Infinite Loop??

[slither]

Ok I need help on a quick issue:

my Cyber Phoenix + my opponents Machine King + my Snatch Steal

does it become an infinite loop??

Therefore impossible to activated Snatch Steal?

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

Is this statement in regards to the initial post?

Both the initial post, and to the situation with armored glass.

I see a loop as a series of actions, not simply alternating from one side to another.

Of course, semantically, the scenarios could be either one:

Snatch Steal takes control, snatch steal is negated and loses control, snatch steal gains control ... is not a "loop"

but,
snatch steal takes control, cyber phoenix's effect kick in, snatch steal loses control, cyber phoenix's effect no longer applies"¦ is a loop.

Occam's Razor points me to the first example, comparing it to the situation with Proto-Cyber Dragon and Prohibition.

 

[skey23]

Both the initial post, and to the situation with armored glass.

I see a loop as a series of actions, not simply alternating from one side to another.

Of course, semantically, the scenarios could be either one:

Snatch Steal takes control, snatch steal is negated and loses control, snatch steal gains control ... is not a "loop"

but,
snatch steal takes control, cyber phoenix's effect kick in, snatch steal loses control, cyber phoenix's effect no longer applies"¦ is a loop.

I fail to see the difference between the two. In both scenarios, the effect of "Snatch Steal" is negated, then it's not, then it is, then it's not, then it is......how is that NOT a loop? The monster would continually be switching between sides as "Snatch Steal"s effect turns off and on.

 

[novastar]

retracting for more analysis...

 

[slither]

But if that's not the case, Cyber Pheonix would be the source of the loop, as its effect is focusing on the machine monster, then not focusing on the machine monster, then"¦

But why Cyber Phoenix and not Snatch Steal??

 

[skey23]

Ok, once again, it seems that everybody else has lost their minds on this site....

P1 has "Cyber Phoenix" in face-up attack position.
P2 has "Cyber Dragon" face-up on their side with no other cards on the field.
P1 activates "Snatch Steal" targeting "Cyber Dragon".
"Cyber Phoenix" will NOT negate this activation because "Cyber Dragon" is currently on P2's side of the field.
When "Snatch Steal" resolves, "Cyber Dragon" will come to P1s side.
As soon as "Cyber Dragon" comes to P1s side, the effect of "Cyber Phoenix" will negate the continuously targeting effect of "Snatch Steal", which will cause "Cyber Dragon" to go back to P2s side of the field.
As soon as it hits P2s side of the field, since "Cyber Dragon" is no longer on the same side as the "Cyber Phoenix", the "Snatch Steal" is no longer negated by the effect of "Cyber Phoenix". So what happens? "Cyber Dragon" once again will be brought over to P1s field.
As soon as "Cyber Dragon" comes to P1s side, the effect of "Cyber Phoenix" will negate the continuously targeting effect of "Snatch Steal", which will cause "Cyber Dragon" to go back to P2s side of the field.
As soon as it hits P2s side of the field, since "Cyber Dragon" is no longer on the same side as the "Cyber Phoenix", the "Snatch Steal" is no longer negated by the effect of "Cyber Phoenix". So what happens? "Cyber Dragon" once again will be brought over to P1s field.

So, tell me EXACTLY how that's NOT an infinite loop that cannot be stopped?

 

[novastar]

But why Cyber Phoenix and not Snatch Steal??

Cyber Phoenix directly affects Snatch Steal, Snatch Steal doesn't directly affect Cyber Phoenix. Machine King is pretty much irrelevent here since it could be any Machine monster.

 

[novastar]

Ok, once again, it seems that everybody else has lost their minds on this site....

P1 has "Cyber Phoenix" in face-up attack position.
P2 has "Cyber Dragon" face-up on their side with no other cards on the field.
P1 activates "Snatch Steal" targeting "Cyber Dragon".
"Cyber Phoenix" will NOT negate this activation because "Cyber Dragon" is currently on P2's side of the field.
When "Snatch Steal" resolves, "Cyber Dragon" will come to P1s side.
As soon as "Cyber Dragon" comes to P1s side, the effect of "Cyber Phoenix" will negate the continuously targeting effect of "Snatch Steal", which will cause "Cyber Dragon" to go back to P2s side of the field.
As soon as it hits P2s side of the field, since "Cyber Dragon" is no longer on the same side as the "Cyber Phoenix", the "Snatch Steal" is no longer negated by the effect of "Cyber Phoenix". So what happens? "Cyber Dragon" once again will be brought over to P1s field.
As soon as "Cyber Dragon" comes to P1s side, the effect of "Cyber Phoenix" will negate the continuously targeting effect of "Snatch Steal", which will cause "Cyber Dragon" to go back to P2s side of the field.
As soon as it hits P2s side of the field, since "Cyber Dragon" is no longer on the same side as the "Cyber Phoenix", the "Snatch Steal" is no longer negated by the effect of "Cyber Phoenix". So what happens? "Cyber Dragon" once again will be brought over to P1s field.

So, tell me EXACTLY how that's NOT an infinite loop that cannot be stopped?

We haven't lost ours minds, there is a fine line between infinite unresolvable loops and timestamp resolutions. This is all an attempt to analyze the situation to make sure.

What about the Amplifier ruling:

You cannot activate a card that would cause an infinite loop because its effect cannot resolve completely. Example #1: You activate "Snatch Steal" targeting your opponent's "Jinzo". You then equip "Jinzo" with "Amplifier". You cannot activate "Imperial Order" because it cannot resolve completely (it would negate "Snatch Steal", returning "Jinzo" to your opponent, which would negate "Imperial Order" so "Snatch Steal" would re-activate). If you activate "Imperial Order" by mistake in such a situation, flip it face-down again.

Seems similar to this. That would point to this situation being a loop.

 

[skey23]

But timestamping has nothing to do with anything here. Or at least, I can't see it being involved in anything...lol.

 

[novastar]

But timestamping has nothing to do with anything here. Or at least, I can't see it being involved in anything...lol.

It is a way to resolve conflicts when you have overlapping and conflicting Continuous Effects. Infinite loops in this game are when certain methods used can't solve it, so it becomes illegal. There is also dependancy resolution (which can include timestamping).

The Prohibition example is a dependancy, where Prohibition is dependant on Proto's effect. So the end result is always the same, Prohibition will negate Proto's effect since you would always apply Proto's effect first, then Prohibition.

The more i look at this situation, the more it seems like a loop but i'm not 100% convinced. The problem with comparing this to the Amplifier ruling is that you have 2 negation effects that flip flop in that case, in this scenario there is only one. So is it a case of dependancy, or an unresolvable loop?

This could be veiwed as Cyber Phoenix being dependant on Snatch Steal, which would mean that the end result would be Cyber Phoenix preventing Snatch Steal from working... hence no control switch.

 

[slither]

Cyber Phoenix directly affects Snatch Steal, Snatch Steal doesn't directly affect Cyber Phoenix. Machine King is pretty much irrelevent here since it could be any Machine monster.

Makes sense =P

 

[Entropy]

One minute...I'm trying to understand what novastar is saying....

In the Prohibition situation, it goes like:

PCD: I'm CD!
Pro: Negate CD!
PCD: Damn! Now I'm PCD...so I can activate my effect! I'm CD!
Pro: Negate CD!
PCD: Damn! But now...&c.

Or, simply:

Activate!
NO!
Damn! But -
NO!
Damn! But -
NO!
&c.

So, that would be a timestamp problem?

Now, we could simplify the Cyber Phoenix problem as the "NO-damn!-NO-damn!" situation, so it's a timestamp issue?

 

[slither]

In the PCD and CD scenarion there is no infinite loop:

http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=9410#9410