Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Oct-17 1:36 pm




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
Mr Degradation wrote:
Example 1:
I'm player A, playing my Ink-Eyes deck, in a commanding (har har) situation. I can produce over 40 mana, and I cast Demonic Tutor, searching for my Gray Merchant of Asphodel. My current devotion to black on board is 15. I have Phyrexian Reclamation and Ashnod's Altar in play. I play Gary, it happens.

Player B, loses 17 life- he has 2 cards in hand, 60 life, nothing of note in their graveyard, and 2 Islands open.

I demonstrate that I have enough mana, and life to continue playing Gray Merchant from my hand this turn.

In this hypothetical, even if player B has Counterspell- the sheer amount of resource lead should reasonably lead them to understand that if they have an answer, they should show it, or scoop. It isn't worth the time involved to force me to count my total mana and continue running Garys until the gamestate dictates their loss. If player B consistently forces me to track my total mana the entire time, and replay every Gary- regardless of the rules; the playgroup is likely to take umbrage- and I wouldn't say they were wrong for doing so.


Example 2:
I'm player A, this time in the worse position. I have 3 cards, 8 mana open with my Kefnet, the Mindful deck. I have 20 life.

Player B, this time is far, far ahead in the Battlecruiser game- playing Roon, of the Hidden Realm. His win is a little less obvious than a Gary loop- consisting of 26 damage that I cannot block on the field. The game has gone on for half an hour. Player B says "I have a Tooth and Nail, do you have an out?"

What this means to me, is not that my opponent is being arrogant- but that the game has gone, and if I have a Cyclonic Rift, now is the time to show it. In many playgroups, this is the moment the game should end for the sake of getting in another game. So, I concede. I could pretend that I have a Cyclonic Rift up until the combat damage step. Usually, how this situation plays out is that because we exit the game in the information exchange- if I had the Rift, he would concede, and if he didn't, I would. This isn't about breaking rules, it's about the reality of battlecruiser Magic requiring some level of shortcutting, because we are on 4 people's clocks. Even if I had the Rift, in this hypothetical, it's insanely hard to build enough reach with Roon or Kefnet to make the game end in a timely fashion. If I made him play out the T&N, declare combat, turn his guys sideways (except for the vigilant ones), and then count the total damage, I would be within the rules to do so. However, at that point- I'd be pushing for a technicality in casual Magic, and wasting the time of everyone in the playgroup waiting for another game.

This thread started from an accusatory positon of people taking these shortcuts; but the basis of these shortcuts is in the reality of the situations that play out. Hypothetically, I could come back from that losing situation, but my opponent demonstrating that he can T&N with their overwhelming boardstate is a good social call. While there ARE situations where a player projects inevitability far before it's established, and it is appropriate to say "play it out"; the reality of EDH, is that these shortcuts come up when the outcome is pretty clear to both players. Through effective communication, they truncate the sheer time sink for the sake of the group's play experience.

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?


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
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.

Quote:
3.3. Tournament Error — Slow Play
Definition
A player takes longer than is reasonably required to complete game actions. If a judge believes a player is intentionally playing slowly to take advantage of a time limit, the infraction is Unsporting Conduct — Stalling.
It is also slow play if a player continues to execute a loop without being able to provide an exact
number of iterations and the expected resulting game state.


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

_________________
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
MMLgamer wrote:
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.


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”.

_________________
Decks: Chaos colored dragons, Mathas, the Instigator (politics and mayhem).
Beloved precons: Atraxa, Praetors' Voice; Saskia the Unyielding; Freyalise, Llanowar's Fury.


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
spacemonaut wrote:
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.

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.


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
Sovarius wrote:
spacemonaut wrote:
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.

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.

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.

_________________
Decks: Chaos colored dragons, Mathas, the Instigator (politics and mayhem).
Beloved precons: Atraxa, Praetors' Voice; Saskia the Unyielding; Freyalise, Llanowar's Fury.


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
majikal wrote:
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?


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.

_________________
niheloim wrote:
Wall of Chat. 2U
Creature- Wall

Defender
Wall of chat exceeds at using a lot of words to mischaracterize opposing view points.

Warp Riders (Ephara Solar Flare)


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
Mr Degradation wrote:
majikal wrote:
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?


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.


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
majikal wrote:
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.

_________________
niheloim wrote:
Wall of Chat. 2U
Creature- Wall

Defender
Wall of chat exceeds at using a lot of words to mischaracterize opposing view points.

Warp Riders (Ephara Solar Flare)


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 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.

_________________
niheloim wrote:
Wall of Chat. 2U
Creature- Wall

Defender
Wall of chat exceeds at using a lot of words to mischaracterize opposing view points.

Warp Riders (Ephara Solar Flare)


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 31 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: