Eternal or not?
niko...@hotmail.com
wonder how far a judge can go in a tournament.
Situation:
I play my new Henry taylor twister deck with PRO and earth meld in my
hand (no library)
Predator has Eze with No Secrets from the magaji.
Henry hunts, eze blocks, earth meld + untap, Henry hunts, eze blocks,
earth meld + untap, rinse repeat... this could technically go on for
ever.
Now, this was a friendly game, so we just laughed at it, and in the end
he let Henry hunt.
What if it was a tournament and my game DEPENDED on Henry getting that
blood and the game of my predator DEPENDED on Henry not getting the
blood.
Could the judge in the end force one of us to either not hunt or not
block, or would the game simply time out?
Robert Scythe
There is no precedence for this in V:TES, however chess has a rule that
'if the same move (by both players) is repeated 3 times the game ends
in a draw'. It would seem that the game should time out or LSJ has to
come up with something more clever. Interesting situation.
d
forward. I'm very interested to see how this is resolved.
tobiasopdenbr...@notsocoldmail.com
Ooooh tricky. Curious to the answer myself.
In-game, your hunt is mandatory, so that's no issue (imho).
The block attempt from eze is voluntary (but probably PTW!).
Your Earth meld play is voluntary (but also PTW!).
Neither of you are commiting unsportsmanlike conduct.
I guess, as the rules stand now, it's a time-out, indeed.
Tobias
d
Delaying the game to force a time out is illegal. It could be argued
that if the Eze player has any other way of getting a VP, he can't
spend the whole rest of the game blocking Henry, so a Judge could force
him to stop blocking. This would be especially relevant if there are
still other players in the game.
Shade
d wrote:
> That's a good initial analysis Tobias. Here's my take:
>
> Delaying the game to force a time out is illegal. It could be argued
> that if the Eze player has any other way of getting a VP, he can't
> spend the whole rest of the game blocking Henry, so a Judge could force
> him to stop blocking. This would be especially relevant if there are
> still other players in the game.
With those two the chances of Smiling Jack being in play are pretty
high so it could easily be the case that Henry could need the blood to
avoid being ousted, and Eze could need to stop Henry getting the blood
to avoid being ousted himself.
Pretty funny scenario :-)
tobiasopdenbr...@notsocoldmail.com
d schreef:
> That's a good initial analysis Tobias. Here's my take:
>
> Delaying the game to force a time out is illegal.
Yes. However, 2 players making and continously playing PTW games
shouldn't be considered 'delaying' in this sense. They're actually
playing the game as best they can.
> It could be argued
> that if the Eze player has any other way of getting a VP, he can't
> spend the whole rest of the game blocking Henry, so a Judge could force
> him to stop blocking. This would be especially relevant if there are
> still other players in the game.
It could also be argued that not playing the earth meld could be a way
of getting the VP. While that's silly, it shows that there's no one
correct answer. Of course the judge could rule on which player is more
likely (in his opinion) to have a valid alternative, but I think we
could add to this example in such a way to make all play still legal
but the PTW incentive even more logical and forcing into the play of
the earth meld and the block attempt.
Tobias
LSJ
Correct.
LSJ
> That's a good initial analysis Tobias. Here's my take:
>
> Delaying the game to force a time out is illegal.
Stalling is illegal.
This is not an example of stalling.
> It could be argued
> that if the Eze player has any other way of getting a VP, he can't
> spend the whole rest of the game blocking Henry, so a Judge could force
> him to stop blocking.
No. The same argument could be used to force Henry to stop playing Earth Meld.
Why does the Eze player have to be the one to make the sacrifice?
Matthew T. Morgan
> Delaying the game to force a time out is illegal. It could be argued
> that if the Eze player has any other way of getting a VP, he can't
> spend the whole rest of the game blocking Henry, so a Judge could force
> him to stop blocking. This would be especially relevant if there are
> still other players in the game.
It's easy enough to construct a situation in which both players must
continue with the stated actions in order to have a hope of winning the
game. Consider:
4 player game. Each remaining player has 1 VP. Henry's controller has 3
pool and a Smiling Jack with enough counters to oust Eze's controller on
his untap phase. Eze's controller has played Fame on Henry. Henry has 1
blood. The only other ready minion controlled by Henry's controller is
tapped with Mind of a Killer on him (okay, I'll admit I'm reaching a
little, but it makes it work now).
Henry must hunt successfully in order for his controller to win the game.
Eze must prevent Henry from hunting in order for his controller to win the
game.
Result? Stalemate. The game times out with 1.5 VPs each. It's not a big
problem. There are other less-obvious stalemates in vtes. You can
construct situations in which two remaining players can each gain as much
pool every turn as they can inflict upon one another. Or more commonly,
there simply isn't time to finish the game. This one happens all the
time.
I guess the real problem would arise if the Henry/Eze situation happened
early in a game while other players were still in the game and each player
felt that her course of action was the key to winning. Henry: if Henry
doesn't gain this blood, I'll be overwhelmed by Eze. Eze: if I don't take
down Henry now, I'll never have another shot. Whatever. In that case, a
judge could rule that forcing the game to time out by repeating the same
action over and over to no effect is not PTW and either force Henry to
take no action or some action Eze cannot block or (in the case of a
mandatory hunt) force Eze to not block.
Maybe Eze should just Immortal Grapple.
Matt Morgan
LSJ
> tobiasopdenbr...@notsocoldmail.com wrote:
>> I guess, as the rules stand now, it's a time-out, indeed.
>
> Correct.
Suggested update for 2007 tournament rules:
A relaxed NRA:
A minion cannot repeat the same action more than 10 times in a single turn (note
this is "same action", not "same type of action", so varying the targets would
mean a different action -- this rule would probably only come up to restrict a
hunt).
For the odd-ball infinite combats:
A single combat cannot continue for more than 20 rounds (10 being too short for
the occasional ping-an-elder trap combats that arise).
There can be no more than 10 combats per action.
Any oddities that would arise there? Any infinite loops I missed?
Peter D Bakija
On Nov 7, 9:21 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> A relaxed NRA:
>
> A minion cannot repeat the same action more than 10 times in a single turn (note
> this is "same action", not "same type of action", so varying the targets would
> mean a different action -- this rule would probably only come up to restrict a
> hunt).
Sadly, this elminates the fabled "March Halcyon hunts 55 times and
attempts to withdraw from the Jyhad on your first turn" deck, but that
is probably for the best anyway.
> For the odd-ball infinite combats:
>
> A single combat cannot continue for more than 20 rounds (10 being too short for
> the occasional ping-an-elder trap combats that arise).
>
> There can be no more than 10 combats per action.
I'd be inclined to make this 20 as well for the same reasons as the
previous. While it is unlikely, I don't think it is necessary to
outlaw, say, Sarah Brando taking down Arika by playing "punch for
1/prevent with Sideslip/Psyche to start combat over to allow another
Sideslip to be played". There are occasionally siutuations where combat
needs to start over more than 10 times. It seems wildly unlikely that
anyone would ever need to start combat over more than 20 times. So
while it is unlikely for either to come up much in reality, if the
intention is to stop infinite loops while not affecting the rest of the
game at all, I'd go with 20.
-Peter
Bram Vink
LSJ schreef:
> LSJ wrote:
> > tobiasopdenbr...@notsocoldmail.com wrote:
> >> I guess, as the rules stand now, it's a time-out, indeed.
> >
> > Correct.
>
> Suggested update for 2007 tournament rules:
>
> A relaxed NRA:
>
> A minion cannot repeat the same action more than 10 times in a single turn (note
> this is "same action", not "same type of action", so varying the targets would
> mean a different action -- this rule would probably only come up to restrict a
> hunt).
Why 10? it could very well come up in other situations. It's very
possible to have, say, 10 blockers. Without any infinity entering the
fray.
> For the odd-ball infinite combats:
>
> A single combat cannot continue for more than 20 rounds (10 being too short for
> the occasional ping-an-elder trap combats that arise).
Why 20? it's very possible to have 20 rounds of combat, in regular
situations.
> There can be no more than 10 combats per action.
>
> Any oddities that would arise there? Any infinite loops I missed?
Why put arbitrary blanket limits on actions/combats/etc. when the
problem is Henry's costless immediate recursion in *combination* with
infinately repeatable cardless actions.
If you add the following text on Henry: "Cannot attempt the same
cardless action more than once per turn" or something similar, the
complete problem is adressed, without affecting gameplay, ruleset etc.
unneccessarily, nor in any serious way would it be devaluating Henry.
When Henry is adressed, there's no infinite costless loop that I can
see. Meathook has been errata'd. Adding blanket rules seems
unneccessary at best, and adding exceptions to clear NRA rules is a bad
thing in my opinion.
B
Jozxyqk
> A relaxed NRA:
The old wording of Meat Hook allowed for an infinite combat. And this was
changed by changing Meat Hook's wording. So why is this being changed with a
general rule?
This problem is essentially just with Henry Taylor and Earth Meld; I feel that
it should more easily be solved by errataing one or both of these cards,
instead of introducing new arbitrary limits.
However, if there *were* a generic solution like that above, here are my
specific alternative suggestions to those rules:
1) If a minion is blocked, he can not attempt the same action again this turn.
(which stops Henry Taylor Hunting infinite loop)
2) If 3 rounds of combat occur in which no damage was dealt to either minion,
combat ends at the end of that third round.
(which still allows for Psyche/Telepathic Tracking, but stops truly *infinite*
combats)
These rules should address the issues that allow the game to artificially time
out due to infinite loops. Did I miss something?
(I know this doesn't address "Una with 40 freak drives" situations, but I don't
consider that a serious problem, personally; it is not infinite and does not
force a timeout)
Josh "Jozxyqk" Feuerstein
Prince of Boston
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
I don't think this is necessary. Game Theory and PTW handle this. If
both players continue the infinite loop, they each get half a VP. If
the Judge concludes that Player A will get 0 VPs if he willingly breaks
the loop, and Player B will get 0 VPs if he willingly breaks the loop,
then they are PTW by keeping the loop. Sucks to be the other players,
but it's no different than being on the losing end of any other
stalemate. If, on the other hand, the Judge feels that one of them does
have a reasonable chance of getting more than .5 VPs, he breaks the
loop where appropriate.
The proposed update serves better as a guideline for helping a Judge
determine when to start paying attention to this looping business.
--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
LSJ
>
> On Nov 7, 9:21 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> A relaxed NRA:
>>
>> A minion cannot repeat the same action more than 10 times in a single turn (note
>> this is "same action", not "same type of action", so varying the targets would
>> mean a different action -- this rule would probably only come up to restrict a
>> hunt).
>
> Sadly, this elminates the fabled "March Halcyon hunts 55 times and
> attempts to withdraw from the Jyhad on your first turn" deck, but that
> is probably for the best anyway.
>
>> For the odd-ball infinite combats:
>>
>> A single combat cannot continue for more than 20 rounds (10 being too short for
>> the occasional ping-an-elder trap combats that arise).
>>
>> There can be no more than 10 combats per action.
>
> I'd be inclined to make this 20 as well for the same reasons as the
> previous. While it is unlikely, I don't think it is necessary to
> outlaw, say, Sarah Brando taking down Arika by playing "punch for
> 1/prevent with Sideslip/Psyche to start combat over to allow another
> Sideslip to be played".
A better example would probably include Flak Jacket instead of Slideslip, but
the point is taken.
> There are occasionally siutuations where combat
> needs to start over more than 10 times. It seems wildly unlikely that
> anyone would ever need to start combat over more than 20 times. So
> while it is unlikely for either to come up much in reality, if the
> intention is to stop infinite loops while not affecting the rest of the
> game at all, I'd go with 20.
Good call. Maybe go to 20 for the actions, as well, just to make it easy to
remember.
Damnans
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> On Nov 7, 9:21 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > A relaxed NRA:
> >
> > A minion cannot repeat the same action more than 10 times in a single turn (note
> > this is "same action", not "same type of action", so varying the targets would
> > mean a different action -- this rule would probably only come up to restrict a
> > hunt).
>
> Sadly, this elminates the fabled "March Halcyon hunts 55 times and
> attempts to withdraw from the Jyhad on your first turn" deck, but that
Since that deck is illegal in sanctioned tournament play(*), it is not
an issue ;-)
(*) It is a deck that cannot win.
--
Damnans
http://www.almadrava.net/damnans
http://www.vtes.net
http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/
LSJ
> LSJ schreef:
>
>> LSJ wrote:
>>> tobiasopdenbr...@notsocoldmail.com wrote:
>>>> I guess, as the rules stand now, it's a time-out, indeed.
>>> Correct.
>> Suggested update for 2007 tournament rules:
>>
>> A relaxed NRA:
>>
>> A minion cannot repeat the same action more than 10 times in a single turn (note
>> this is "same action", not "same type of action", so varying the targets would
>> mean a different action -- this rule would probably only come up to restrict a
>> hunt).
>
> Why 10? it could very well come up in other situations. It's very
> possible to have, say, 10 blockers. Without any infinity entering the
> fray.
Not just 10 blockers.
10 blockers all interested in (and capable of) blocking the same minion who
keeps repeating the same action.
Much less plausible.
>
>> For the odd-ball infinite combats:
>>
>> A single combat cannot continue for more than 20 rounds (10 being too short for
>> the occasional ping-an-elder trap combats that arise).
>
> Why 20? it's very possible to have 20 rounds of combat, in regular
> situations.
>
>> There can be no more than 10 combats per action.
>>
>> Any oddities that would arise there? Any infinite loops I missed?
>
> Why put arbitrary blanket limits on actions/combats/etc. when the
> problem is Henry's costless immediate recursion in *combination* with
> infinately repeatable cardless actions.
>
> If you add the following text on Henry: "Cannot attempt the same
> cardless action more than once per turn" or something similar, the
> complete problem is adressed, without affecting gameplay, ruleset etc.
> unneccessarily, nor in any serious way would it be devaluating Henry.
Yes, there are many ways to address a problem.
The current suggestion doesn't meaningfully or unnecessarily affect any
reasonable aspect of game play (by way of implementing a reciprocating
definition on what "reasonable game play" is).
> When Henry is adressed, there's no infinite costless loop that I can
> see. Meathook has been errata'd. Adding blanket rules seems
> unneccessary at best, and adding exceptions to clear NRA rules is a bad
> thing in my opinion.
Meat Hook was changed by being reprinted (in Anarchs).
What exceptions?
The proposal offers no exception to the clear NRA rules.
LSJ
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> LSJ wrote:
>>> tobiasopdenbr...@notsocoldmail.com wrote:
>>>> I guess, as the rules stand now, it's a time-out, indeed.
>>> Correct.
>
>> Suggested update for 2007 tournament rules:
>
>> A relaxed NRA:
>
>> A minion cannot repeat the same action more than 10 times in a single turn (note
>> this is "same action", not "same type of action", so varying the targets would
>> mean a different action -- this rule would probably only come up to restrict a
>> hunt).
>
>> For the odd-ball infinite combats:
>
>> A single combat cannot continue for more than 20 rounds (10 being too short for
>> the occasional ping-an-elder trap combats that arise).
>
>> There can be no more than 10 combats per action.
>
>> Any oddities that would arise there? Any infinite loops I missed?
>
> The old wording of Meat Hook allowed for an infinite combat. And this was
> changed by changing Meat Hook's wording. So why is this being changed with a
> general rule?
Henry, being Sabbat, won't be up for reprinting any time soon.
A general rule provides a general limit, which is itself a good thing -- it
handles future unforeseen combos as well (without hampering the game).
> This problem is essentially just with Henry Taylor and Earth Meld; I feel that
> it should more easily be solved by errataing one or both of these cards,
> instead of introducing new arbitrary limits.
Yes, errata is one option.
Non-errata options have the extra benefit of not being errata.
> However, if there *were* a generic solution like that above, here are my
> specific alternative suggestions to those rules:
>
> 1) If a minion is blocked, he can not attempt the same action again this turn.
> (which stops Henry Taylor Hunting infinite loop)
A more invasive rule than the current proposal.
What benefit does it offer over the current proposal?
> 2) If 3 rounds of combat occur in which no damage was dealt to either minion,
> combat ends at the end of that third round.
> (which still allows for Psyche/Telepathic Tracking, but stops truly *infinite*
> combats)
Unless you need to move a press or two after a trap ends to draw your extra damage.
Again, more invasive than the 20 limit for what gain?
LSJ
> I don't think this is necessary. Game Theory and PTW handle this. If
Of course it isn't "necessary".
Rules against foul language aren't "necessary".
Having a minimum time limit of 2hr isn't "necessary".
The VEKN rules aim to make the tournament experience as good for the players (as
a whole) as possible, not merely addressing what is "necessarily" addressed and
stopping there.
> both players continue the infinite loop, they each get half a VP. If
> the Judge concludes that Player A will get 0 VPs if he willingly breaks
> the loop, and Player B will get 0 VPs if he willingly breaks the loop,
> then they are PTW by keeping the loop. Sucks to be the other players,
> but it's no different than being on the losing end of any other
> stalemate.
Yes, it is. Other stalemates do not force a time out for the other players.
John Flournoy
LSJ wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > tobiasopdenbr...@notsocoldmail.com wrote:
> >> I guess, as the rules stand now, it's a time-out, indeed.
> >
> > Correct.
>
> Suggested update for 2007 tournament rules:
>
> A relaxed NRA:
>
> A minion cannot repeat the same action more than 10 times in a single turn (note
> this is "same action", not "same type of action", so varying the targets would
> mean a different action -- this rule would probably only come up to restrict a
> hunt).
This does eliminate two possible decks.
One being "Rabbat hunts for 2 or more (lots of ways to accomplish this)
and freak drives 45 times in a turn, gaining me 45 pool, then I
continue"
The other being 'I give my prey's empty vampire Condemnation: Doomed,
and when he hunts repeatedly use a +1 intercept minion with inferior
obedience, or inferior bond with the mountain, or even No Secrets with
Meld with the Land to keep him repeatedly hunting and losing pool until
he's ousted'.
I'm not sure that this 'take one action many times' is so broken (or
even comes up more than once in a very long while) that it warrants a
tournament rule change.
-John Flournoy
Jozxyqk
> Henry, being Sabbat, won't be up for reprinting any time soon.
Imogen, being Sabbat, was printed as an 8-cap in her latest printing. And
errata was issued.
(I'm sure I could come up with a better example than Imogen, but she's the
most fun one)
> Non-errata options have the extra benefit of not being errata.
Errata options have the extra benefit of solving the specific problem without
changing the rules to the whole game, and hosing other (albeit corner-case)
strategies.
v.ri...@gmail.com
if a 13-cap vampire (with master disciplines) needs to hunt 13 times in
a turn (kind of FD - Hungry coyote combo) to get full?
In the Henry - Magaji situation, an end to the loop can be established.
Since the magaji can always block, Henry will never be able to hunt if
the Methuselah controlling the magaji doesn't want to. I think that
therefore, once the loop clearly established by all players (and a
judge if needed), Henry should end up untapped with no blood, and
cannot hunt until another action is concluded or turn ends.
LSJ
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Henry, being Sabbat, won't be up for reprinting any time soon.
>
> Imogen, being Sabbat, was printed as an 8-cap in her latest printing. And
> errata was issued.
> (I'm sure I could come up with a better example than Imogen, but she's the
> most fun one)
Henry is not obviously misprinted. Indeed, he is not misprinted at all.
>> Non-errata options have the extra benefit of not being errata.
>
> Errata options have the extra benefit of solving the specific problem without
> changing the rules to the whole game, and hosing other (albeit corner-case)
> strategies.
True. As I indicated, there are options. It is not a clear cut black and white
issue. Which is why it was posted here for discussion.
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> LSJ wrote:
>>> tobiasopdenbr...@notsocoldmail.com wrote:
>>>> I guess, as the rules stand now, it's a time-out, indeed.
>>> Correct.
>> Suggested update for 2007 tournament rules:
>>
>> A relaxed NRA:
>>
>> A minion cannot repeat the same action more than 10 times in a single turn (note
>> this is "same action", not "same type of action", so varying the targets would
>> mean a different action -- this rule would probably only come up to restrict a
>> hunt).
>
> This does eliminate two possible decks.
>
> One being "Rabbat hunts for 2 or more (lots of ways to accomplish this)
> and freak drives 45 times in a turn, gaining me 45 pool, then I
> continue"
It doesn't eliminate it. It still allows the deck to be played and to function.
Just 10 times for each of 4.5 turns instead of 45 times in one.
Not even a blip on the screen.
> The other being 'I give my prey's empty vampire Condemnation: Doomed,
> and when he hunts repeatedly use a +1 intercept minion with inferior
> obedience, or inferior bond with the mountain, or even No Secrets with
> Meld with the Land to keep him repeatedly hunting and losing pool until
> he's ousted'.
Still doable (if it ever was), as above.
> I'm not sure that this 'take one action many times' is so broken (or
> even comes up more than once in a very long while) that it warrants a
> tournament rule change.
It isn't the case that it is "so broken".
It is the case that it is sufficiently and obviously bad when it (an infinite
loop that eliminates other players from playing at all for the remainder of the
game) occurs that it (the rewrite of the tourney rules, being rewritten for the
2007 season anyhow) could be aware of it.
Must be hyperbole day today.
Peter D Bakija
On Nov 7, 10:31 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> A better example would probably include Flak Jacket instead of Slideslip, but
> the point is taken.
Ahh, yes, Sideslip is only one per *round*, not one per combat. So
yeah, a Flak Jacket :-)
> Good call. Maybe go to 20 for the actions, as well, just to make it easy to
> remember.
Yeah, if this rule is to be implumented, it is probably better for
consitiency to just use 20 as the number for all of them. Easier to
remember, wildly unlikely for there be a need to do 20 of anything over
and over again.
-Peter
Ankur Gupta
>
> One being "Rabbat hunts for 2 or more (lots of ways to accomplish this)
> and freak drives 45 times in a turn, gaining me 45 pool, then I
> continue"
I find a marginal difference between this and freak driving for 20, 20,
and then 5 pool for each of 3 different turns. The deck still seems viable
to me.
> The other being 'I give my prey's empty vampire Condemnation: Doomed,
> and when he hunts repeatedly use a +1 intercept minion with inferior
> obedience, or inferior bond with the mountain, or even No Secrets with
> Meld with the Land to keep him repeatedly hunting and losing pool until
> he's ousted'.
If he's losing 20 pool from this, I think it's safe to say he might get
ousted anyway. You probably don't have to do 45 pool in one turn to oust.
Just saying that both "deck archetypes" are probably still about as viable
as they would be without this change.
Ankur
Play. The. Game.
But. Not. 20. Times.
John Flournoy
Ankur Gupta wrote:
> > This does eliminate two possible decks.
> >
> > One being "Rabbat hunts for 2 or more (lots of ways to accomplish this)
> > and freak drives 45 times in a turn, gaining me 45 pool, then I
> > continue"
>
> I find a marginal difference between this and freak driving for 20, 20,
> and then 5 pool for each of 3 different turns. The deck still seems viable
> to me.
Minor note: 10 per turn, not 20. (20 rounds of a combat, 10 actions in
a turn.)
> > The other being 'I give my prey's empty vampire Condemnation: Doomed,
> > and when he hunts repeatedly use a +1 intercept minion with inferior
> > obedience, or inferior bond with the mountain, or even No Secrets with
> > Meld with the Land to keep him repeatedly hunting and losing pool until
> > he's ousted'.
>
> If he's losing 20 pool from this, I think it's safe to say he might get
> ousted anyway. You probably don't have to do 45 pool in one turn to oust.
10 in one turn might not oust, though.
> Just saying that both "deck archetypes" are probably still about as viable
> as they would be without this change.
>
> Ankur
> Play. The. Game.
> But. Not. 20. Times.
Or even 10.
-John Flournoy
Ankur Gupta
>> and then 5 pool for each of 3 different turns. The deck still seems
>> viable to me.
>
> Minor note: 10 per turn, not 20. (20 rounds of a combat, 10 actions in a
> turn.)
Yeah. I vote for using 23 as the magic number, because I once had a 14-cap
vampire.
>> If he's losing 20 pool from this, I think it's safe to say he might get
>> ousted anyway. You probably don't have to do 45 pool in one turn to
>> oust.
>
> 10 in one turn might not oust, though.
Truth.
>> Ankur
>> Play. The. Game.
>> But. Not. 20. Times.
>
> Or even 10.
Help, help, I'm being nerfed! Did you see him nerfing me?
Ankur
Play. The. Game.
Please. Don't. Nerf. Me.
LSJ
Sure. Could pick a "change in state" criterion instead of an arbitrary limit.
That's nicer:
New proposal:
When a loop is detected (meaning game state has been completely restored to a
previous state), the activity cannot be begun again (until and unless game state
changes).
(Includes actions, combats, rounds of combat, and everything else)
Bram Vink
LSJ schreef:
> Bram Vink wrote:
> > LSJ schreef:
> >
> >> LSJ wrote:
> >>> tobiasopdenbr...@notsocoldmail.com wrote:
> >>>> I guess, as the rules stand now, it's a time-out, indeed.
> >>> Correct.
> >> Suggested update for 2007 tournament rules:
> >>
> >> A relaxed NRA:
> >>
> >> A minion cannot repeat the same action more than 10 times in a single turn (note
> >> this is "same action", not "same type of action", so varying the targets would
> >> mean a different action -- this rule would probably only come up to restrict a
> >> hunt).
> >
> > Why 10? it could very well come up in other situations. It's very
> > possible to have, say, 10 blockers. Without any infinity entering the
> > fray.
>
> Not just 10 blockers.
> 10 blockers all interested in (and capable of) blocking the same minion who
> keeps repeating the same action.
> Much less plausible.
Embrace deck, Jost in torpor.
It's not all that hard to think of, anyway.
> >
> >> For the odd-ball infinite combats:
> >>
> >> A single combat cannot continue for more than 20 rounds (10 being too short for
> >> the occasional ping-an-elder trap combats that arise).
> >
> > Why 20? it's very possible to have 20 rounds of combat, in regular
> > situations.
> >
> >> There can be no more than 10 combats per action.
> >>
> >> Any oddities that would arise there? Any infinite loops I missed?
> >
> > Why put arbitrary blanket limits on actions/combats/etc. when the
> > problem is Henry's costless immediate recursion in *combination* with
> > infinately repeatable cardless actions.
> >
> > If you add the following text on Henry: "Cannot attempt the same
> > cardless action more than once per turn" or something similar, the
> > complete problem is adressed, without affecting gameplay, ruleset etc.
> > unneccessarily, nor in any serious way would it be devaluating Henry.
>
> Yes, there are many ways to address a problem.
>
> The current suggestion doesn't meaningfully or unnecessarily affect any
> reasonable aspect of game play (by way of implementing a reciprocating
> definition on what "reasonable game play" is).
I fully agree, but I think it's not good to have a very often trivial
but global rule, just for the sake of handling infinity-repeat, which
is only possible with Henry, really.
Earth Meld, in being free, offers a great many opportunities for
discouraging/punishing blocks, by being untapped and being able to try
again. I wouldn't like even a part of that removed for the sake of a
trivial issue concerning one vampire with recursive ability. I would
like to have 30 earthmelds in a deck for this particular reason, if I
am so inclined.
It's not that I dislike Henry being handled, just the fact that there
would be a whole new rule just because of him I dislike. I'd much
rather see errata than a new rule.
> > When Henry is adressed, there's no infinite costless loop that I can
> > see. Meathook has been errata'd. Adding blanket rules seems
> > unneccessary at best, and adding exceptions to clear NRA rules is a bad
> > thing in my opinion.
>
> Meat Hook was changed by being reprinted (in Anarchs).
>
> What exceptions?
> The proposal offers no exception to the clear NRA rules.
No, but adds to an otherwise clear rule. "A minion cannot perform an
action with the same action card or via the same card in play
(including from the minion's own card text) more than once each turn,
even if he untaps"
Then gets added "or more than 20 of the same actions in a turn,
regardless of action card or card in play" or something similarily
unwieldy, which will serve little purpose, and which might confuse new
players concerning an important rule.
I just don't like the idea of the rules being added to fix anomalies
with a single card.
B
Ankur Gupta
> limit. That's nicer:
>
> New proposal:
>
> When a loop is detected (meaning game state has been completely restored
> to a previous state), the activity cannot be begun again (until and
> unless game state changes).
>
> (Includes actions, combats, rounds of combat, and everything else)
Isn't that impossible, since the time in a given round is part of the game
state?
Ankur
Play. The. Game.
zkopiosy
Infinite loop = stop, playing rock paper scissors to determine the
issue
?
in our case: gain a blood taped or untapped with no blood and hunt
forbidden.
LSJ
> LSJ schreef:
>> Bram Vink wrote:
>>> LSJ schreef:
>> 10 blockers all interested in (and capable of) blocking the same minion who
>> keeps repeating the same action.
>> Much less plausible.
>
> Embrace deck, Jost in torpor.
>
> It's not all that hard to think of, anyway.
Not hard to think of at all.
Just much less plausible, as I said.
I choose my words pretty carefully, as a general rule.
>>> When Henry is adressed, there's no infinite costless loop that I can
>>> see. Meathook has been errata'd. Adding blanket rules seems
>>> unneccessary at best, and adding exceptions to clear NRA rules is a bad
>>> thing in my opinion.
>> Meat Hook was changed by being reprinted (in Anarchs).
>>
>> What exceptions?
>> The proposal offers no exception to the clear NRA rules.
>
> No, but adds to an otherwise clear rule. "A minion cannot perform an
> action with the same action card or via the same card in play
> (including from the minion's own card text) more than once each turn,
> even if he untaps"
It adds a new rule.
It doesn't add to the old rule.
The old rule is independent.
Anything touched by the existing NRA rule is unaffected by the proposal.
Moreover, the proposed limit of 20 is abundantly clear itself.
> Then gets added "or more than 20 of the same actions in a turn,
> regardless of action card or card in play" or something similarily
> unwieldy, which will serve little purpose, and which might confuse new
> players concerning an important rule.
?
It is not unwieldy in the slightest.
How do you think it is unwieldy?
> I just don't like the idea of the rules being added to fix anomalies
> with a single card.
OK.
Since the vocal populace seems to be on an errata bend here, how about adding
"once per turn" to Henry, Freak, and Earth Meld?
LSJ
No.
Jozxyqk
> Since the vocal populace seems to be on an errata bend here, how about adding
> "once per turn" to Henry,
Yes
> Freak
No
> , and Earth Meld?
No
Damnans
Jozxyqk wrote:
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > Since the vocal populace seems to be on an errata bend here, how about adding
> > "once per turn" to Henry,
>
> Yes
Agreed. The problem is Henry Taylor.
Ankur Gupta
>>>
>>> When a loop is detected (meaning game state has been completely
>>> restored to a previous state), the activity cannot be begun again
>>> (until and unless game state changes).
>>>
>>> (Includes actions, combats, rounds of combat, and everything else)
>>
>> Isn't that impossible, since the time in a given round is part of the
>> game state?
>
> No.
Huh? Game state can't be completely restored to a previous state ever,
since the time in a round has changed between the supposedly identified
identical game states. If game state does not include time, then how can a
group of methuselahs choose to mutually withdraw and still be playing to
win?
How does the above phrasing handle that case?
Ankur
witness1
Jozxyqk wrote:
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > Since the vocal populace seems to be on an errata bend here, how about adding
> > "once per turn" to Henry,
>
> Yes
Pretty much kills Henry Taylor twister, but probably works out for the
best in the end.
> > Freak
>
> No
Changing Freak affects a huge number of decks. I wouldn't want to see
that happen without more justification.
> > , and Earth Meld?
>
> No
See above, though it's less of an issue than Freak, I think.
Witness1
-believe the lie.
LSJ
> Jozxyqk wrote:
>> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>> Since the vocal populace seems to be on an errata bend here, how about adding
>>> "once per turn" to Henry,
>> Yes
>
> Agreed. The problem is Henry Taylor.
The others (Freak and Earth Meld) offer similar problems.
History has taught that it is best to handle such things as a group.
Anyway, I wasn't looking to take a vote.
I was still looking for discussion. Preferably considered discussion.
LSJ
The time elapsed/remaining is not considered part of game state.
Luis Duarte - Powerbase:Lisbon
> History has taught that it is best to handle such things as a group.
My opinion...
As a player, i feel more confortable with a group option for the loop
cases (Henry case or others we might discover in next expansions...).
Another thing, and in simple terms, in Henry loop case is that there
is an action and there is a reaction. So stopping the action will stop
the loop. Pretty much like LSJ suggested in a previous post, when a
loop is detected, the action becomes forbidden and stops. In case of a
mid-combat loop, i'd suggest the combat and its action must also end
and cannot be repeated in that turn.
My 2 cents...
.- Luis Duarte
Damnans
[...]
> OK.
>
> Since the vocal populace seems to be on an errata bend here, how about adding
> "once per turn" to Henry, Freak, and Earth Meld?
I think that instead of adding a "once per turn" clause to Henry
Taylor, you could make his special ability cost 1 blood.
Adding a "once per turn" clause to Freak Drive would make some decks
less offensive and, therefore, less effective. In VTES, offense should
always prevail over defense.
Earth Meld is also fine as it is, IMO. It can be used both offensively
and defensively, and its untap effect requires superior Protean to play
(not so common a Discipline).
witness1
LSJ wrote:
> Damnans wrote:
> > Jozxyqk wrote:
> >> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >>> Since the vocal populace seems to be on an errata bend here, how about adding
> >>> "once per turn" to Henry,
> >> Yes
> >
> > Agreed. The problem is Henry Taylor.
>
> The others (Freak and Earth Meld) offer similar problems.
If you're going to bother with those, may as well add Majesty to the
list.
However, I believe that Henry's ability is the only one of it's kind
that's unrestricted (doesn't cost blood, and let's you play the same
copy of the card over and over). Earth Meld and Freak are transients,
and thus naturally limited without card text like Henry's to recur
them.
If there's any other way to freely recycle the same copy of a card
multiple times in a turn, *that* should be fixed alongside Henry. Freak
and Earth Meld might pose similar problems, but eventually that library
will be depleted. It's the recursion that causes the infinite loops.
> History has taught that it is best to handle such things as a group.
Marthe Dizier's similar special already costs a blood, so unless
there's an infinite blood gain loop I'm unaware of, she's already
"fixed". Art of Memory is transient. Sargon
Fragment/Carlotta/Pochtli/etc. are limited by NRA. Most of the
Henry-Tayloresque abilities have been "fixed" for a while.
> Anyway, I wasn't looking to take a vote.
>
> I was still looking for discussion. Preferably considered discussion.
Indeed.
Witness1
-believe the lie
Ankur Gupta
Then how can methuselahs choose to mutually withdraw and be honoring play
to win?
Ankur
Play. The. Game.
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
> > both players continue the infinite loop, they each get half a VP. If
> > the Judge concludes that Player A will get 0 VPs if he willingly breaks
> > the loop, and Player B will get 0 VPs if he willingly breaks the loop,
> > then they are PTW by keeping the loop. Sucks to be the other players,
> > but it's no different than being on the losing end of any other
> > stalemate.
>
> Yes, it is. Other stalemates do not force a time out for the other players.
They do too, all the time. While few stalemates will last forever like
this one, I've seen stalemates that may take hours past the time limit
to resolve, if ever.
--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
Luis Duarte - Powerbase:Lisbon
> > Since the vocal populace seems to be on an errata bend here, how about adding
> > "once per turn" to Henry, Freak, and Earth Meld?
Not me, G.! :-)
I prefer the "Loop detection" and stop rule, avoiding changing the
cards or normal rules that affect not only this case but many more
cards, strategies, decks, etc.
.- Luis Duarte
Ankur Gupta
> The time elapsed/remaining is not considered part of game state.
If this is the case, then how is it a legal play for a group of
Methuselahs to mutually withdraw? I'm thinking here of the PTW rule. I can
manifest tons of cases where at least one person stands to gain additional
VPs if time were not a factor. . . .
Ankur
Play. The. Game.
Damnans
How would this rules change affect turbo decks (e.g. Turbo Arika, Turbo
Lucita) ?
LSJ
Naturally the judge can examine the clock.
Just as obviously, the loop restriction would be independent of the clock.
Matthew T. Morgan
>> Agreed. The problem is Henry Taylor.
>
> The others (Freak and Earth Meld) offer similar problems.
Really? Henry is the one who brings recursiveness to the table. Freak
Drive and Earth Meld can seem infinite, but you can only have 90 of each
of them in a deck. Henry Taylor is the card that allows the same Earth
Meld to be played over and over to keep untapping him.
If you want to change some rules or issue errata, I would focus on the
recursion. A deck that will untap 45 times with Freak Drive is not
problematic because it will end sooner or later. Henry and Eze locked in
an eternal loop is problematic because nothing else can happen in the game
once that starts.
It's possible there are other recursive combos that could cause similar
infinite loops, but Henry/Earth Meld is the most obvious.
Matt Morgan
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> New proposal:
>>
>> When a loop is detected (meaning game state has been completely restored to a
>> previous state), the activity cannot be begun again (until and unless game state
>> changes).
>>
>> (Includes actions, combats, rounds of combat, and everything else)
>
> How would this rules change affect turbo decks (e.g. Turbo Arika, Turbo
> Lucita) ?
Change in crypt is a change in state.
Ankur Gupta
>>
>> If this is the case, then how is it a legal play for a group of
>> Methuselahs to mutually withdraw? I'm thinking here of the PTW rule. I
>> can manifest tons of cases where at least one person stands to gain
>> additional VPs if time were not a factor. . . .
>
> Naturally the judge can examine the clock.
> Just as obviously, the loop restriction would be independent of the clock.
Yes, but if the *players* are not allowed to consider things that are not
part of the game state. . . . How can *they* even propose such a deal?
If the loop restriction is independent of the clock, then it should say
that. I'm arguing here that time is part of the game state.
The above is an example where time is used as a means to determine a legal
course of action. If time isn't allowed to be considered, then such deals
are likely illegal, because over the course of eternity, someone would
probably end up with more than 1 additional VP.
Ankur
Play. The. Game.
Luis Duarte - Powerbase:Lisbon
On Nov 7, 6:41 pm, "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > New proposal:
>
> > When a loop is detected (meaning game state has been completely restored to a
> > previous state), the activity cannot be begun again (until and unless game state
> > changes).
>
> > (Includes actions, combats, rounds of combat, and everything else)How would this rules change affect turbo decks (e.g. Turbo Arika, Turbo
> Lucita) ?
As i understand from LSJ definition of loop, those Turbo decks use loop
on purpose but the game state between actions changes. There is pool
loss, or block attempt, bleed deflection with blood consuption, etc.
It's not unexpected eternal loop without game state change.
.- Luis Duarte
Ankur Gupta
> Lucita) ?
Presumably it wouldn't, since:
1) You would have one less uncontrolled minion.
2) Your prey would hopefully have fewer pool.
Ankur
Play. The. Game.
Ankur Gupta
> Lucita) ?
Oh, and your ash heap would have more cards in it.
Ankur
Play. The. Game.
atomweaver
news:7744h.23607$TV3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:
My considered opinion (A-hem);
for the rare instances where an infinite loop might result in a table
timeout, such a situation should be considered a risk inherent to
building those few specific deck-types. Unless there is an actual
problem with tables timing out in infinite loops (with players on the
table who aren't a part of the loop), rules shouldn't be issued.
If it does become an observed issue , then the proposed rule would
stop it. I like 20 repeat actions as a number, as this exceeds even an
atypical number of potential blockers (and thus relegates the rule to
affecting only its intended effect; make infinite loop situations
finite).
sme'
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
Meej
LSJ wrote:
> New proposal:
>
> When a loop is detected (meaning game state has been completely restored to a
> previous state), the activity cannot be begun again (until and unless game state
> changes).
>
> (Includes actions, combats, rounds of combat, and everything else)
In the Legend of the Five Rings CCG, the solution to infinite loops in
the rulings was pretty much that one, and it worked well.
In M:tG, if I recall correctly, the solution was "Declare an arbitrary
number of times for the loop to repeat (including if there is a game
state change) and set game state to the end of that many repetitions,
then move on."
I mention these because, in both cases, they worked fairly well. I
think the solution LSJ's proposed here is the workable one for VTES, as
it's a general-purpose ruling that's easy to apply and easy to
understand. It cleanly fixes (most?) infinite non-change problems
without messing with the finite problems that involve some game state
change.
For my two cents, this is by *far* the way to go. Even if I don't mind
the thought of not having to be at a table with Peal's Henry Twister
again, if it goes the "errata Henry" route, I don't think that's the
*right* choice. This proposal of LSJ's is.
- D.J.
Damnans
I think the new rule you are proposing here is not necessary, since
there are just too few combos allowing an infinite loop, and since the
way to deal with infinite loops so far has been errating the carta
allowing the infinite loop (Meat Hook).
As Matt has already pointed out, there are two kinds of loops: finite
and infinite ones. The only problematic loops are the infinite ones. So
let's just focus on them.
Damnans
Damnans wrote:
[...]
> I think the new rule you are proposing here is not necessary, since
> there are just too few combos allowing an infinite loop, and since the
That should read "errating the card" :-) (lapsus linguae)
v.ri...@gmail.com
zkopiosy wrote:
> What's about:
>
> Infinite loop = stop, playing rock paper scissors to determine the
> issue
> ?
>
It's far too random (and not logical). You wouldn't like getting ousted
on a coin toss, would you?
LSJ's proposal suits me :
> When a loop is detected (meaning game state has been completely restored to a
> previous state), the activity cannot be begun again (until and unless game state
> changes).
> (Includes actions, combats, rounds of combat, and everything else)
It's generic enough to handle any deadlock situation, and not
excessively complicated for a situation that would rise every century
anyway.
Luis Duarte - Powerbase:Lisbon
On Nov 7, 6:55 pm, "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
> I think the new rule you are proposing here is not necessary, since
> there are just too few combos allowing an infinite loop, and since the
> way to deal with infinite loops so far has been errating the carta
> allowing the infinite loop (Meat Hook).
Yes, but that was the first and only case until today and the card
itself (Meet Hook) pushed to an automatic press situation. Since we
have now another similar situation, with the probability to have some
more in the future, it's better to introduce an anti-loop specific rule
instead of changing pretty "normal" cards like Earth Meld.
LSJ
> I think the new rule you are proposing here is not necessary, since
> there are just too few combos allowing an infinite loop, and since the
> way to deal with infinite loops so far has been errating the carta
> allowing the infinite loop (Meat Hook).
Meat Hook was brought up before.
It was changed by being reprinted with different card text, not by errata.
Henry, being Sabbat, isn't likely to be reprinted any time soon.
> As Matt has already pointed out, there are two kinds of loops: finite
> and infinite ones. The only problematic loops are the infinite ones. So
> let's just focus on them.
That assumes that only one of the two kinds is problematic.
Damnans
Correct >:-)
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
> Must be hyperbole day today.
Best. Line. Evar.
--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
PS - It's Election Day here in the U.S. for those of you who were
unaware.
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
> New proposal:
>
> When a loop is detected (meaning game state has been completely restored to a
> previous state), the activity cannot be begun again (until and unless game state
> changes).
>
> (Includes actions, combats, rounds of combat, and everything else)
As a Go player, I endorse this proposal.
niko...@hotmail.com
LSJ wrote:
> John Flournoy wrote:
> > LSJ wrote:
> >> LSJ wrote:
> >>> tobiasopdenbr...@notsocoldmail.com wrote:
> >>>> I guess, as the rules stand now, it's a time-out, indeed.
> >>> Correct.
> >> Suggested update for 2007 tournament rules:
> >>
> >> A relaxed NRA:
> >>
> >> A minion cannot repeat the same action more than 10 times in a single turn (note
> >> this is "same action", not "same type of action", so varying the targets would
> >> mean a different action -- this rule would probably only come up to restrict a
> >> hunt).
> >
> > This does eliminate two possible decks.
> >
> > One being "Rabbat hunts for 2 or more (lots of ways to accomplish this)
> > and freak drives 45 times in a turn, gaining me 45 pool, then I
> > continue"
>
> It doesn't eliminate it. It still allows the deck to be played and to function.
> Just 10 times for each of 4.5 turns instead of 45 times in one.
>
> Not even a blip on the screen.
>
> > The other being 'I give my prey's empty vampire Condemnation: Doomed,
> > and when he hunts repeatedly use a +1 intercept minion with inferior
> > obedience, or inferior bond with the mountain, or even No Secrets with
> > Meld with the Land to keep him repeatedly hunting and losing pool until
> > he's ousted'.
>
> Still doable (if it ever was), as above.
>
> > I'm not sure that this 'take one action many times' is so broken (or
> > even comes up more than once in a very long while) that it warrants a
> > tournament rule change.
>
> It isn't the case that it is "so broken".
>
> It is the case that it is sufficiently and obviously bad when it (an infinite
> loop that eliminates other players from playing at all for the remainder of the
> game) occurs that it (the rewrite of the tourney rules, being rewritten for the
> 2007 season anyhow) could be aware of it.
>
> Must be hyperbole day today.
Wow, crazy activity here... :)
I am glad if our little incident can lead to a clarification before the
whole thing actually becomes a problem (ie. happens in a tournament).
Frederick Scott
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:PD04h.23550$TV3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> LSJ wrote:
>> tobiasopdenbr...@notsocoldmail.com wrote:
>>> I guess, as the rules stand now, it's a time-out, indeed.
>>
>> Correct.
>
> Suggested update for 2007 tournament rules:
>
> A relaxed NRA:
>
> A minion cannot repeat the same action more than 10 times in a single turn (note this is "same action", not "same type of action",
> so varying the targets would mean a different action -- this rule would probably only come up to restrict a hunt).
>
>
> A single combat cannot continue for more than 20 rounds (10 being too short for the occasional ping-an-elder trap combats that
> arise).
>
> There can be no more than 10 combats per action.
>
> Any oddities that would arise there? Any infinite loops I missed?
Wrangling about exact numbers aside, it bothers me that this is proposed
for tournament rules only. If it's a legitimate play issue, it should be
resolved for the overall game, not just for tournaments. There's nothing
about this that suggests the solution should vary from playgroup to
playgroup or anything. Time limits are something that's reasonable to
stick in tournament rules because playgroups will vary on how they wish
to handle it. Ante cards and weird cards like Madness of the Bard, sure.
But whatever the solution is to this should be a universal one because...
well, why not?
Fred
Frederick Scott
> New proposal:
>
> When a loop is detected (meaning game state has been completely restored to a previous state), the activity cannot be begun again
> (until and unless game state changes).
>
> (Includes actions, combats, rounds of combat, and everything else)
I definitely like this better than the first proposal.
Fred
LSJ
> Wrangling about exact numbers aside, it bothers me that this is proposed
> for tournament rules only. If it's a legitimate play issue, it should be
> resolved for the overall game, not just for tournaments. There's nothing
> about this that suggests the solution should vary from playgroup to
> playgroup or anything. Time limits are something that's reasonable to
> stick in tournament rules because playgroups will vary on how they wish
> to handle it. Ante cards and weird cards like Madness of the Bard, sure.
> But whatever the solution is to this should be a universal one because...
> well, why not?
Wel, the next rulebook is slated to come out much later than the next update to
the VEKN rules.
And the case really isn't a problem for non-tournament rules since there's no
time limit to be bothered with. Give "Methuselah" some meaning. :-)
Frederick Scott
Your first reason is valid enough to suggest altering tournament rules until
a new rulebook comes out, I agree. I'm rather perplexed by your second
response, though. It isn't the time limit which causes the issue to be a
problem, AFAICS. The time limit is just the tournament artifact which would
get invoked if no other solution were present. The issue is a problem, in my
estimation, because to permit an irresolvable infinite loop in a game requires
a resolution outside of the boundaries of assumptions about why games are
played. That is, failing a solution dictated by the rules, someone has to
back off and acquiesce to non-game-play motivation (the desire to continue
with the game play in preference to the desire to win the game) or play comes
to a halt, destroying the game. I don't understand why you wouldn't define
that as a problem.
Fred, wouldn't last 100 years as a Methuselah
obelisk
>
> If you add the following text on Henry: "Cannot attempt the same
> cardless action more than once per turn" or something similar, the
> complete problem is adressed, without affecting gameplay, ruleset etc.
> unneccessarily, nor in any serious way would it be devaluating Henry.
>
Okay man, so what do you do when Henry is blocked with no blood, earth
melds at superior to untap and still has no blood? Seems unfair that he
has to sit there, but it would seem unfair if he got to act other than
to hunt as well...
~m
LSJ
... or the friends come to some sort of solution.
> I don't understand why you wouldn't define
> that as a problem.
Um, because I wasn't serious. Note the smilie.
LSJ
Having to sit there is certainly fair-seeming to me.
See also hunt, block, Change of Target.
XZealot
> > I don't understand why you wouldn't define
> > that as a problem.
>
> Um, because I wasn't serious. Note the smilie.
We all know you don't smile. I just figured that was a typo. :P
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
Wookie813
LSJ wrote:
> New proposal:
>
> When a loop is detected (meaning game state has been completely restored to a
> previous state), the activity cannot be begun again (until and unless game state
> changes).
>
> (Includes actions, combats, rounds of combat, and everything else)
I like this over the first proposal. The infinite loop is "suspended",
and gameplay continues until something changes. the loop could then be
re-initiated, but would be easily recognized and again suspended. It
would be possible for the conditions that cause the loop to exist over
several turns, potentially, but eventually Eze will be in torpor, or
somebody will make Henry's player discard his hand, or whatever.
My first inclination to the problem (prior to proposal #2) was to
implement an "auto-withdraw" for the players in the loop. If each is
PTW and the loop is infinite, each takes .5 vp and gets up from the
table. If there are any players left, they keep playing. If there is
only 1 player left, it's a GW for that player (regardless of VP totals).
XZealot
> When a loop is detected (meaning game state has been completely restored to a
> previous state), the activity cannot be begun again (until and unless game state
> changes).
>
> (Includes actions, combats, rounds of combat, and everything else)
I support this amendment to the VKEN Constitution.
I also support an additional amendment that bans cats and dogs from
getting married.
Andrew 'Wes' Weston
<niko...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
Josh Duffin and I had an interesting endgame in a JOL game a few years ago.
It was a bit different from the Eze/Henry recursion, but with a similar
outcome.
The relevant details:
Wes
--playing Aabt Kindred anarch vote deck (no other minions in play)
--Gambit Accepted in play
--library and hand are empty
Josh
--all vampires in torpor
--has the Edge
--library and hand are empty
All other Methuselahs had been ousted.
Josh was gaining 1 pool from the Edge each turn, and I was gaining 1 pool
each turn from Josh via Gambit Accepted. I could not bleed (Aabt Kindred
flaw) to take the Edge away from him. Neither of us could do anything except
hunt and leave torpor actions.
This situation did actually resolve in the end when Josh "blinked". One of
his vampires in torpor had 2 blood and performed a leave torpor action. Josh
didn't notice that I had Form of Corruption in play. On my next turn, I
burned FoC to take control of Josh's now empty vampire, providing myself
with a way to bleed him on my following turn. Still, if Josh had not seen
this, the game would have gone on forever. It was pretty funny :-)
Cheers,
WES
d
> > d: "It could be argued
> > that if the Eze player has any other way of getting a VP, he can't
> > spend the whole rest of the game blocking Henry, so a Judge could force
> > him to stop blocking."
>
>LSJ: "No. The same argument could be used to force Henry to stop playing Earth Meld.
> Why does the Eze player have to be the one to make the sacrifice?"
I guess what I was pointing out, and what was confirmed in all the
responses, is that this only results in a timeout if both players have
to continue doing this to be Playing to Win. If one of them isn't, (and
it's more likely Eze isn't since presumably h1 would send empty Henry
to torpor), then the judge does have the perogative to step in. Of
course if its PTW for both players to time out, then the judge doesn't.
Its actually unlikely to be PTW to time out like this unless the game
is almost over, which resolves most concerns. (I would be concerned
about the other players at the table).
FC
> LSJ wrote:
> [...]
>
>>OK.
>>
>>Since the vocal populace seems to be on an errata bend here, how about adding
>>"once per turn" to Henry, Freak, and Earth Meld?
>
>
> I think that instead of adding a "once per turn" clause to Henry
> Taylor, you could make his special ability cost 1 blood.
>
> Adding a "once per turn" clause to Freak Drive would make some decks
> less offensive and, therefore, less effective. In VTES, offense should
> always prevail over defense.
And makes big caps less sucky. Not a bad thing in general - but you
could accomplish some of that effect with one freak drive per turn. I am
not really sure about this one... i suspect some people overestimate how
often they really freak drive more than once per turn (if you remove the
hunt cycling).
>
> Earth Meld is also fine as it is, IMO. It can be used both offensively
> and defensively, and its untap effect requires superior Protean to play
> (not so common a Discipline).
>
Earth meld is clearly overpowered and should cost a blood to be more in
line with majesty imho.
I don't think that saying PRO is a limited discipline either justifies a
greater power level nor makes Earth Meld abuse significantly harder.
Rachel, Stanislava, Nadima etc. Plenty of Protean out there.
Frede
Luis Duarte - Powerbase:Lisbon
> Earth meld is clearly overpowered and should cost a blood to be more in
> line with majesty imho.
If Earth Meld would cost 1 blood, does it assures this loop situation
is over?
FC
No. Henry could have an Eye of Hazimel.
Or clan impersonate to get use of the Ankara Citadel or the Path of the
Feral Heart.
I didn't make it clear that i agreed with adding a blood cost to Henry's
special (as opposed to making it once per turn).
Frede
Frederick Scott
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> The issue is a problem, in my
>> estimation, because to permit an irresolvable infinite loop in a game requires
>> a resolution outside of the boundaries of assumptions about why games are
>> played. That is, failing a solution dictated by the rules, someone has to
>> back off and acquiesce to non-game-play motivation (the desire to continue
>> with the game play in preference to the desire to win the game) or play comes
>> to a halt, destroying the game.
>
> ... or the friends come to some sort of solution.
That's exactly the sort of thinking I posted to oppose. Rules should provide
solutions to such things. Leave friendship for stuff like figuring out what to
get on the pizza and providing Robert with a designated driver after his 5 AM
Usenet debates.
>> I don't understand why you wouldn't define
>> that as a problem.
>
> Um, because I wasn't serious. Note the smilie.
I thought the smilie had to do with the Methuselah crack. No matter. As long
as I got my comments on the comment pile, that's fine.
Fred
Bram Vink
LSJ schreef:
> Sure. Could pick a "change in state" criterion instead of an arbitrary limit.
> That's nicer:
>
> New proposal:
>
> When a loop is detected (meaning game state has been completely restored to a
> previous state), the activity cannot be begun again (until and unless game state
> changes).
>
> (Includes actions, combats, rounds of combat, and everything else)
It's a precise rule, and as such great.
However it might require some clarification on what is considered the
beginning of the loop. In the case of henry/empty-hunt/No secrets, is
it the involuntary action that makes it a loop, the continuous choice
to block or the choice of playing of earth meld at superior? Which
activity should be stopped?
B
Blooded Sand
Agree the idea above is the best fix. The only mandatory thing in this
entire loop is Henry hunting, as he is empty. Everything else has to
happen due to PTW, but the hunt is without choice due to basic rules.
The vampuire must perform a mandatory action, and cannot due to loop
restriction, and is thus immobilised.
Meej
Bram Vink wrote:
> However it might require some clarification on what is considered the
> beginning of the loop. In the case of henry/empty-hunt/No secrets, is
> it the involuntary action that makes it a loop, the continuous choice
> to block or the choice of playing of earth meld at superior? Which
> activity should be stopped?
Which of those was the first thing to have happened that repeats?
"Henry takes a hunt action."
There's no clarification needed. There are no choices to be made about
this. Go to the point where things started to repeat; stop there
instead once it's clear it will repeat indefinitely unless someone
changes the game state or their choice of action. End of story.
People are making this far more complex than it is. The problem is
infinite loops in general. Break the infinite loop where it starts to
repeat, as a very short clear general-case rule. K.I.S.S. principle at
work.
- D.J.
LSJ
Correct.
dog$
I was just going to say that maybe Henry's ability should be errataed
to once per turn or once until next untap, like Blackhorse Tanner or
some such.
Very intersting read none the less.
Salem
> Leave friendship for stuff like figuring out what to
> get on the pizza and providing Robert with a designated driver after his 5 AM
> Usenet debates.
heh. zing!
--
salem
http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/
(replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)
Salem
ah but in that situation you could both burn cards, and one of you could
attempt to withdraw when your library was empty. I suspect this is in
fact the kind of situation the withdraw rule may have been intended for
in the first place (rather than stupid tournament shenanigans).
Andrew 'Wes' Weston
"Salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> ah but in that situation you could both burn cards, and one of you could
> attempt to withdraw when your library was empty. I suspect this is in
> fact the kind of situation the withdraw rule may have been intended for
> in the first place (rather than stupid tournament shenanigans).
Well, Josh couldn't have withdrawn because of the pool he was losing.
You may be right about the designers' intent... interesting.
Cheers,
WES
librarian
LSJ wrote:
>
>
> Since the vocal populace seems to be on an errata bend here, how about adding
> "once per turn" to Henry, Freak, and Earth Meld?
No!
Errata suck.
Change the tournament rules.
Errata suck.
best -
chris
Salem
> "Salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>
>> ah but in that situation you could both burn cards, and one of you could
>> attempt to withdraw when your library was empty. I suspect this is in
>> fact the kind of situation the withdraw rule may have been intended for
>> in the first place (rather than stupid tournament shenanigans).
>
> Well, Josh couldn't have withdrawn because of the pool he was losing.
ah good point. i guess it would be up to you to save the world!
> You may be right about the designers' intent... interesting.
it seems like a fairly obvious reason for it. i wouldn't see it as too
uncommon that everyone's vamps were torpored or burned, and no one had
enough pool to get anyone else out. no one has edge....how are you going
to finish the game, since it was designed without time limits? Allow
people to 'withdraw' if they use up all their resources (deck).
Joshua Duffin
> v.ri...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Sounds weird to fix an arbitrary limit of 10 or 20 or what else. What
>> if a 13-cap vampire (with master disciplines) needs to hunt 13 times in
>> a turn (kind of FD - Hungry coyote combo) to get full?
>>
>> In the Henry - Magaji situation, an end to the loop can be established.
>> Since the magaji can always block, Henry will never be able to hunt if
>> the Methuselah controlling the magaji doesn't want to. I think that
>> therefore, once the loop clearly established by all players (and a
>> judge if needed), Henry should end up untapped with no blood, and
>> cannot hunt until another action is concluded or turn ends.
>
> Sure. Could pick a "change in state" criterion instead of an arbitrary
> limit.
> That's nicer:
>
> New proposal:
>
> When a loop is detected (meaning game state has been completely restored
> to a previous state), the activity cannot be begun again (until and unless
> game state changes).
>
> (Includes actions, combats, rounds of combat, and everything else)
Wow, I'm late to the party.
This proposal seems better to me than the "20 times" concept. I don't think
either one is going to be needed very often, but the idea of detecting an
infinite loop seems less likely to restrict legitimate highly-repetitive
play, while still taking care of the rare infinite-loop problem.
Josh
eternally struggling indeed
LSJ
> it seems like a fairly obvious reason for it. i wouldn't see it as too
> uncommon that everyone's vamps were torpored or burned, and no one had
> enough pool to get anyone else out. no one has edge....how are you going
> to finish the game, since it was designed without time limits? Allow
> people to 'withdraw' if they use up all their resources (deck).
See also
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/098467d139127361
fifthstr...@gmail.com
> > A relaxed NRA:
> > A minion cannot repeat the same action more than 10 times in a single turn (note
> > this is "same action", not "same type of action", so varying the targets would
> > mean a different action -- this rule would probably only come up to restrict a
> > hunt).
>
> This does eliminate two possible decks.
Doesn't Una hunt more than 20 times in a turn, too? Maybe that was
mentioned elsewhere in this thread and I missed it.
Even if the game time isn't considered part of the game state, there
exist many precedents that players/judges can consider the time left in
determining PTW. Also, there can be significant psychological factors,
and stopping the loop after 1 iteration seems unnecessary. Maybe
someone has a DI in their hand that they didn't use on the very first
hunt, but they would do it after they see the pattern more clearly.
Therefore, I don't really like the wording of the infinite loop rule.
I agree with Damnans that only the infinite loops are problematic.
So, why not simply make the number 100 instead of 10 or 20? That seems
very straightforward to me.
Ira
Salem
> v.ri...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Sounds weird to fix an arbitrary limit of 10 or 20 or what else. What
>> if a 13-cap vampire (with master disciplines) needs to hunt 13 times in
>> a turn (kind of FD - Hungry coyote combo) to get full?
>>
>> In the Henry - Magaji situation, an end to the loop can be established.
>> Since the magaji can always block, Henry will never be able to hunt if
>> the Methuselah controlling the magaji doesn't want to. I think that
>> therefore, once the loop clearly established by all players (and a
>> judge if needed), Henry should end up untapped with no blood, and
>> cannot hunt until another action is concluded or turn ends.
>
> Sure. Could pick a "change in state" criterion instead of an arbitrary
> limit.
> That's nicer:
>
> New proposal:
>
> When a loop is detected (meaning game state has been completely restored
> to a previous state), the activity cannot be begun again (until and
> unless game state changes).
>
> (Includes actions, combats, rounds of combat, and everything else)
so for our example:
Henry is untapped and empty.
empty henry hunts, eze blocks. henry earth melds, recycles earth meld.
*beep beep* Loop detected.
Henry may not hunt.
random 2-cap bleeds for one. action resolves (who cares how).
Henry is untapped and empty, but the state has changed. so he must now
hunt. eze blocks, earth meld - untap - recycle.
*beep beep* Loop detected.
Henry's controller has no more minions to act with (or chooses not to).
minion phase ends with henry untapped and empty, play goes on as normal.
scenario may repeat itself again next turn, but at least all other
players get to play in the mean time.
seems reasonable to me.
(none of this would be a problem if you'd just play with Becoming of
Ennoia!)
Joshua Duffin
Would it be better - as Ira suggested - to allow players the chance to
break loop-repetition that they might not have chosen to break on the
first time through the loop? That is, declare the loop "detected" when
the looping activity has been repeated once and game state restored a
second time, rather than when the looping activity is *about* to repeat
for the first time and game state has been restored only once?
I think it seems reasonable that players might sometimes allow game
state to be restored one time, not having taken note of the loopiness of
an activity, but might decide to break the loop when it is repeated for
a second time?
Josh
henry magaji indeed
Blooded Sand
On Nov 10, 7:50 pm, Joshua Duffin <joshduffin.REM...@SPAM.gmail.com>
wrote:
> Salem wrote:
> > LSJ wrote:
> > seems reasonable to me.Would it be better - as Ira suggested - to allow players the chance to
> break loop-repetition that they might not have chosen to break on the
> first time through the loop? That is, declare the loop "detected" when
> the looping activity has been repeated once and game state restored a
> second time, rather than when the looping activity is *about* to repeat
> for the first time and game state has been restored only once?
>
> I think it seems reasonable that players might sometimes allow game
> state to be restored one time, not having taken note of the loopiness of
> an activity, but might decide to break the loop when it is repeated for
> a second time?
>
> Josh
>
> henry magaji indeed- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
This seems to be the most reasonable suggestion as it allows for people
to act during the loop. Eagles etc then become usable and the loop is
not unbreakable
islando...@aol.com
>
> When a loop is detected (meaning game state has been completely restored to a
> previous state), the activity cannot be begun again (until and unless game state
> changes).
This would not address a situation in which game state was being
restored by something out of any players' control. I think any
proposed rule should address game state restoration by any means, not
just voluntary ones.
In fact, I suspect there are many types of loops available, such as:
- A loop one players carries out.
- A loop two or more players carry out together.
- Loops mandated by the rules/cards in play
These are the M:TG rules on handling loops. I do find these rules
clear, valuable, and relevant, or I wouldn't have posted them.
(SPOILER: Long. I imagine LSJ and Josh Duffin will read these; for
everyone else, I summarize at the bottom.)
--------------------------
421. Handling "Infinite" Loops
421.1. Occasionally the game can get into a state in which a set of
actions could be repeated forever. These rules (sometimes called the
"infinity rules") govern how to break such loops.
421.2. If the loop contains one or more optional actions and one player
controls them all, that player chooses a number. The loop is treated as
repeating that many times or until another player intervenes, whichever
comes first.
421.3. If a loop contains optional actions controlled by two players
and actions by both of those players are required to continue the loop,
the first player (or the first involved player after the active player
in turn order) chooses a number. The other player then has two choices.
He or she can choose a lower number, in which case the loop continues
that number of times plus whatever fraction is necessary for the active
player to "have the last word." Or he or she can agree to the number
the first player chose, in which case the loop continues that number of
times plus whatever fraction is necessary for the second player to
"have the last word." (Note that either fraction may be zero.) This
sequence of choices is extended to all applicable players if there are
more than two players involved.
Example: In a two-player game, one player controls a creature with the
ability "{0}: [This creature] gains flying," and another player
controls a permanent with the ability "{0}: Target creature loses
flying." The "infinity rule" ensures that regardless of which player
initiated the gain/lose flying ability, the nonactive player will
always have the final choice and therefore be able to determine whether
the creature has flying. (Note that this assumes that the first player
attempted to give the creature flying at least once.)
421.4. If the loop contains only mandatory actions, the game ends in a
draw. (See rule 102.4b.)
421.5. If the loop contains optional actions controlled by different
players and these actions don't depend on one another, the active
player chooses a number. In APNAP order, the nonactive players can each
either agree to that number or choose a higher number. Note that this
rule applies even if the actions could exist in separate loops rather
than in a single loop.
---------------------------
Summary:
If a loop is formed by only one player's decisions, he or she chooses a
number and executes the loop that many times.
If a loop is formed by two or more players' decisions, each player
chooses a number in turn order and the loop is executed the smallest
number of times.
If a loop is formed without players needing to make decisions, the game
ends in a draw.
----------------------------
I accept that the second instance (which Henry and Eze fall into) means
that the defender always gets the break, but that's fine IMO. The
action (hunt) would still be executed after the loop (play Earth Meld,
etc.) was deemed "finished" by both players, and Henry would go into
combat without being able to Earth Meld.
I believe a rule that specifically addresses infinite loops would be
preferable to errata, or to a rule that addresses an arbitrary number
of the same action.
I happen to desire errata that Freak Drive is only usable once per
minion per turn, but I don't think it's relevant to this problem.
And if you seek to add a rule limiting rounds of combat/number of
actions/etc., please don't choose a number that could be reached at
all. I could reach 45, no problem. I would have difficulty reaching
9000.
-- Brian
Power level is over nine thousaaaaand!