[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/bbcode.php on line 379: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/bbcode.php on line 379: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/bbcode.php on line 379: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
MTG Commander/Elder Dragon Highlander • View topic - Theoretical Probability as Win Condition

Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2020-Jan-17 9:27 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 89 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Theoretical Probability as Win Condition
AgePosted: 2019-Mar-10 2:56 am 

Joined: 2009-Jul-02 4:25 pm
Age: Drake


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Theoretical Probability as Win Condition
AgePosted: 2019-Mar-14 12:10 pm 

Joined: 2015-Dec-22 4:41 am
Age: Drake
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?

_________________
.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Theoretical Probability as Win Condition
AgePosted: 2019-Mar-14 12:55 pm 

Joined: 2014-Jul-26 11:35 am
Age: Elder Dragon

_________________
Favourite Deck:
Ghost Council of Orzhova

Playing Online:
Noyan Darr & Sedris Zombie Guy


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Theoretical Probability as Win Condition
AgePosted: 2019-Mar-14 4:39 pm 

Joined: 2015-Dec-22 4:41 am
Age: Drake
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.

_________________
.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Theoretical Probability as Win Condition
AgePosted: 2019-Mar-14 8:13 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2016-Nov-27 2:39 pm
Age: Elder Dragon

_________________
Decks: Chaos colored dragons, Mathas, the Instigator (politics and mayhem).
Beloved precons: ; ; .


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Theoretical Probability as Win Condition
AgePosted: 2019-Mar-15 2:55 am 

Joined: 2014-Sep-13 7:28 am
Age: Elder Dragon


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Theoretical Probability as Win Condition
AgePosted: 2019-Mar-15 3:45 am 

Joined: 2013-Apr-02 12:46 pm
Age: Wyvern
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.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Theoretical Probability as Win Condition
AgePosted: 2019-Mar-15 7:24 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2016-Nov-27 2:39 pm
Age: Elder Dragon

_________________
Decks: Chaos colored dragons, Mathas, the Instigator (politics and mayhem).
Beloved precons: ; ; .


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Theoretical Probability as Win Condition
AgePosted: 2019-Mar-16 3:01 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2017-Mar-11 6:43 am
Age: Dragon


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Theoretical Probability as Win Condition
AgePosted: 2019-Mar-25 3:33 am 

Joined: 2009-Jul-02 4:25 pm
Age: Drake


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Theoretical Probability as Win Condition
AgePosted: 2019-Mar-25 5:02 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2017-Mar-11 6:43 am
Age: Dragon


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Theoretical Probability as Win Condition
AgePosted: 2019-Mar-26 2:51 am 

Joined: 2009-Jul-02 4:25 pm
Age: Drake
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.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Theoretical Probability as Win Condition
AgePosted: 2019-Mar-26 3:45 pm 

Joined: 2014-Jul-26 11:35 am
Age: Elder Dragon
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.

_________________
Favourite Deck:
Ghost Council of Orzhova

Playing Online:
Noyan Darr & Sedris Zombie Guy


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Theoretical Probability as Win Condition
AgePosted: 2019-Mar-27 7:29 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2017-Mar-11 6:43 am
Age: Dragon
@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 , and . 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 - 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 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.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 89 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: