Timeline for Is Magic: The Gathering a consistent game?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 29, 2015 at 10:18 | comment | added | Pacerier | @Hackworth, How would you decide who wins in the case of times up? | |
| May 31, 2015 at 17:45 | comment | added | ikegami | Re "if the rules contradict themselves, then the game is in an undefined state", No, it's not. You still know the state of every game object even if there's no way forward. | |
| May 31, 2015 at 17:40 | comment | added | ikegami | Re "As for the part you now say was relevant", No, pointing out the answer is wrong was always the point. | |
| May 31, 2015 at 17:10 | comment | added | Cascabel | As for the part you now say was relevant, look again at my original comment: "though as other answer point out...". I totally agree that this answer isn't entirely correct about the game going on indefinitely. This is all merely a response to what you actually wrote in your first comment. | |
| May 31, 2015 at 17:09 | comment | added | Cascabel | @ikegami Like I said, if the rules contradict themselves, then the game is in an undefined state (you can't tell what should happen). That's equivalent to the contrapositive, that if the game is not in an undefined state, the rules haven't contradicted themselves. So the bolded statement implies that there are no rules contradictions, and answers the OP's question. Whether it's a good answer is another matter, but "that's not what the OP asked is at the very least an exaggeration, and not a good starting point for a discussion about the merits of the answer. | |
| May 31, 2015 at 16:30 | comment | added | ikegami | @Jefromi, And you totally ignored the relevant portion of the comment which is that the answer to the second question is wrong. | |
| May 31, 2015 at 16:27 | comment | added | ikegami | @Jefromi, The other question doesn't ask if the game can get into an undefined state either. The bolded text doesn't answer either question. You could have contradictory rules without having any undefined states, and you could have undefined states without contradictory rules. Saying there's no undefined states does nothing to answer whether there are contradictory rules | |
| May 30, 2015 at 23:48 | comment | added | Cascabel | @ikegami The OP asked more than one thing. If at some point the rules contradicted themselves as to what happens, that'd be an undefined state. So it seems the bolded text is an answer to the first part of the question, and then the paragraph afterwards addresses infinite loops (though as other answers point out, that's not the only way it could go on indefinitely). | |
| May 30, 2015 at 23:04 | comment | added | ikegami | White the game can never end up in an undefined state, that's not what the OP asked. He asked if a game could go on indefinitely, and the answer is yes. | |
| May 30, 2015 at 22:19 | comment | added | Rainbolt | I downvoted because the rules updates have proven time and time again that there are some situations that the rules do not cover. Rule 711.2a was fixed in the Fate Reforged update, to fix a hole in the rules. Rule 713.1c was fixed in the Dragons of Tarkir update, for the same reason. A large majority of rules updates are just minor clarifications, but these two changes address actual holes. Given the pattern, I doubt that the comprehensive rules are suddenly free of holes. | |
| May 30, 2015 at 21:00 | comment | added | Hackworth | I wonder how you would go about proving that answer anyway. Some sort of mathematical proof? I will readily admit that that would be beyond my abilities. Barring that, I have to base my answer on my lack of knowledge of counterexamples, and on my experience that the MtG ruleset has constantly been refined since its inception. If you have any idea how to go about proving the ruleset's consistency in a more rigorous way, let me know. If there is no better way, then downvotes (whether or not they're from you) are unwarranted. | |
| May 30, 2015 at 17:22 | comment | added | murgatroid99♦ | In some ways, this kind of seems like a cop-out answer. It's easy enough to say that there are no contradictions or undefined states, but it's a lot harder to either prove/justify that statement or find a counterexample. | |
| May 30, 2015 at 11:01 | vote | accept | user107952 | ||
| May 30, 2015 at 10:20 | history | answered | Hackworth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |