Neither of these scenarios have anything at all to do with what is being discussed in this thread. I fail to see how two common (and legal) shortcuts have any bearing on whether or not an entirely theoretical and indemonstrable series of events should be allowed. If you can't actually walk through your loop even once to demonstrate that it works, why should it be allowed to skip to the desired gamestate?

I'm pretty sure deterministic but non-shortcutable combos like the one in Gitrog Dakmor decks can't reasonably be just allowed a shortcut because there is player information involved. There may be a response by the opponent that isn't convenient unless and until a certain condition is true.

For example, I have Gitrog and a discard outlet on the field and Dakmor in hand. I tell my opponents that I'm executing a combo guaranteed to put my library and graveyard into my hand after N shuffles where N is two plus the number of cards in my graveyard/library. My opponent says he can't allow the shortcut because he may have a response, and reveals that he has a Faerie Macabre, which can exile two of my graveyard cards at instant speed. Such a response is only useful if both my mass shuffle cards are in my graveyard and I have no instant speed manner of recurring the shuffle effects.

In the above example, the Gitrog player practically forced the other players to reveal information to which he is not entitled. Even if the Faerie Macabre were not revealed, he now knows which opponent has action and he may incorporate that information into how he executes his combo. For example, instead of saving the draw triggers until he has enough to draw his deck, he might use them until he draws a Noxious Revival, then proceed with the loop as intended.

Because of all that, it is the prerogative of the playgroup to allow a non traditional shortcut. If I, as the opponent of the Gitrog player, were to allow a non traditional shortcut on an unofficial capacity, I'd want to know exactly what he's going to do first. Then, I woulI pose the following question: "If anyone says they have a response, will you play out the combo exactly as described with no deviations and without taking that potential response into account?" If they said no, or if they said yes but I or an opponent said they might have a response, I wouldn't allow the non traditional shortcut.

The above, AFAIK, isn't really up for discussion. I think a better question would be: Is playing out a combo like that slow play?

Slow play is only relevant in sanctioned magic, and it is very clear that doing this kind of loop is not allowed in sanctioned play.



If it's not sanctioned, then a judge can't give you a warning for slow play, because there is no judge.

The problem I have with that is that the rule you're siting only refers to shortcutable loops that are not shortcut. The scenario I posed doesn't actually involve a loop as defined by the MTR. Given that draw triggers from Gitrog are a meaningful change in game state, it can't reasonably be interpreted as stalling or running out the clock.

Also, even if the MTR only applies to sanctioned tournaments, there are Commander tournaments held that function like a sanctioned tournament in a local capacity.

This is a thing I like about the shortcut rules. I can propose a set of actions we'll take, then each other player in turn order can either accept the shortcut as-is or modify the shortcut by proposing a point in it during which you'll do something different. Once each other player has done this, the actions happen. If I now know those actions will work out badly for me because of a change someone made, I am still committed to doing them. I don't get to say “okay maybe I'll do something different”.

Not with the scenario they are describing. Because you can't name a # of iterations and describe the board state or the contents of the graveyard and hate when you get to a part of the desired state.

How is this thread 6 pages long? Seriously, the shortcut doesn't work per the official rules of Magic for demonstrating a loop. If you want to win with a combo why not just use one of the countless combos that actually conforms to the rules for shortcuts? Lastly, I know what my response would be if someone said that since we're not actually in a tournament so there's no judge to call them on slow playing, and it wouldn't be too kind.

Oh, yeah, totally. The scenario they're describing doesn't get to follow those rules and totally sucks. I'm just saying why I like the actual rules for real viable shortcuts: they don't let you alter your course of action based on someone having a response.

They aren't quite. I obviously had to make the examples very clear, but I wanted to point out specifically how the grey area in proposing invites a player to (in occasional anti-social fashion) to refuse. Like I said in my first post on the topic, one should always reserve the ability to ask for demonstration inside the context of regular gameplay, if they think that they have an out (combo breaking IS a big part of MtG on the whole, afterall.)

What I'm trying to drive at, is that this thread is specifically fixated on HOW shortcuts are brought up, not WHAT the shortcut is (as the thread's title implies, but the original post and argumentation contradicts that.) What I'm trying to demonstrate specifically, is that, in the same way that players announce say, a Breya, Etherium Shaper + Nim Deathmantle victory while their opponents may have answers- and it can irritate the table; bluffing that scenario to the wire is also quite anti-social. This is simply because antisocial play doesn't care about the position it's in. So, I do take some umbrage with the value judgments towards players whom honestly assemble something "sufficiently close to infinite", even if, you can force them to play it out on a technicality. There is calling it too early, and there is being obstinate in the face of true inevitability present in the game- both are antisocial behaviors in play, and both sour the group's experience.

Eventually, players should be able to recognize that as the table is thinned, if the other player starts performing a Yosei, the Morning Star lock- that their number of likely outs diminishes so significantly by the second, or third dead Yosei- polite concession and shuffling is preferable to making your opponent hit you with a bird token wearing a Sword of Light and Shadow for 10 turns straight.

A. Don't tell me what the OP says, because I fucking posted it.

B. You are arguing against a point that nobody made. None of the things you are saying have anything to do with this thread.

I. Create misleading thread name
II. Rant about a non-existent problem, shift goal posts wherever dissent is met
III.????
IV. Profit

Real solid strategy there, champ.

You are literally the only person who isn't on topic here, so you're either being intellectually dishonest or you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Either way, welcome to my block list.

While I am somewhat at odds with the way Majikal responded, the essence of his point is valid.

The scenarios are not really examples of what was being discussed in the thread. Your examples are deterministic, if I play Gary 10 times, you will have less than 0 life, so I will win, if you counter I still have enough mana to complete my loop, so I will win, you can explain exactly what will happen and exactly how many times it will happen.

The second scenario is different but still deterministic, it's the same as in the pro-tour when one player is at 3 life, the other player shows them a bolt and they scoop, just with a couple extra steps. You are telling your opponent exactly how they are going to die and exactly how long that is going to take. It's the equivalent of a chess grand master telling their opponent that they have them beaten in 3 moves, you can either accept that they have it right, or play it out.

The difference with Majikal's example is that there is no set timeline for the outcome. Eventually, you should get to the point that you will win, but you can't tell me how many times you will have to do your loop in order to win. It would be the same as having a card that says you win if you roll double 20s on two D20s, and you can roll the dice as many times as you want. The maths says you should get the double 20's you need at some point within 400 rolls, but it also says you can roll the dice for the rest of eternity and never get the win.

@specter404-
I am aware of that, but the examples were to illustrate a point to spacemeonaut; where outside of them I've mostly talked about Yosei, the Morning Star, and Ignite Memories. I chose to describe situations as clear as Gary looping to emphasize that number of interactions which arise that are junctions for poor behavior.

To me, the OP's point would have teeth, if the pretense wasn't to shade some amount of the playerbase in said original post. What's obvious about the situation described, is that either the people he is describing are scrubs, or they're over-eager, and guilty of having poor table manners. But that isn't something that the rules can fix; and an aggressive attitude towards those individuals doesn't help. A big part of EDH is setting the right tone, and if someone is getting ahead of themselves; it's a opportunity to crack a joke. If someone legitimately assembles a combo, they should want to explain and demonstrate as needed; but that doesn't seem to be what is being described.

When my friend casts Ignite Memories- with 20 copies of the card pointed me; I have to assess the situation: because I may or may not ask them to roll it out. There is a plethora of interactions in Magic which are obvious in this way- and whether the decision is to ask them to roll it out, or to concede- they are not wrong to simply wait for my input. At said juncture, it is not my place as another living, breathing, human being sharing the gamespace with them to be a jackass about it- whether or not they possess the table manners themselves to be cool about it.

The appeal to competitive sentiments is also ill-founded; as being an individual who has attended their own fair share of comp REL events- meeting shortcuts with out of game aggression is NOT how you find yourself in a winning situation when presented with things that have their own hypothetical out situation. In those environments, an individual player is trying to maximize the information available to them, and preserve the game's integrity. The situation described often involves an opponent assuming that you have no outs- to which interpersonal aggression is a HUGE disadvantage, especially if you need a judge call or something similar.

If the premise here were actually a discussion about how to handle situations like Ignite Memories with a storm count of 20, or Four Horsemen combo, or any similar situation where players can have outs; it would be different. I'd have had no reason to post after the first thing I left here. But the reality of the situation, is that this thread has been consistently a cycle of people being jerks to one another (self-included; after trying to be reasonably social.)

I don't see a reason to split hairs or try to substantiate the argument made, because upon reading- it clearly isn't what is in the title. It's justifying a terrible attitude towards ignorant behavior (probably in a naked attempt to accumulate "cool guy points".) In Comp REL, and the EDH table alike, the less abrasive you make yourself, the more information you can acquire, or atleast set the tone for under-experienced opponents. There was only ever something epistemological to this discussion, if it became convenient to dodge the pressing issue of how the situation described comes up; and the appropriate ways to simply ask for demonstration.