Originally posted by Marc Shotter:

Brian Schenck

Originally posted by Marc Shotter:

That's a bit of a strawman, as it is clearly understand that AP can only make a choice for herself. That AP does/doesn't make the choice for herself does not imply anything about AP being able to make a choice for NAP; those are two distinct things. I think that's clear from reading CR 716.2b and CR 716.2c.

I'd agree it's a strawman, but the whole point of a shortcut is that you are suggesting a series of choice for both players (from 716.2a - “…describing a sequence of game choices, for all players…”). If I were to suggest the decking shortcut, which is fine, my opponent would call that shortcut to an end early after x iterations by saying ‘at this point (after a umber of draws) it differs from your suggested shortcut - I choose not to draw’.

That is a fair point, and I can reasonably concede that point. And certainly that would suggest that NAP's first choice of saying “Err, I'm going to choose you to lose 1 life when the first trigger resolves.” would break the loop at that point.

I'm still not 100% certain, but it does certainly more solidly support the argument being made that it is “lose 1 life” versus “lose all you life”.

Edited Brian Schenck (April 25, 2015 12:11:28 AM)

Originally posted by Arman Gabbasov:

NAP could forget their trigger the first time or try and be cunning

IPG
Players are expected to remember their own triggered abilities; intentionally ignoring one may be Unsporting Conduct — Cheating

d:^D

It feels really, really unintuitive that a player can define a shortcut with an endpoint, have that shortcut be legal and executed, but then not arrive at the point the player said it would. Doing so tells players that they should take their actions one-by-one and never shortcut, lest they get put on a roller coaster ride that they can't get off of until they find themselves in sideboardland. It also violates the shortcut philosophy. Ultimately, shortcuts exist to make Magic actually playable. This means that, at it's core, shortcuts exist as a customer service tool! “Oh, you find it tedious to pass every single priority between now and the endstep? Ok, thats fine, you can skip to the part where you get to play more Magic.” Telling a player that they got burned because they tried to make the game experience better for both themselves and their opponent, and that they wouldn't have gotten burned if they didn't try, is just horrible customer service.

With that said, I don't know how the ruling goes based on the current rules. However, I strongly believe that if it turns out Asha dies to her shortcut, then I strongly believe we should change the rules to better match the philosophy.

Edited Darcy Alemany (April 26, 2015 05:36:19 PM)

Originally posted by Adam Zakreski:

With that being said, anyone who knows me knows I would gleefully sit here all day and debate both sides of this argument.

Please, refrain from doing that.
In order for those threads to be constructive and helping the whole program to progress, they need to be reasonably accessible. Having people arguing for the sake of arguing hinders that purpose and muddles the message sent about what you truly believe would be the best ruling.

Ask questions on topics you do not understand and you think are relevant.
Point out policies you feel could be improved and suggest corrections, pointing out honestly advantages and inconvenient of both system, and explaining why it would help us to make the game more fair and fun.
Be constructive, and show temperance and judgement in your participation.
We're asking you your true, honest opinion, because we value the input of every single judge of this program. Use that wisely.

- Emilien

Originally posted by Darcy Alemany:

Telling a player that they got burned because they tried to make the game experience better for both themselves and their opponent, and that they wouldn't have gotten burned if they didn't try, is just horrible customer service.

We allow shortcuts to avoid the tedium of having to literally declare every last step. However, if a player commits to a series of actions, and it turns out that the end result is bad for them, or unexpected, we don't let them take it back just because there are unexpected results.

For example, if I'm at 5 life, and you control Manabarbs, and I say, “Tap 5 Plains,” you're allowed to say, “Manabarbs deals 5, you're dead.” I'm not allowed to take back tapping my lands under the argument, “Oh, my opponent should have announced the trigger after the first land was tapped; that interrupts my shortcut.”

A player is allowed to crack a fetchland when they're at 1 life, allowed to cast Thoughtseize at two life, and a player is allowed to declare making 1000 Deceiver Exarchs when their opponent has Suture Priest in play. We let players make strategic mistakes all the time, and we hold them to their declared plays so long as the play was legal.

Steve, just to point out the major difference to the Splinter twin example earlier is though that with manabarbs it is possible for AP to respond to the trigger by tapping the next plains and thus the end result with 5 mana in the mana pool and 5 triggers still on the stack is perfectly fine and only then NAP has to point out that the triggers are there whileas with the Twin and the suture priest the lifeloss triggers actually have to resolve before the exarch can be untapped again.

Originally posted by Steve Guillerm:

We let players make strategic mistakes all the time, and we hold them to their declared plays so long as the play was legal.

However, in the initial situation, if the triggered ability is not missed and the may-option is chosen, the announced sequence of game-actions is not legal.

Edited Jasper König (April 29, 2015 11:22:28 PM)

It is legal. “I'm gonna make 1000 copies” is a shortcut for, “I'm going to make a copy, when that copy enters the battlefield, I will target the original with its trigger, and when that trigger resolves, I'm back to the starting point of the loop, which I intend to perform 1000 times.”

It so happens that there is a Suture Priest trigger that resolves before the copied Exarch trigger, but the opponent isn't taking any actions to interrupt the shortcut. Interrupting the shortcut is casting Slaughter Pact targeting the original Exarch with the copy's trigger on the stack. Not saying, “yes, lose a life” to each instance of “may.”

AP forgetting that each copy causes a loss of life is unfortunate, but allowing this to count as an “interruption” of the shortcut is allowing take-backs of an otherwise legally declared series of plays.

Are we so certain that Asha isn't proposing a loop of “make a copy, use its trigger to untap the original, hope you forget your trigger, and then repeat X times”? And then, when N makes it clear that he won't forget the trigger, that loop is rejected, to be replaced by “OK, I'll make one.”

I've stayed fairly silent throughout this, as there's just too many variables - it truly is a “you had to be there” scenario - but I suspect people are overlooking the possibility that Asha isn't as bad as you think…

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Are we so certain that Asha isn't proposing a loop of “make a copy, use its trigger to untap the original, hope you forget your trigger, and then repeat X times”? And then, when N makes it clear that he won't forget the trigger, that loop is rejected, to be replaced by “OK, I'll make one.”

I've stayed fairly silent throughout this, as there's just too many variables - it truly is a “you had to be there” scenario - but I suspect people are overlooking the possibility that Asha isn't as bad as you think…

d:^D

This assumption runs directly counter to the philosophy that triggers are assumed to be remembered.

They are assumed to be remembered until they are forgotten. Once we've went through one iteration of the loop, if the trigger was forgotten, why NOT assume that the rest would be forgotten as well? I think that's what is proposed in the shortcut. Its not A's responsibility to point out N's triggers.

Suture Priest's ability says “may”, and declining this optional trigger could be considered a part of the proposed shortcut. Honestly though, this is what a lawyer would say and I'm not even sure the active player did actually think of Suture Priest before he was informed of his death.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Arman Gabbasov
NAP could forget their trigger the first time or try and be cunning

IPG
Players are expected to remember their own triggered abilities; intentionally ignoring one may be Unsporting Conduct — Cheating

d:^D

Suture Priest
you may have that player lose 1 life.

d:^D

My opinion is that for the player to remember the Suture Priest trigger, they have to interrupt the shortcut.

The comprehensive rules state -

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, that may be legally taken based on the current game state and the predictable results of the sequence of choices…..

then

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.

Which to me means that for the opponent to have Suture Priest trigger and make the choice to have that player lose 1 life they have to propose a shorter shortcut, namely at the first instance Suture Priest triggers.

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.

As far as i get this right this just means that the shortcut includes the Suture Priest's may-trigger mandatorily due to A not indicating to not put it on the stack.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Are we so certain that Asha isn't proposing a loop of “make a copy, use its trigger to untap the original, hope you forget your trigger, and then repeat X times”? And then, when N makes it clear that he won't forget the trigger, that loop is rejected, to be replaced by “OK, I'll make one.”

I think that is not exactly what i assume to be happening. I'd read it as “make a copy, use its trigger to untap the original, hope you forget your trigger assume you do not choose to make me lose 1 life, and then repeat X times”
Therefore i would consider the decision to make use of the trigger to be a game choice different from what the loop proposed.