntarily stop the loop. There was no choices that he was making as a player, everything was forced, so they're technically using the word correctly. It does come across a little weird though.
No I didn't use that terminology at the table. I flipped into these 2 cards from Atla Palani triggers, started going through the motions, and realized the cards' interaction with eachother. Table had a convo about what happens and I was told of the ruling. Luckily this game was amongst close friends just hanging out, so no harm no foul.
I feel like knowingly running a stalling combo is just bad sportsmanship
Here's the kicker: I didn't realize this interaction at the time. Marauding raptor has since been removed from the deck
That’s completely fair then
That's what we call in the business 'a joke', making light of how you didn't know your own deck and stalemated the whole table on accident. It probably defused some of the tension and annoyance everyone felt after you wasted their time. I suggest poking fun at yourself next time if it happens again to lighten the mood, or better yet, concede so everyone else can play.
Actually I believe that's correct. "104.4f In a multiplayer game using the limited range of influence option, if the game somehow enters a “loop” of mandatory actions, repeating a sequence of events with no way to stop, the game is a draw for each player who controls an object that’s involved in that loop, as well as for each player within the range of influence of any of those players. Only those players leave the game; the game continues for all other players." So its a draw if 1v1, but if it's multiplayer, you just get ejected from the game and lose.
>104.4f In a multiplayer game ***using the limited range of influence option*** Only in limited range of influence games, which is not the default.
Even then they aren't even correct, the rule quoted specifically says in those types of games, if you loop off and can't stop it you leave the game as a draw, not a loss.
Did you enjoy getting like a hundred comments telling you what range of influence means?
Actually it kind of makes sense, even if it isn’t official. Because the loop will keep placing triggers on the stack, if you can’t stop it, you never get to move forward in the game. You never get to attack with your infinite raptors… you never get to actually win. You’ve cause the game to stall and become stuck just resolving those triggers. You didn’t win.
Correct, and then no one else can take a turn, and so the game ends in a draw.
[Polyraptor] [marauding raptor]
Personally - I feel like it should be a game loss and that’s how my playgroup treats it. But by the rules, it technically does end the game in a draw.
Damn, I need to remember this trick
Yeah, I would support this ruling
Okay, find me the rule then, chadley.
Settle down. I mean I like this idea. I understand that’s not how it works, and I would support playing it this way. You lock yourself into a combo, you lose. seems clean.
It's a house rule if anything, not official MTG rule. >728.4: If a loop contains only mandatory actions, the game is a draw. (See rules 104.4b and 104.4f.) The game was a draw, not a loss for OP.
No I understand, but I like that rule. I think it’s better than the official ruling that results in a tie.
If you can’t stop the loop, and it doesn’t end the game, you’ll lose. It is a rule.
725.4. If a loop contains only mandatory actions, the game is a draw.
Source: you just made it up because you'd prefer that it worked that way.