Board and Card Games

Rainbolt

2:03 PM

I think I'm going to write a MTG quiz bot that interacts with the chat room.

I just need assistance coming up with thousands of questions

I really enjoyed the Diablo 2 chat bots that would play trivia with you and keep a lifetime score

as well as a per game score

murgatroid99

3:36 PM

@Rainbolt one idea: the bot posts the text of a rule, and we have to guess the rule number. You get 1 point for getting the part before the period right, and 3 points for getting the whole thing right.

John

Hello Murgatroid99. It is a pleasure to meet you.

murgatroid99

@John hi. The first good thing to know about chat is that if you want to respond to/notify a specific person, put an @ before their name (like @John). And if you want to respond to a specific message, there is a small arrow at the right end of the message that you can click to respond to it.

Rainbolt

@murgatroid99 I like that. To keep it quick there needs to be multiple choices I think.

Maybe "What major section does this rule comes from (answer 1 through 9)?"

murgatroid99

@Rainbolt "Major section" feels almost too easy. Though, I guess I won't really know until we try it

Rainbolt

3:51 PM

It's not about ease. It's about how quick you are

If you can answer questions quickly and correctly, then you will perform well as a floor judge under pressure

murgatroid99

Oh, you want to give the win to the first person who answer?

Rainbolt

Exactly

doppelgreener

quote a sentence from a rule, remove a particular keyword (like a card type), do a fill in the blank challenge

Rainbolt

Yea, those work well too. The Diablo 2 trivia bots would fill in letters slowly until someone guessed correctly

Although I tend to think that copy paste searching would make that way too easy

doppelgreener

it makes the other one too easy as well

Rainbolt

3:53 PM

Ok, I'm a hypocrite

doppelgreener

that isn't the word i'd pick, just a fault in the plans

Rainbolt

Maybe a vote to trash questions that nobody likes

murgatroid99

I think that if you're going for the first answer, someone who knows the rules would still beat someone who searches

Rainbolt

Yea probably. So that seems like a good idea.

doppelgreener

@Rainbolt definitely a command like !makesnogoddamnsenseatall would be good for teaching the bot to drop bad questions

@murgatroid99 totally

Rainbolt

3:58 PM

I think it would probably stop and ask people to vote Keep or Drop

Default to keep. Don't drop if there are insufficient votes

Shouldn't happen all that often after the first pack of bad questions are weeded out

And it should probably ignore users who start drop votes that get rejected a lot.

We learned our lesson from StackEgg

John

@murgatroid99 @murgatroid99, got it. Thanks. I've chatted very little on any Stack Exchange site. btw. I bust a gut on Lore Seeker rulings. Thanks.

Rainbolt

Ok, I have a puzzle for you guys.

murgatroid99

@Rainbolt perhaps it would be best to not add this feature until we see a need for it

Rainbolt

Can someone help me find a card like Urborg except for something other than swamps?

And a card that will put Urborg and this card onto the battlefield simultaneously?

murgatroid99

@Rainbolt there's always Blood Moon, though that's not really the same thing

Rainbolt

4:13 PM

Do they apply on the same layer?

murgatroid99

@Rainbolt yes, so you have to put Blood Moon in first

Rainbolt

Great. Now we need a card that instant speed puts them both onto the battlefield

murgatroid99

Oh, wait, blood moon says "non-basic". That's less useful

There's Stormtide Leviathan

I think that's about it, though

Rainbolt

Ok. We need to put Stormtide and Urborg onto the field at the exact same time

murgatroid99

why, exactly, do you want to do this?

Rainbolt

4:18 PM

Ok, here's the puzzle.

Alice, Bob, and Charlie are playing a game of Magic.

Alice is the active player.

Bob casts a spell that will put Stormtide Leviathan and Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth onto the field simultaneously.

Alice concedes in response.

Bob's spell resolves. What is the timestamp order of Stormtide and Urborg?

murgatroid99

It doesn't matter

Rainbolt

Yea, the examples are poor

murgatroid99

They're both "in addition to their other types"

Rainbolt

Ok, I need two cards like Blood Moon then

Sorry, my bad

murgatroid99

I don't think there are two such cards (not counting Magus of the Moon because it has the same exact effect as Blood Moon)

Rainbolt

4:22 PM

I just need two effects that require a timestamp order

Any two will do

murgatroid99

But even if there was such a card, I think the answer would be "their controller chooses the order for cards with the same controller, and APNAP for cards with different controllers"

Rainbolt

You would think

But the rules say the active player chooses the order.

But guess what happens when the active player concedes in a multiplayer match?

The turn doesn't end immediately. It continues without an active player.

800.4h If a player leaves the game during his or her turn, that turn continues to its completion
without an active player. If the active player would receive priority, instead the next player in
turn order receives priority, or the top object on the stack resolves, or the phase or step ends,
whichever is appropriate.

murgatroid99

Simple answer: APNAP

Rainbolt

613.6g If two or more objects would receive a timestamp simultaneously, such as by entering a
zone simultaneously or becoming attached simultaneously, the active player determines their
timestamp order at that time.

It's not apnap

The active player determine timestamp order

And 800.4h If a player leaves the game during his or her turn, that turn continues to its completion without an active player.

You think the next player in line would just decide instead?

murgatroid99

How about "If the active player would receive priority, instead the next player in turn order receives priority, or the top object on the stack resolves, or the phase or step ends, whichever is appropriate." (the rest of 800.4h)? Why not extend that to choices too?

Rainbolt

4:26 PM

That is the reasonable answer, but I don't see a rules backing for it

I mean, I am 100% sure that you answer you provided is what would happen if a judge had to make the call.

I just think it's an interesting situation

murgatroid99

OK, you're probably right, there's no rule that specifically says it.

Rainbolt

I didn't know until just now that the game could even lack an active player

This totally breaks the MTG game I have been tinkering with

I have to replace the active player with a zombie that just asks the guy to his left what the answer is.

murgatroid99

I guess it makes more sense than the alternative

Like having someone be the active player, but not be taking their turn

Rainbolt

A more logical mechanism would be "When the active player concedes, they are assumed to pass priority for the remainder of the turn. Any choices they would make are instead made by the player to the active player's left."

Nevermind I read the rest of the rule

Hmmm... but the way I worded it, the next player would get to double vote for Council's Judgement. That wouldn't be good.

So my way is more broken

murgatroid99

I think you could just say "any choices that would normally be made by the active player are instead made by the next player in turn order"

Rainbolt

4:34 PM

It looks like the rules are worded as best as they can be without a more severe top level redesign.

@murgatroid99 That still gives the next guy a double vote for Council's Judgement though.

murgatroid99

Council's Judgement should be fine because there is no active player, so they don't get a vote anyway

You don't pretend that there is an active player, and you definitely don't count them as a player when voting. You just shift any decisions they would still have to make to the next guy over

Rainbolt

I guess searching for a rules hole here is kind of silly. Someone could concede in the middle of a resolving spell, and it would wreak all kinds of havoc.

murgatroid99

Choices about timestamps are probably one of the very few things that would actually be affected

Rainbolt

@murgatroid99 That makes sense

murgatroid99

So I guess I would extend 800.4h with "If the active player would need to make a choice, instead the next player in turn order makes that choice"

Now I'm wondering if timestamps are the only choice specifically made by the active player

Anyway, I pinged Matt Tabak on Twitter and pointed out the omission

Rainbolt

4:49 PM

@murgatroid99 I believe so

murgatroid99

6:16 PM

Wow, that took a long time to pop up

ikegami

6:27 PM

@Rainbolt, Yes?

Rainbolt

The question raised is "Can tournament rules be ignored or modified at Regular REL, and if so, how will a player be penalized for failing to follow the revised rules?"

ikegami

TR are for Pro and Comp

There's another document that applies for Reg

Rainbolt

And that document allows the store to hold you unwillingly?

ikegami

hu?

Rainbolt

Let me revise my question

At Regular, what penalties do you believe will be assessed if a rare redraft is supposed to occur and you just leave?

ikegami

6:29 PM

Nothing. The question is about leaving with the rare.

Rainbolt

Errr... leave with the rare.

(duh)

ikegami

s/Nothing/Nothing relevant/

Criminal charges

Rainbolt

Criminal charges are irrelevant?

So you consider it stealing?

murgatroid99

@Rainbolt That's generally what it's called if someone walks out of a store with something they don't own

And if store policy is that you don't own the rares you have until after the rare re-draft, then that qualifies

ikegami

The question is whether you're allowed to keep it or not. You asked what penalties there could be for keeping it. If you're not allowed to keep it, the penalty can be criminal charges.

Rainbolt

6:33 PM

If you are playing at Regular, then this is a DCI sanctioned event. You can't force players to give up their cards at a DCI sanctioned event. They own the cards in their hands the moment they decide to leave.

ikegami

If it's their cards. You keep begging the question

Rainbolt

Well, you stated earlier that Regular doesn't follow TR

I was leaning on that, and for a moment I had to stop

But now I see no proof of that. Why doesn't Regular follow TR?

ikegami

Because Regular is suppose to be casual, inviting, forgiving.

Rainbolt

And here's the answer to the question I keep begging: Players who drop during limited events own the cards that they correctly have in their possession at that time.
This includes any unopened or partially drafted boosters.

It's under Section 2.10 Dropping from a Tournament

diego

Regular REL still uses the MTR, what it doesn't use is the IPG the JAR replaces that

ikegami

6:36 PM

Section 2.10 of what?

Rainbolt

And I quoted it in my answer. Heck, it's even quoted in the question.

Tournament Rules

wpn.wizards.com/sites/wpn/files/attachements/…

murgatroid99

@Rainbolt OK, you keep quoting that rule, and ikegami replies that it doesn't apply. Saying it again won't advance the argument

Rainbolt

But he won't say why it doesn't apply. I can't argue with "It's supposed to be casual, forgiving, blah blah blah"

I'm supposed to have a million dollars. But I don't, unfortunately.

ikegami

I told you why: It doesn't apply because it's REL.

Rainbolt

Throughout that Tournament Rules, distinctions are made between Regular, Competitive, and Pro. Why would they do that if the document didn't even apply to Regular?

murgatroid99

6:38 PM

@ikegami OK, is there anything official that says that the Tournament Rules don't apply to Regular REL?

Rainbolt

And what? Tournament Rules don't apply because it's REL?

ikegami

@diego says it's the trechnically the IPG that doesn't apply, but stores routinely override the TR.

*I told you why: It doesn't apply because it's Regular REL. (word was missing)

Rainbolt

Right and if you let them override the TR and you stay and rare redraft, more power to you. But you can also pack your cards and walk right on out of the door.

ikegami

Only if it's your pack

That depends on the store/event

murgatroid99

@Rainbolt OK, here's the thing. If the store owners call the cops, they can say that you walked out with cards you don't own, and you can point to a Magic: the Gathering rule that says otherwise. Who do you think wins?

ikegami

6:40 PM

@murgatroid99, I'm not saying the store is lying

Rainbolt

But you do own them. The rule literally says that.

Players who drop during limited events own the cards that they correctly have in their possession at that time.

diego

@ikegami The MTR specifically state if portions of it apply to only Competitive REL or Professional REL, this rule doesn't state that therefore it applies to all RELs including Regular

ikegami

The TR does. But not necessarily the rules of the event

@diego, Did you read what I wrote?

Rainbolt

Ok, your argument is essentially "The tournament rules don't apply to Regular because the tournament is Regular." which is self-reinforcing and doesn't actually take the discussion anywhere.

And again, why would the document make distinctions between Regular, Comp, and Pro if they didn't even apply to Regular?

murgatroid99

@ikegami I'm not saying that either. I'm saying that in the eyes of the law, store policy is likely to trump DCI rules.

ikegami

6:43 PM

@Rainbolt, Would you rather I lie?

Rainbolt

Can you ask a real, non rhetorical question?

murgatroid99

@ikegami I think the point he's making is that you haven't justified the claim that the Tournament Rules do not apply at Regular REL

Justified, that is, with official quotations or rules

Rainbolt

He tried to justify them. "I told you why: It doesn't apply because it's (Regular) REL."

Doesn't apply to regular because it's regular. Makes complete sense.

ikegami

Sorry, I don't have any store rules handy.

murgatroid99

@ikegami Well (leaving aside the question of law enforcement), why are stores running sanctioned events allowed to override the Tournament Rules?

ikegami

6:48 PM

I don't know. I can think of quite a few reasons, but it's probably a mix. But primarily, running a tournament is secondary to running a store.

Rainbolt

If the store has a policy at Friday Night Magic that every card you draft is technically owned by the store forever, but you get to take it home if you want, do you think that store is still DCI sanctioned?

murgatroid99

@ikegami I mean "allowed" in the context of the contract they have with the DCI that allows them to call the event "sanctioned"

Rainbolt

My guess is no. Whatever twisted scenario you have in your head, it doesn't work in real life. It might happen once and then that store is no longer sanctioned. And if you aren't sanctioned, then guess what? You can't even run events at Regular.

murgatroid99

And now I go AFK for lunch

ikegami

Quite the opposite. I'm the one talking about real life.

Rainbolt

6:50 PM

Opposite of what?

ikegami

You said I wasn't talking about real life.

Rainbolt

That's not what I said.

The scenario in your head will not work in real life. That's what I said.

The real-life scenario in your head will not work in real life.

(if that helps)

ikegami

How can real life not work in real life?

I'm describing real life, and you're telling me it won't work in real life.

Rainbolt

The scenario that you believe will work in real life, will not.

I can keep going all day until the point comes across.

ikegami

I don't know what you mean by "believe" or "will work". I'm describing what "is"

Rainbolt

6:52 PM

But you haven't provided any authoritative proof.

ikegami

Of what?

Rainbolt

Of what you think "is"

I'm telling you it isn't.

ikegami

I've seen it personally.

Rainbolt

You've personally seen what exactly?

Someone get arrested or have some DCI action taken against them for dropping and maintaining possession of the cards they have at that very moment?

ikegami

TRs not being adhered to in stores

...in DCI sanctioned events

Rainbolt

6:54 PM

You aren't following me at all

Yes, not all stores follow TR

Yes, most players don't make a fuss about it

No, that doesn't mean that their rules trump DCI rules

I'm not getting through to you. Go write your own answer now. Or deal with the ones that exist.

ikegami

It sure does. You're on their premises. Your contract is with them, not DCI. They have a contract with DCI, but you are bound to the store's rules even if they violate their contract with DCI.

Rainbolt

Then go write an answer about how store rules trump DCI rules, and so it doesn't really matter what the rules say because store rules prevail.

In fact, you should do that on every single rules question.

ikegami

What? not every question is about what stores allow

Rainbolt

Then don't write an answer on every question.

Just write an answer for this question

I won't even vote on it because I am biased at this point.

I'll let everyone else vote

Wait a second. Assuming you are right, couldn't the store override the rules are Competitive and Professional too?

Wouldn't you then be playing at "Regular Plus Store Rules", "Competitive Plus Store Rules", and "Professional Plus Store Rules"? That seems weird to me.

Rainbolt

8:01 PM

I need more puzzles

murgatroid99

@Rainbolt The rule guessing thing should be enough for trying it out, I think

4

A: How many rules does Magic have?

There are 2008 subrules in the September 26, 2014 revision of the Comprehensive Rules. I found this by running the following command on Linux: curl --silent http://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/MagicCompRules_20140926.txt | \ grep -c '^\s*[0-9]\{3\}\.[0-9]\+[a-z]*' This downloads the text...

That seems like enough to me

Rainbolt

Trying what out?

murgatroid99

Oh, I assumed you were talking about your quiz bot thing

Rainbolt

Community be damned if that question turns out to be useful. Never have I had a more downvoted question.

Aw man. If we call it trivia, and trivia is "bits of information of little importance", then by definition my question will be of little importance :(

murgatroid99

I don't know if you know this, but that's actually the lowest-scoring question on the whole site

Rainbolt

8:09 PM

Oh I do.

I'm honored even

I am making this site a better place. You know why? Because the lowest scoring question on the site isn't all the terrible.

If the lowest scoring question were a heaping pile of crap, then that is where the bar is set.

Just remember: It could be worse

murgatroid99

Anyway, if you weren't talking about the quiz bot before, then I guess you just meant general Magic puzzles to figure out?

Rainbolt

Yes

murgatroid99

I'd mention the thing with two Humilities and an Opalescence, but I think that's actually an example in the comp rules

There's also a site where someone figured out the most damage you could do without any infinite combos (and I assume with other restrictions so that you don't play an arbitrary number of lands and cast Fireball). It was impressive, but I would never have figured it out on my own

Oh, yeah, this was it:

> What's the highest, non-infinite-combo damage you can do on turn one?

Rainbolt

You mean a humility and two opalescence?

It's in the rulings on Humility

murgatroid99

@Rainbolt oh, that's where it was

Anyway, the restriction on the last question is that you have exactly 60 cards and it's Vintage legal

Rainbolt

8:25 PM

This is not something I could ever hope to surpass

murgatroid99

This is the better one

That one is more restricted

Rainbolt

So basically, 2^27 damage (on the one I linked to)?

murgatroid99

@Rainbolt No, 10^(2^27)

It's that many digits

Anyway, the one I linked goes to 2^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^30 using Knuth's Up-arrow notation

Knuth's up-arrow notation

In mathematics, Knuth's up-arrow notation is a method of notation for very large integers, introduced by Donald Knuth in 1976. It is closely related to the Ackermann function and especially to the hyperoperation sequence. The idea is based on the fact that multiplication can be viewed as iterated addition and exponentiation as iterated multiplication. Continuing in this manner leads to iterated exponentiation (tetration) and to the remainder of the hyperoperation sequence, which is commonly denoted using Knuth arrow notation. == Introduction == The ordinary arithmetical operations of addition,...

Rainbolt

Interesting

I don't think my bot understands Knuth's notation

murgatroid99

There's a long Wizards forum thread about the one I just linked, so I'm not sure if they came up with anything better

Rainbolt

8:30 PM

And furthermore, I highly doubt that these people found the best answer even

murgatroid99

Probably not. But at that point, the numbers are so large that comparing them becomes confusing

Rainbolt

They should have a "Most non-infinite damage on turn one that cannot be stopped by an opponent."

Actually, I don't know that the non-infinite is needed there

murgatroid99

Almost anything can be stopped by an opponent

Rainbolt

Right. Almost anything. And you'll almost never deal 2^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^30 on turn one.

But this seems like an area where "almost never" is totally ignored.

I wonder if there is an unbeatable hand in Magic

Where going first simply wins you the game

murgatroid99

OK, I'll put it another way: it's going to be hard to come up with a combo that isn't stopped by an opponent with 3 Force of Wills to stop your first 3 mana rocks

Rainbolt

8:36 PM

Well, if I have four black lotus, I think that takes care of that

Is there a card that can stop the fourth one?

murgatroid99

In that case, you have to combo with just 3 other cards and 3 mana

Rainbolt

That shouldn't be difficult. You are already only one mana away from Treasure Cruise

murgatroid99

But if you spend all of your mana on treasure cruise, you can't do anything else

Rainbolt

There has to be a combo in Vintage that costs three mana or less for only three cards

murgatroid99

Anyway, I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm just saying that the search space is significantly narrowed if you assume that your opponent will counter the 3 most important cards in the combo

Rainbolt

8:41 PM

Grand Architect and Pili-Pala gets you close

murgatroid99

but that's already an infinite combo

Rainbolt

Oh right

I thought we were ignoring that for a second

Just trying to think of an unbeatable hand

murgatroid99

ok, let's ignore that

What if your opponent saves their counterspells for the Grand Architect or the Pili-Pala?

Rainbolt

We still have one more card left

I guess they counter that too

We need combo pieces that can't be countered I guess

murgatroid99

I guess I'm working on the worst case assumption, which is that your opponent can counter 3 spells, and that they act as though they have perfect information. If the combo can still succeed, then it is truly unbeatable

Since all free counterspells are blue, Autumn's Veil would probably be useful

Rainbolt

8:46 PM

Yes I like that assumption

murgatroid99

But it can also be countered

Dromoka would do it, but it's expensive

Leyline of Lifeforce would do it

Then you just have to produce enough mana to cast creatures that can generate infinite mana

Oh, wait, an opponent might have something worse than 3 Force of Wills

Rainbolt

Ok. We have Leyline of Sanctity and Leyline of Lifeforce. We are hexproof and creatures can't be countered.