The annotated IPG covers a bit about game actions at Improper Drawing at Start of Game. I hope this helps.

What’s a little less obvious, though, is that the term “another action in the game” does cover things like a player revealing his or her hand to an opponent’s Duress, or resolving the trigger from an opponent’s first-turn attacking Goblin Guide. Those actions are visible and active. Passive actions are not considered “another game action”, such as allowing a spell to resolve, or passing priority.

Caveat before starting: I agree with David Z., Justin, and Riki, and I would rule that NAP's Suture Priest triggers are part of AP's loop. She's losing enough life to lose the game.

However, my question to those ruling that the triggers weren't in the proposed loop and that AP can choose to loop only once is the following: How do you handle NAP asking you about correcting for AP's misplay? Specifically something like this: “After making your ruling, NAP asks to speak to you privately. NAP explains that Suture Priest has been in play for several turns and that when it was played, AP acknowledged that she probably can't win since she can't counter Suture Priest. NAP is trying to understand why you're giving AP a second chance for her mistake.”

While not clear in the scenario, I have to wonder what NAP's thoughts are here. It's clear to me that NAP never forgot, and AP either forgot or hoped NAP would forget about Suture Priest. And between MTR 4.1's note about “superior awareness of the game” and MIPG 2.1's note that the opponent can't cause the player's triggers to be missed, that ruling that the loop is broken earlier is giving AP a second chance to do it right.

The loop “rules” certainly seem to allow it, but it really feels like we'd be correcting for a legal misplay here.

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

However, my question to those ruling that the triggers weren't in the proposed loop and that AP can choose to loop only once is the following: How do you handle NAP asking you about correcting for AP's misplay? Specifically something like this: “After making your ruling, NAP asks to speak to you privately. NAP explains that Suture Priest has been in play for several turns and that when it was played, AP acknowledged that she probably can't win since she can't counter Suture Priest. NAP is trying to understand why you're giving AP a second chance for her mistake.”

Since I would put one trigger on the stack resolving I have no problems with an explanation:
"Loops are used to make games faster, but never change it in a way that the outcome would be something different from what it would be like if you played it out completly. Do you think your opponent would continue with making tokens as soon as you acknowledge the first trigger? This is why we have the rules of interrupting a shortcut and doing something else. However the other play is not obliged to continue his loop after you did something and that is actually what happened here: You interrupted his loop by putting a trigger on the stack which was not mentioned before in the loop description. Therefore he does not need to continue with making tokens afterwards. That would be like playing normally and asking your opponent ‘Come on, you know you want some more tokens, don’t you' after he lost the first life. (Concentrate with the sentence before this bracket on the way you deliver it. Don't make it sound like he actually did something stupid and unsporting when he wanted his opponent to lose all the life, but instead as a little bit of a joke and ‘You wouldn’t do that in his position would you') Sounds good?"

I would suggest that several shortcuts have been proposed here:

1) Shortcut: make Deceiver Exarch x 1bln, no Suture Priest triggers

CR 716.2a
At any point in the game, the player with priority may suggest a shortcut by describing a sequence of game choices, for all players…

The player hasn't clarified the Suture Priest choice here - but the only way this outcome as described is legal is if the Suture doesn't cause damage. While they may have forgotten the Priest I'm not sure how you can intersect a billion choices by the NAP, not stipulated by the original shortcut that the AP cannot respond to.

2) Shortcut make Deceiver Exarch x 1bln, 1bln Suture Priest triggers

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

This ‘shortening’ doesn't work as this isn't a shortening of a proposed shortcut but changing it to include the Suture decisions. The only other alternative is that this is a new shortcut suggested by the NAP.

I think the AP in this example comes to the right conclusion - they have suggested a short cut (making 1bln Exarchs) the NAP has suggested a new shortcut (incorrectly) but implied they wanted to to break from the proposed shortcut by adding in Suture priest choices, the first point at which this happens is after the 1st Exarch is made and 1 damage done.

The key differential for me here is that the NAP is changing the shortcut, not simply accepting it. If the Suture did not include a may clause then the AP would take 1bln damage and game done, the may clause changes this.

This feels to me very similar to the ‘did you remember your prowess trigger?’ style questions before blocking in that you can't force a player into missing this by not asking about it. You need to ask for the clarification - how does your shortcut suggest we handle the Suture triggers? before suggesting a change.

Edited Marc Shotter (April 23, 2015 10:19:07 PM)

Originally posted by Markus Dietrich:

Since I would put one trigger on the stack resolving I have no problems with an explanation:
"Loops are used to make games faster, but never change it in a way that the outcome would be something different from what it would be like if you played it out completly. Do you think your opponent would continue with making tokens as soon as you acknowledge the first trigger? This is why we have the rules of interrupting a shortcut and doing something else. However the other play is not obliged to continue his loop after you did something and that is actually what happened here: You interrupted his loop by putting a trigger on the stack which was not mentioned before in the loop description. Therefore he does not need to continue with making tokens afterwards. That would be like playing normally and asking your opponent ‘Come on, you know you want some more tokens, don’t you' after he lost the first life. (Concentrate with the sentence before this bracket on the way you deliver it. Don't make it sound like he actually did something stupid and unsporting when he wanted his opponent to lose all the life, but instead as a little bit of a joke and ‘You wouldn’t do that in his position would you') Sounds good?"

His response: “No, that doesn't sound good. I'm not required to point out my trigger until it actually has an effect. And how am I reasonably interrupting his loop? It's not my fault my opponent can't pay attention to the game.”

Food for thought directed at those saying she dies. The way I see it, a major difference of opinion resolves around whether Asha's unawareness of the game state should be awarded with a “take-back” or not, with those saying dead siding on “no backsies”.

Does every ruling we make have to result in favour of those more aware of the game state? Can there be rulings that don't follow this principle? In that case, what makes you feel that in this instance, it is worth invoking as grounds to rule dead?

I'm just curious :).

On another note:

At the reading of this scenario, my gut also told me that Asha missed this and shouldn't be allowed to get a take-back. Luckily we don't do gut rulings as judges, rather than try to back them up with policy and sound reasoning.
What I want said is that in of itself I don't feel that “you seem to have less awareness of game-state” is sufficient argument for me to think that is the correct interpretation of how to solve issues like this. It seems to put us in a sticky situation if Asha was well aware but hoping that Nymeria would not be. I feel bad having gauging if we believe Asha was aware determine how we determine a situation like this.


Justin brings forth the claim that “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.”
This seems reasonable to me, however it leaves us one potential issue. What if we are in another game state where I want to shortcut (suggestibly to another part of the turn) and you have a trigger in the middle that I'm hoping you are not aware of? If you remember it, I want to deviate from the proposed shortcut and respond to the changes to the game state, if you don't, I'll happily continue the shortcut. Should this not be a possibility?

Markus raises another interesting point regarding another topic we judges tend to uphold: win through playing the game, not gaming the system. However, it works only insofar as we can get behind Markus's claim that “Loops are used to make games faster, but never change it in a way that the outcome would be something different from what it would be like if you played it out completly.”
I don't know of any explicit policy supporting this claim, so it really comes down to understanding the essence of policy rather than the wording of it. I'd also say that even if this claim holds true, it does not automatically mean that we shouldn't also take into account the principle of “players making strategical mistakes should be held accountable to those mistakes”


Looking forwards to hearing your thoughts on my thoughts :)

Edited Eskil Myrenberg (April 24, 2015 01:36:28 AM)

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

His response: “No, that doesn't sound good. I'm not required to point out my trigger until it actually has an effect. And how am I reasonably interrupting his loop? It's not my fault my opponent can't pay attention to the game.”

“Sure, you have to acknowledge it the first time it has an visible impact on the game, which is at the first iteration of the loop. You're interrupting it by saying ‘After the first iteration of your loop my trigger resolves and you lose 1 life’”

I agree that we should not rewind strategic misplays, but I don't think I'm doing this here. Asha still loses 1 life because I would rewind to the actual point where the loop should be disrupted not to any point before. If we discuss this way instead of just rules I would be even more in favor of Asha because its seems like a big gotcha Nymeria got here by getting more triggers than she normally should. I find it unfair to only protect the proposed from such moments and not the proposer

EDIT: Fixed quote tags

Edited Markus Dietrich (April 24, 2015 05:21:30 AM)

Originally posted by Markus Dietrich:

“Sure, you have to acknowledge it the first time it has an visible impact on the game, which is at the first iteration of the loop. You're interrupting it by saying 'After the first iteration of your loop my trigger resolves and you lose 1 life'”

“I guess then I don't understand why the new end point is ‘X-1’ life instead of ‘X-X life’, since I'm the one who gets to propose the new, shorter end point.” (Hopefully everyone understands I'm using X as a placeholder, since the scenario didn't specify AP's actual life total.)

Originally posted by Markus Dietrich:

I agree that we should not rewind strategic misplays, but I don't think I'm doing this here. Asha still loses 1 life because I would rewind to the actual point where the loop should be disrupted not to any point before. If we discuss this way instead of just rules I would be even more in favor of Asha because its seems like a big gotcha Nymeria got here by getting more triggers than she normally should. I find it unfair to only protect the proposed from such moments and not the proposer.

It's a bit challenging to see this as a “gotcha” in the sense I'd normally expect the word to be used. There's no apparent mis-communication here by either player, and Suture Priest is presumably in reasonably clear view. And AP had to see NAP cast it.

It seems to me that AP may not have understood the full result or ramifications of the loop she proposed. Is that really a “gotcha” when it comes to not understanding the rules? Or even the response NAP could have?

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

The loop “rules” certainly seem to allow it, but it really feels like we'd be correcting for a legal misplay here.

If the rules allow it, why are we considering deviating? At this point it is the AP demonstrating a “better understanding of the rules of a game”. AP SHOULD have an advantage.

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

“I guess then I don't understand why the new end point is ‘X-1’ life instead of ‘X-X life’, since I'm the one who gets to propose the new, shorter end point.” (Hopefully everyone understands I'm using X as a placeholder, since the scenario didn't specify AP's actual life total.)

Is that really true? As far I undertstood it until now the point where the action that was not proposed in the shortcut takes place is the new endpoint of the shortcut. And that would be where the first trigger is acknowledge/resolved otherwise there would be some missed trigger because they were not acknowledged when they should have had a visible influence on the game.

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

It's a bit challenging to see this as a “gotcha” in the sense I'd normally expect the word to be used. There's no apparent mis-communication here by either player, and Suture Priest is presumably in reasonably clear view. And AP had to see NAP cast it.

I feel it is a gotcha if a player gets something he normally has to communicate multiple times instead of one time before he has to communicate it.

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

It seems to me that AP may not have understood the full result or ramifications of the loop she proposed. Is that really a “gotcha” when it comes to not understanding the rules? Or even the response NAP could have?

He obviously has not but I do not believe that this is because of misunderstanding of the rules. It was because it was because he did not understand a part of the loop which was also not communicated by NAP. I would call that a miscommunication (if NAP didn't tell AP after the first iteration of the loop)

If I have Nantuko Shade in play and say “I activate Nantuko Shade 14 times” you can at any point stop my proposed shortcut to cast a spell or activate an ability. This isn't an activation though.

In order for A's shortcut to be legal, N has to pass priority a bunch of times. When given a chance to acknowledge her triggers, N does so. At this point, we can only back up if there was a CPV (sadly there isn't one) or a GRV. So the crux of the issue is whether announcing the second activation of Deceiver Exarch was legal when, technically, N's trigger hasn't resolved.

Originally posted by IPG2.1:

A triggered ability that causes a change in the visible game state (including life totals) or requires a
choice upon resolution: The controller must take the appropriate physical action or make it clear what the
action taken or choice made is before taking any game actions (such as casting a sorcery spell or explicitly
moving to the next step or phase) that can be taken only after the triggered ability should have resolved.

N is not taking any actions and has acknowledged the triggers when she had to. A is dead.

Edited Chris Lansdell (April 24, 2015 07:31:01 AM)

Tobi Elliott said in his Blog: “So, for example, you have a trigger that says “At the beginning of your upkeep, put a +1/+1 counter on each creature you control.” Under the old rules, you could move to your turn, say “trigger” (or, for even more ambiguity, “triggers”) then forget to actually do anything and when this was realized later on (say, in the middle of combat), it would be a mess to sort out. Now, simply saying “trigger” isn’t sufficient; you have to actually add the counters.”
So if you say trigger but don't do the appropriate physical action the trigger is considered missed and here there are judges who would give NAP the trigger even if after resolving the triggered ability there were literally more than one million other game actions without him doing the appropriate physcal action?
On the other hand we can not allow AP to advance the game state to a position where he would force NAP to have his trigger missed so the only way I see here is to stop the loop when NAP wants his first trigger resolved.

Actually making AP lose at that point with the current trigger policy and the documents on shortcuts we have sounds to me like bending the rules in favoritism towards one player. We would actually be giving an inofficial Game Loss for being bad at remembering board states without rules support :/

Edited Christian Genz (April 24, 2015 07:50:36 AM)

Originally posted by Adam Zakreski:

Brian Schenck
The loop “rules” certainly seem to allow it, but it really feels like we'd be correcting for a legal misplay here.

If the rules allow it, why are we considering deviating? At this point it is the AP demonstrating a “better understanding of the rules of a game”. AP SHOULD have an advantage.

Firstly, it's a big “if” which hinges on one important point: What can be the new end point of the loop? That is, one iteration of the loop only (i.e., the first Suture Priest trigger)? Or is it after so many iterations of the loop (i.e., enough Suture Priest triggers to make AP lose)?

I've read CR 716.2b and CR 716.2c several times, and frankly see a bit of wiggle room either way. It doesn't help that the loop “rules” contain some disclaimers on their use.

Secondly, I don't honestly believe for a moment that AP has a superior awareness of the rules, let alone the game state. Had AP been aware of the rules and the game state, she'd never have proposed making a million Deceiver Exarchs in the first place.

I'm actually going to abruptly switch my position for one simple reason:

Originally posted by IPG 2.1. Game Play Error — Missed Trigger:

Triggered abilities are assumed to be remembered until otherwise indicated, and the impact on the game state may not be immediately apparent.

From this we can extrapolate that it is the AP's responsibility to assume he lost a billion life while iterating his shortcut. Assuming NAP takes no “game actions” before saying, “Ok, you lose a billion life and the game,” thus indicating missing the triggers, the game is over.