I'd rule that Asha is dead. The shortcut “I'm going to make a billion exarchs” is a completely legal one with suture priest out. Granted, they'd die by number 20, but proposing that shortcut and Nymeria accepting it and pointing out Asha's folly is certainly allowed in competitive REL. Asha doesn't have to acknowledge losing 1 life in the shortcut, that's just what's going to happen when it plays out. Nymeria does need to remember to acknowledge those triggers and she does.

If we allow the change here, we are giving Asha a huge advantage and letting her have a “take back” that isn't policy supported. Nymeria did not interrupt the shortcut, she accepted it and pointed out that Asha has now lost the game. This is ok!

Much as it feels awkward to allow Asha an effective “takeback” in this situation, I think it is the only result consistent with a rigorous understanding of the shortcut rules.

From the comprehensive rules on shortcuts:

Originally posted by CR 716.1:

When playing a game, players typically make use of mutually understood shortcuts rather than explicitly identifying each game choice (either taking an action or passing priority) a player makes.

CR 716.1a
The rules for taking shortcuts are largely unformalized. As long as each player in the game understands the intent of each other player, any shortcut system they use is acceptable.

The above two passages both highlight the fact that in order to be used, shortcuts must be mutually understood by the two players. I think it is consistent with policy to say that they cannot be used as “gotchas”–in other words, they are merely convenient ways to avoid spending a large amount of time where both players agree on a procedure and an end result. In this case, there was no mutual understanding, as Asha was ignorant of Nymeria's intent to resolve her Suture Priest triggers. She therefore cannot be held to the alternative shortcut which Nymeria proposed. This is made clearer by the next section of the CR.

CR 716.2
At any point in the game, the player with priority may suggest a shortcut by describing a sequence of game choices, for all players, that may be legally taken based on the current game state and the predictable results of the sequence of choices. (…)

(Emphasis mine)

Note the requirement that the proposer of the shortcut describe the sequence of game actions for all players. Asha has clearly failed to meet this requirement, as she did not describe the adding of the Suture Priest triggers to the stack, nor did she say she would allow them to resolve.

CR 716.2b
Each other player, in turn order starting after the player who suggested the shortcut, may either accept the proposed sequence, or shorten it by naming a place where he or she will make a game choice that’s different than what’s been proposed. (The player doesn’t need to specify at this time what the new choice will be.) This place becomes the new ending point of the proposed sequence.

This is perfectly consistent with the interpretation that Nymeria interrupted the shortcut. She shortened the shortcut by naming a place where she would make a game choice different from Asha's proposal: namely, at the first point where a deceiver token enters the battlefield, Nymeria would like to interrupt in order to place a Suture Priest trigger on the stack. At this point, the shortcut is broken, and Asha is not committed to making any further tokens.

There is no alternative shortcut being proposed. NAP is just telling AP that their shortcut kills them. The intent is clear to both players, AP intended to make a billion pestermites. The string of actions that AP is proposing can be legally taken and is understood by both players. AP just wasn't aware there would be some triggers, and that's unfortunate for AP. The section about the shortcut needing to be understood by both players is to protect the opponent of a proposed shortcut. If NAP, for instance, didn't understand how AP was going to make a billion pestermites, the shortcut would not be allowed and AP would have to demonstrate the loop before proposing the shortcut again. That section is not to prevent the proposer of a shortcut from making a bad choice. NAP is not shortening it by naming a game choice, there is no choice here, the triggers are resolving and AP is dead. GG rip in peace

As far as I know, there is no real definition of “game action taken”, but I'd find it rather strange to _not_ apply it to a trigger involving the word “may”. Therefore, you could argue that using Suture Priest's non-mandatory trigger is a game action taken by the non-active player, interrupting the shortcut.

The exarch combo shortcut involves several passes of priority. If the controller of Suture Priest just accepted the shortcut, it would also mean that he would've passed priority and allowed exarch's triggered ability to resolve without announcing the ability in the first iteration of the combo - Suture Priests ability is on top of Exarch's untap trigger in each iteration, therefore the priest's triggered ability would be considered missed. In my opinion, you can't just accept the shortcut and have announced Suture Priests's triggered ability at the appropriate point at the same time. This would be like saying “Oh, you remember that triggered ability? I actually added it to the stack and resolved it a billion times in the meanwhile because we both passed priority each time without you knowing it”. This is rather strange, and this is clearly not the intention of tournament shortcuts at all.

How do we want players to play the game in this scenario? Going through each iteration of the combo manually, waiting for the opponent to remember the trigger? Sounds like slow play to me.

Summary: I'd actually rule that the non-active player proposed an alternative shortcut, allowing the active player to change his actions.

Edited Jasper König (April 22, 2015 12:26:09 PM)

Originally posted by Justin Turner:

There is no alternative shortcut being proposed. NAP is just telling AP that their shortcut kills them. The intent is clear to both players, AP intended to make a billion pestermites. The string of actions that AP is proposing can be legally taken and is understood by both players. AP just wasn't aware there would be some triggers, and that's unfortunate for AP. The section about the shortcut needing to be understood by both players is to protect the opponent of a proposed shortcut. If NAP, for instance, didn't understand how AP was going to make a billion pestermites, the shortcut would not be allowed and AP would have to demonstrate the loop before proposing the shortcut again. That section is not to prevent the proposer of a shortcut from making a bad choice. NAP is not shortening it by naming a game choice, there is no choice here, the triggers are resolving and AP is dead. GG rip in peace

With respect, I cannot agree that this is correct. Let's look at it piece by piece.

The intent is clear to both players, AP intended to make a billion pestermites. The string of actions that AP is proposing can be legally taken and is understood by both players. AP just wasn't aware there would be some triggers, and that's unfortunate for AP.

This is inherently contradictory. If AP is not aware of the triggers, then she cannot possibly have intended to include them as part of the shortcut. As spelled out in CR 716.2, the player proposing the shortcut must describe the sequence of game actions taken by all players. Given that Asha never described the resolution of Suture Priest triggers, she cannot possibly have proposed a shortcut which includes them. Rather, the shortcut she proposed involves repeating the following series of actions: 1) Activate the Exarch's ability which creates a token copy of it (presumably it is enchanted by a Splinter Twin), 2) both players pass priority and the ability resolves creating the copy, 3) the copy enters the battlefield and its trigger is put on the stack targeting the original Exarch, 4) both players pass priority and the trigger resolves, untapping the Exarch, 5) repeat from step 1.

When Nymeria points out her Suture Priest, she is in essence proposing a modification of Asha's proposal, by inserting an extra series of steps between 3 and 4. As per CR 716.2b, this now becomes the new ending point for the sequence. We never get to 5, so Asha is only committed to losing the 1 life from the first resolution of the trigger, after which she is no longer held to any continuation of the loop.

The section about the shortcut needing to be understood by both players is to protect the opponent of a proposed shortcut. If NAP, for instance, didn't understand how AP was going to make a billion pestermites, the shortcut would not be allowed and AP would have to demonstrate the loop before proposing the shortcut again. That section is not to prevent the proposer of a shortcut from making a bad choice.

This is non-sequitur. Of course the shortcut rules protect the non-proposing player from shortcuts they don't understand. It does not at all follow that the same rules cannot also protect the shortcut proposer from being trapped into a play they never intended to make (as a result of their own ignorance or otherwise). It is perfectly possible for the rule in this case to protect both parties, as in fact it does based on its wording.

NAP is not shortening it by naming a game choice, there is no choice here, the triggers are resolving and AP is dead.

As it happens, this case does involve a choice: Suture Priest's trigger is optional (it is a “may” trigger), so Nymeria must make the game choice to have Asha lose a life for each instance of the trigger which resolves. The shortcut is therefore interrupted at the first point where she must make that choice.

Even if it weren't, though, I don't think it would make a difference. As I illustrated above, the key is that the two players do not have a mutual understanding of all the steps involved in executing the loop, so the proposed shortcut is defective from the start. It is only once Nymeria clarifies that she will put a trigger on the stack in the middle of Asha's proposed series of actions that we reach a meeting of the minds. This fixes the defect, but is also breaks the shortcut before the point of repetition, so in the end Asha is protected from her own ignorance.

I agree with Robert entirely. Similarly from the MTR:

Most tournament shortcuts involve skipping one or more priority passes to the mutual understanding of all players; if a player wishes to demonstrate or use a new tournament shortcut entailing any number of priority passes, he or she must be clear where the game state will end up as part of the request.

AP has proposed the shortcut and made it clear what the expected game state is. By omission we can assume she's proposing she's not dead. We're really forced to assume this because the game would have ended before reaching negative a billion life anyways.

A player may interrupt a tournament shortcut by explaining how he or she is deviating from it or at which point in the middle he or she wishes to take an action

NAP may interrupt the shortcut and explain at which point she is making the decision to have AP lose life. At this point she needs to choose when the trigger is going to happen which gives AP the opportunity to make a new decision afterwards.

Yeah, the active player didn't say anything about Suture Priest's triggered ability or losing life, so if this actually happens, he wouldn't have been clear about where the shortcut would end up, making the shortcut illegal.

Also, you can't go into the second iteration of the loop without resolving Suture Priest's trigger first. If the non-active player allows the active player to do so without announcing the first trigger, that trigger can be considered missed. If she just accepts the proposed shortcut, she cannot have appropriately announced the triggers at the same time. If she just accepts the shortcut without proposing a modification to it, each instance of the trigger but the last would be missed.

“Asha is dead” is consistent with previous rulings of this nature.

Old Extended Elves used to be able to make “infinite” mana by looping casts of Elves and Heritage Druid activations along with Cloudstone Curio. If Glimpse of Nature had been cast, well, “do this loop 10000 times” would result in drawing 10000 cards. Even though the creatures can't be cast at instant speed (theoretically leaving the Glimpse triggers on the stack), it was ruled that the proposed shortcut was legal and accepted, and AP would be held to performing those actions and thus losing the game.

The key is that Nymeria is not performing any actions that would interrupt Asha. The triggers do happen, but Nymeria isn't actually performing an action. Saying “yes” to a “may” ability is not considered performing an action.

Originally posted by Steve Guillerm:

"do this loop 10000 times" would result in drawing 10000 cards.

I think there is a difference in this scenario: When the elf player shows this loop the first time he also has to draw a card (otherwise we have an infraction here)
With the Suture Priest there seems to be a misunderstanding about even the first instance of the loop which will be repeated x times

Would people be more willing to accept the “interruption” to the shortcut if the initial shortcut had been stated as “I make a billion creatures and with the stack empty, my life total stays the same.”? The reason I ask is that with no mention of a life total change in the initial shortcut, I feel as though the player is assuming no change in life total. Yes, that assumption requires a billion missed triggers, but Aesha isn't responsible for putting N's triggers on the stack, and in my opinion, as soon as N wants to put those triggers on the stack, the shortcut as been interrupted.

I'm interested to see where this discussion goes. It compliments a scenario I might post later.

I think it's only reasonable to go back to the first iteration of the loop. Once A and N can agree on a single iteration, which I haven't seen yet, then they can shortcut to as many iterations as they want. It feels to me that A is proposing a shortcut in which N forgets his triggers. Once N acknowledges them, he's proposing the same shortcut with his triggers, which A has not yet accepted.

Originally posted by Steve Guillerm:

Saying “yes” to a “may” ability is not considered performing an action.

Is there any text in a document or is it just the common way of using the term?

Originally posted by Steve Guillerm:

“Asha is dead” is consistent with previous rulings of this nature.

Old Extended Elves used to be able to make “infinite” mana by looping casts of Elves and Heritage Druid activations along with Cloudstone Curio. If Glimpse of Nature had been cast, well, “do this loop 10000 times” would result in drawing 10000 cards. Even though the creatures can't be cast at instant speed (theoretically leaving the Glimpse triggers on the stack), it was ruled that the proposed shortcut was legal and accepted, and AP would be held to performing those actions and thus losing the game.

The key is that Nymeria is not performing any actions that would interrupt Asha. The triggers do happen, but Nymeria isn't actually performing an action. Saying “yes” to a “may” ability is not considered performing an action.

I'm not sure this compares anyhow to an old extended ruling especially when triggers are involved whose policy changed like 20 times since then…
Additionally what I think makes the elves scneario completely from the twin one is that the elves loop involved only actions by one player while the twin scenario involves actions of both players.
While I do agree that a triggered ability triggering is not a specified game action I'm on the other hand pretty sure that actually putting the triggered ability on the stack IS a game action (not to mention resolving it before AP can start his loop again).

I think the biggest problem is that we have no definition for the term “game action” which is weird considering the amount of times it getsmentioned in official documents. Therefore the only thing I can do is to try defining it with common sense. In my opinion that would lead to a game action beeing every action that is related to the current game, were a action is everything acts in some way. With this definition I might be convinced that a trigger being put on the stack might not be a action because a player has nothing to do for that to happen. However, the player has to aknowledge the trigger if he doesn't want it to be assumes as missed and this is definitly an action related to the current game. This has to happen in the first iteration of the loop. Therefore my ruling would be that only one life is lost. However this is highly dependent on the definition of a game action and as long as we don't have a definition for this I believe there are multiple answers on this question

The shortcut Asha is proposing is "I make a billion creatures … and don't lose a ton of life in the process". I think it's unreasonable to say she has to actually vocalize the second part to make her intent clear. In my mind, either

1. Nymeria is interrupting the original shortcut before the first iteration of the proposed loop can be fully completed: "Make Pestermite copy, untap original“ is being interrupted by ”Make Pestermite copy, lose 1 life from Suture Priest"
   
2. Nymeria is proposing a completely different shortcut that Asha has decided to interrupt at an early stage: “Make a billion Pestermites” is being replaced by “Make enough Pestermites to lose from Suture Priest”, which is being interrupted with “Make 1 Pestermite”
   

The mistake being made by the Elves player in the given counterexample is that he starts by proposing a loop that will definitely cause him to lose if repeated in that exact way 1000 times. Asha didn't do that.

EDIT: Clarity of thoughts

Edited Michael Shiver (April 23, 2015 12:03:16 AM)