What if there was a "Loop Cap" like we have a draw cap? Something along the lines of; "Any infinite loop can only be triggered/occur a maximum of 3 times per turn?"

They should enable "liking" of posts like this. Like!

"Any infinite loop can only be triggered/occur a maximum of 3 times per turn"

Paradox!

I disagree, solely on principle. I think in this game an infinite loop will always be difficult to set up due to better playtesting and support than other games which I won't mention here. Infinite loops are possible, but I kind of trust that steps are taken to ensure they don't remain broken. Dragonstone Port was fixed. Before the card was even released FFG did an errata for Support of Saltcliffe to prevent some infinite loops. Sure, you can do something like Street Waif + 2x To Be a Dragon combo, there are even cards that provide ways to ensure that you can keep that combo going turn after turn, but I hope to always see some infinite loop combo possibilities that require 5ish cards and are difficult to pull off. It makes for good weird decks and good clean fun imho - I love trying to play some gimmick combo deck on the off chance that it works so I can see the look on my buddies' faces when it does come through!

kpmccoy21 said:

That's interesting, but I think loops/infinite loops are a bit too vague to adhere to a strict rule/limit. Nor would the limit necessarily be "fair" for every loop. The easier and more practical solution is to just have design prevent/remove the existence of overpowered loops through actual card design (i.e. placing limits on the usage of specific cards and their text).

Yeah, not a bad idea Kpmccoy, but I don't know how it would be executed. Would the restriction in this case have applied to Bran instead of the attachment? Still the attachment? I guess they could have worked this out though...maybe it's something FFG should consider.

Also, I personally tend to like the ability to use some infinite loops, so long as they don't "auto-win" when they go off. I think they're fun too. An infinite loop that boosts a character's strength for a turn or infinite gold for a turn seems OK by me, so long as it is pretty difficult to pull off. (At the end of the day, no matter how much gold you have, you can only play a finite number of cards.) Obviously, one that mills your opponent's deck, claims power, etc. is too strong. Loops that somehow draw infinitely (let's say as a "reveal" effect) could similarly be too strong, but might be better left as is depending on the difficulty of getting them going.

Twn2dn said:

Me too! I know that technically the best design choice for any game is to try and prevent infinite loops but I think allowing a benign one ocasionally would actually spice up the game. Would it be for designers to intentionaly make infinite loops?

That said the Greyjoys wont need that loop when the next "update" comes out =3

DerBarchen said:

haha thanks, Im not entirley sure, I think you can satarise anything? Im not sure though. The windmill is a pun on Milling, the common term for discard strategies in most card games.

Seriously though, I dont see anything wrong with infinite loops that dont break the game. It IS impressive however that FFG picked up this Support of Saltcliffe strategy this quickly, they constantly amaze me with their strong environment presence. Anyone play in the competative Magic circuit lately? Its combo tastic

The problem is that there is also another card being produced for Bara/Stark

Brienne of Tarth 3 STR M/P Unique

Once per phase Brienne of Tarth may make a jousting challenge against a windmill. If she wins the challenge she claims 10 power and discards all windmills and raiders from play. The player is then required to say "Silly Greyjoy, Tricks are for kids."

(I wonder if people will actually get the literary reference I put in there....)

You mean to Don Quixote?

I thought to don qixote too ;-) And with Brienne there would be for sure Sam Tarly "Sancho Panza"!!!

I think having a blanket limit on infinite loops is boring. Infnitite loops are only a problem if it's broken like the old Gossiping Bard + Tavern Braggert loop (yes, that's a very old reference). If there is like a 7 card infinite loop that does something cool then part of the fun is to try and build a deck that can pull it off.

Twn2dn said:

An infinite loop is not a single effect that can be limited, but rather a sequence of actions. Creating a "limited to 3 iterations" rule for infinite loops creates a bunch of other questions; where does an iteration "complete"?how far into the 4th can I go before I'm breaking the limit? if I've use a card inside a loop 3 times in a round, is it fair to use it outside the loop without running afoul of the rule, and vice versa? And anyway, how are we really going to define an infinite loop? Are the benign/quirky ones (e.g., the CCG combo loop that allowed you to kneel and stand Ser Garland as many times as you wanted - but accomplished nothing more than standing or kneeling him) really something that needs to be limited? Are they even really "infinite loops" if the only reason to use them is to delay the game?

Essentially, a rule like this would say "you cannot use card X and card Y together," which is a very odd concept for this game and its open architecture. It's like saying you have free run of the cardpool as printed, that it is legal to put X and Y together, it is even legal to play them together - so long as you don't actually use them together. Very weird concept; "it's all legal until you trigger them in that order."

And here's a fun one: what if there is an infinite loop combo that required 2 players to work together? Player A and Player B could keep something going forever, so long as they kept triggering their cards in cooperation. Where does the "3 iterations" start and stop then? Or what if Player A and B do the loop together 3 times, then Player B plays a copy of the card Player A contributed to the combo. Can Player B do the loop on his own 3 more times?

Now granted, limiting the cardpool and play options is what things like "House X only," "Limit 1 per deck," the restricted list, OOH gold penalties, and the banned list do, too. But the point is that those are general rules that apply to all cards in all situations. The proposal here is for a specific rule that applies to certain cards, but only in specific situations where they are used in a particular way. Very different.

I think that when infinite loops that unbalance the environment come up, using the existing mechanisms (banning, restriction, errata to limit the combo's "key card" identified by FFG) are probably better

+1

I just want to high five ktom for mentioning my favorite infinite loop of all time. Garlan FTW!