quick question regarding infinite loops

E

exiledforcefreak

RIP Jacob KT 2/16/06
I have a set cyber pheonix and I snatch steal my opponent's cyber dragon (successfully).

which of the following is true?
a)I can not flip summon my cyber phoenix
b)I can flip summon my cyber phoenix, but it would result in snatch steal's destruction (since it can't resolve)

basically I'm asking if forbiddance of actions that would lead to an infinite loop is limited to the activation of cards, and does not apply to game actions such as summoning etc.

also, would activating desert sunlight with final attack orders out/book of taiyou in that situation be a legal move?

think about this when answering the previous question:
can my OPPONENT activate book of taiyou on my face down cyber phoenix?
Lets also not forget the metamorphosis/soul exchange ruling.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
ygo doc said:
Digital Jedi is correct. You guys are confusing effects of cards with game play.

The last example is different. Muka Muka will gain ATK due to the drawing of a card during Draw Phase. We cannot skip the Draw or Draw Phase. We cannot rewind the game to a point prior to the loop because there is no loop yet. Rather that make new rules for the game and skip Draw Phase and the Draw, we are forced to destroy the cause of the loop in this case.

It doesn't matter that the opponent did not know that the set card was Cyber Phoenix. He learned by activating his card effect, he created an infinitel loop. We must now rewind the game to a state prior to the loop and restart there. Are you guys who want to destroy Cyber Phoenix or another card, going to rule the game different if you Creature Swap or Change of Heart your face-down Cyber Phoenix to your opponent and you KNOW the face-down card and flip it with a card effect?

The ruling is the same whether the set card is known or not known in this case.

doc
Click to expand...
I hope you meant to say that was your opinion. If the definition of an infinite loop was written down somewhere, someone would have quoted it by now as definitive proof of what happens. And they haven't.

How do you know what happens in this situation? I would suggest you don't, and you're guessing.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'll have to say that I side with DJ and doc on this, whether or not is quoted as a definite proof, many of us judge it as a concensus that: any manual actions that cause an infinite loop will be rewind until before the activation of the card that caused the infinite loop.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
No one pays any attention to me <sniff> :crying


Heh, that message is the one I was referring to as contradicting the post Kevin made, which is two posts above Curtis'. As far as the definition of the infinite loop is concerned, have you read Kevin's post on Pole Position thoroughly? It pretty well defines it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Digital Jedi said:
No one pays any attention to me <sniff> :crying


Heh, that message is the one I was referring to as contradicting the post Kevin made, which is two posts above Curtis'. As far as the definition of the infinite loop is concerned, have you read Kevin's post on Pole Position thoroughly? It pretty well defines it.
Click to expand...

I paid attention to you...I just disagreed with you. You posted the listing for Curtis' ruling on Ceasefire vs Pole Position (which, by the way, according to you is a mechanic that the player controls) and in that ruling, Pole Position is destroyed because it caused the loop. It was that posting and the rulings on Netrep that I formed my opinion by. Now we have Kevin who says, rewind. So, the real question is.....WHICH authority do we adhere to? Kevin or Curtis?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Maruno said:
I hope you meant to say that was your opinion. If the definition of an infinite loop was written down somewhere, someone would have quoted it by now as definitive proof of what happens. And they haven't.

How do you know what happens in this situation? I would suggest you don't, and you're guessing.
Click to expand...
What is it that you are asking? The definition of a infinite loop as pointed out by UDE's Kevin Stewart or my answer? The only other published information regarding infinite loops is Amplifier with Jinzo vs. Imperial Order.

My answer and everybody's answer is certainly their opinion as there is no FAQ or judge ruling on this particular scenario. If you wish me to retract my statement of Digital Jedi as being right, then consider it so, and read it as I agree with DJ. There is a very clear distinction in how to deal with infinite loops if a player has a choice in summoning, setting a monster, setting or activating a Spell or Trap card, or card effect, if it would cause an infinite loop versus carrying out a required game mechanics such as drawing a card or changing phases that would create an infinite loop.

Certainly you and others have merit in your argument, considering what Curtis has posted on the judge site. Alas, those were all rulings and examples with the specific card Pole Position.

Alas, we are not dealing with Pole Position here and also no specific ruling. However, I as an L3 judge would site this FAQ post under Amplifier which says this: You cannot activate a card that would cause an infinite loop because its effect cannot resolve completely.

Let's use the example of a Snatch Stolen Jinzo equipped with Amplifier and the new controller of Jinzo also has Imperial Order set. We already know the Jinzo controller cannot activate his Imperial Order; however, what if the opponent activates Bait Doll targeting the set Imperial Order? The opponent did NOT know the set card was IO. If I do indeed allow Bait Doll to resolve, which card do I destroy as the cause of the infinite loop? Certainly, seems as if Imperial Order is the easiest as it came to the Field last, but Amplifier, Jinzo and Snatch Steal are all playing a role in creating the loop. It is not as clear cut as when Pole Position is on the Field and clearly it is the cause of the loop.

As in all sanctioned tournaments, the HJ gets to make the decision here. S/He may wish to destroy Imperial Order as the cause of the loop. If I'm judging, I would quote the UDE FAQ ruling I posted and have the player return Bait Doll to its source and inform him that I cannot allow him to activate that card with its original target due to the creation of an infinite loop.

I think this question bears asking on the judge site. Also, would there be a difference if the card effect was targeting or non-targeting. Book of Taiyou targets. Ceasefire and Desert Sunlight do not. Does this have any merit in the decision to rewind the game or destroy a card involved with the infinite loop.

doc
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
HorusMaster said:
I paid attention to you...I just disagreed with you. You posted the listing for Curtis' ruling on Ceasefire vs Pole Position (which, by the way, according to you is a mechanic that the player controls) and in that ruling, Pole Position is destroyed because it caused the loop. It was that posting and the rulings on Netrep that I formed my opinion by. Now we have Kevin who says, rewind. So, the real question is.....WHICH authority do we adhere to? Kevin or Curtis?
Click to expand...
Actually, the FAQ ruling is what Kevin posted in his message (and was added to the FAQ about that same time). Curtis posted his afterwards in response to another related question. But look over our other FAQ rulings, and anytime a card was played voluntarily, we've always been instructed to rewind.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well, I agree with Doc that this particular situation needs to be brought to the attention of the judges and have a ruling on this particular scenario as it's more likely to come up than a situation with Amplifier/Jinzo or Pole Position. I guess until such time as we have an official ruling, it will be up to the Head Judge as to how they rule.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Digital Jedi said:
Heh, that message is the one I was referring to as contradicting the post Kevin made, which is two posts above Curtis'. As far as the definition of the infinite loop is concerned, have you read Kevin's post on Pole Position thoroughly? It pretty well defines it.
Click to expand...
The basic rule in the Yu-Gi-Oh! TRADING CARD GAME has always been that you cannot activate cards that cause infinite loops, because you are deliberately creating a situation where effects cannot resolve. And effects MUST resolve as much as possible.
Click to expand...
That's the definition as I see it. Note the "deliberately" there. There's nothing that says "even accidentally, as long as it was an activated card that did it".

The example Curtis answers was different to everything Kevin had talked about, in one important respect: the player did not know what the card was, and had no way of knowing. That makes it a different situation, and we should follow the ruling given for that kind of situation. As I read it, that post does NOT contradict Kevin's examples, since after all it is a different scenario (knowingly vs unknowingly vs unavoidably).

Until there's an official ruling otherwise, I'm going to assume that if the player does not know they are causing an infinite loop, then their action is allowed and the loop is later destroyed by destroying a card.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It looks as though I have made everyones head explode... :-:

Anyway, all the examples from Kevin's post assume the KNOWLEDGE that THE ACTION WILL CAUSE AN INFINITE LOOP.

If we look at the Ceasefire ruling we can come to the following conclusions:
A) if you KNOW activating a card will result in an infinite loop, repair the state of gameplay by rewinding it.
B) if you DON'T KNOW activating a card will result in an infinite loop, the source of the infinite loop is destroyed.

Also, am I the only one that realizes Desert Sunlight works only on YOUR OWN MONSTERS and will NOT flip an opponent's face down monsters face up?

The only thing left a mystery is the following:
If I have my opponents cyber dragon equiped with snatch steal and a set cyber phoenix. My opponent activates Book of Taiyou. Which is destroyed, Cyber Phoenix or Snatch Steal? I will ask the judge list this question after submitting this post.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
That's what I've said. And I've already submitted the same question to the Judges' List, but if you ask it too then so much the better. They might then deem it a question worth answering.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I do have to say that I'm leaning towards it being Cyber Phoenix cause it would appear as though it is causing snatch steal to fluctuate endlessly... although the reverse could still be said.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
exiledforcefreak said:
The only thing left a mystery is the following:
If I have my opponents cyber dragon equiped with snatch steal and a set cyber phoenix. My opponent activates Book of Taiyou. Which is destroyed, Cyber Phoenix or Snatch Steal? I will ask the judge list this question after submitting this post.
Click to expand...
"Cyber Phoenix" will be destroyed in this case since it is the source of the loop.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The obvious comparison is that both Pole Position and Cyber Phoenix offer immunity to other cards in the loop (albeit for only half the time according to what those other cards do).

Then perhaps the infinite loop source should be defined as the card which provides immunity to another card in the loop for only half of that loop.

I think Pole Position, in the other examples, is the only card to be constantly applying its effect on and off to the involved monster. The other cards are merely having their effects unaffecting said monster, but those effects are still active. Since Pole Position is the only card that is changing its state itself, it should probably be the source of the loop. Therefore my above definition holds, and Cyber Phoenix is also the loop source in appropriate situations.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DaGuy ~ No, I don't think it's anything like that. This situation is not a flip-flop thing.

Post 31 onwards gives pretty much an identical situation to the one we're discussing here, and posts 32 onwards is pretty much identical to this thread, i.e. people disagreeing, no conclusion.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Is it just me or does the level 1 judge list hate replying to people? They have yet to reply to both the question related to this post and the question I asked outlining how a two monsters with 0 atk killing each other is inconsitant with Waboku...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
exiledforcefreak said:
Is it just me or does the level 1 judge list hate replying to people? They have yet to reply to both the question related to this post and the question I asked outlining how a two monsters with 0 atk killing each other is inconsitant with Waboku...
Click to expand...
1st. The Judge List rarely ever replies to anything regarding an issue being discussed on a Forum site.

2nd. "Waboku" doesn't make the ATK of your monster 0. And it clearly states that your monsters cannot be destroyed by battle, so how is that inconsistent?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top