Sign up ×
Board & Card Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people who like playing board games, designing board games or modifying the rules of existing board games. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Say that both players each had 2 Leaden Myr, 2 Myr Galvanizer, and a Nantuko Shade. (Or any other way to get unlimited mana, and a Nantuko Shade).

Player 1 attacks with his Nantuko Shade, and player 2 blocks with his Nantuko Shade. Before damage is assigned, each has chances to pump up their Nantuko Shade as much as they want. They can't just declare them to be "infinite," but each can always one-up the other player. What happens?

It seems there would be a loop of events, but would one player eventually be forced to break the loop as per rule 714.3? Is it considered the same game state after each player pumps their creature a bunch as it was before?

This was discussed at length on this other Q&A site, but no conclusion was reached. Some felt that the game would simply be a draw, others felt that the active player would be forced to make a different decision to break the loop. Others felt that you would just have to call a judge and see what he decides.

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

This is a fragmented loop. The active player(who's turn it is) would be forced to make a decision that stops the loop.

716.3. Sometimes a loop can be fragmented, meaning that each player involved in the loop performs an independent action that results in the same game state being reached multiple times. If that happens, the active player (or, if the active player is not involved in the loop, the first player in turn order who is involved) must then make a different game choice so the loop does not continue.

Example: In a two-player game, the active player controls a creature with the ability “{0}: [This creature] gains flying,” the nonactive player controls a permanent with the ability “{0}: Target creature loses flying,” and nothing in the game cares how many times an ability has been activated. Say the active player activates his creature’s ability, it resolves, then the nonactive player activates her permanent’s ability targeting that creature, and it resolves. This returns the game to a game state it was at before. The active player must make a different game choice (in other words, anything other than activating that creature’s ability again). The creature doesn’t have flying. Note that the nonactive player could have prevented the fragmented loop simply by not activating her permanent’s ability, in which case the creature would have had flying. The nonactive player always has the final choice and is therefore able to determine whether the creature has flying.

In essence- the attacking player is screwed.

share|improve this answer
I'm not sure this is actually applicable here - specifically, the same game state is not being reached (as the power/toughness of the relevant creatures has changed). It's not clear to me that the rules actually handle this situation cleanly, though I presume the resolution would look something like this. – Steven Stadnicki Jan 29 '14 at 1:36
@JoeW The problem is that while 'Game State' doesn't actually have a formal definition within the comprehensive rules (!), it surely must include things like the power/toughness of creatures. For instance, imagine a card that read 'creatures with power greater than 100 have Trample'. This card wants to know exactly what the P/T of every creature in play is, and so pumping a creature must yield a distinct game state. – Steven Stadnicki Jan 29 '14 at 2:23
I'm not saying that 'fragmented loop' doesn't define the concept; I'm saying that the rule specifically speaks to 'the same game state being reached multiple times' and having a different P/T on a creature than previously seems clearly to be a different game state. Their example even calls this out, where the result after a loop is explicitly the same (nothing about the game is different, other than 'an ability has been activated'). – Steven Stadnicki Jan 29 '14 at 3:01
If power/toughness were no part of the game state (which I don't believe to be true), both the AP and the NAP can do something else to change the game state, like tapping a land, casting a spell. That way, game state is changed and they're both ready for another round of pumping. As that would still leave the AP at a disadvantage, the AP has to hope that the NAP has pumped their Shade to just one more than the AP's Shade, and then cast (for instance) a Giant Growth. That way, the NAP has to respond by pumping and the AP can now respond by pumping. – SQB Jan 29 '14 at 9:54
If I were the judge called over, I would rule both shades to be destroyed. One end to a loop like this is that there is one infinity/infinity creature blocking another. Unless either player has some trick to get one of the shades out of combat, destroy the other, or do something else that would affect the loops infinite outcome, then they both should be destroyed. – Pow-Ian Jan 29 '14 at 12:29

First things first, this is a fragmented loop as defined by 716.3, the definition of pertinent game-state is left up to the discretion of the players or the judge if involved. There is plenty of precedence that repeated usage of abilities that make a minor adjustment to the game state are considered loops. Since we have a loop we by extension have a fragmented loop due to having multiple players.

Unfortunately no one is talking about the shortcut employed by the players, which is very important to how the problem gets resolved.

In these instances a shortcut is not allowed unless agreed between players or a few actions have been taken to establish how the loop will function. How the loop begins drastically changes how the overall game will be impacted.

Assuming there are no other pertinent abilities available, it would begin with the active player having the option to activate an ability on the declare blockers step.

If they choose to begin creating mana, the non-active player can bury their loop creating a non-fragmented loop, allowing "infinite pump", similarly every time the active player tried to pump they could repeat that action. An example shortcut is "every time you pump I pump 100 times", since the active player is required to break the loop, this would end with their shade dead.

If they choose to pass, the non-active player would be given the chance. The reverse of the first example would happen. Note that in this case the active player has to break the loop, however since they got to pump before the loop started, this isn't a problem. The non-active player gets an extra pump, but that doesn't matter when the active player already got lots of pumps.

If the non-active player also passes then the two 1/1's kill each other.

Thus unless I am missing something, it is a game of chicken and thus will result in two 1/1's killing each other.

share|improve this answer
Any explanation for the downvote? – Guvante Feb 14 '14 at 17:56

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.