Nissa controls Nantuko Husk, which she uses to block a 5/4 Tireless Tracker, and a Loam Dryad. Once blockers are declared, Nissa says “Damage?” and Ashaya says “Okay”. Nissa then tries to sacrifice Loam Dryad to Nantuko Husk.

How do you feel about this?

I think Nissa missed the oppertunity to sac.

I agree there is no damage on the stack anymore so damage resolves with no priority to use abilities.


Sent from my iPhone

If they say “OK” and immediately indicate they're saccing, I feel it's a
simple OoO as they are in one smooth motion indicating where they'll end up.

If there was a significant paus I'd agree with previous posters.

I'd have had to be there :)

Cheers
/Eskil
Den 5 jun 2016 21:35 skrev “Graham Theobalds” <

Nissa would be fine if she had asked “are you ready for damage?” or “do you have any effects before damage?”, as these simply ask if Nissa may have priority in the Declare Blockers step. “Damage?” alone is a confusing question for either player to ask, and we don't have the advantage of a “Combat?” shortcut telling us exactly where to go. I think the only answer I agree with is:

Originally posted by Eskil Myrenberg:

I'd have had to be there :)

I would feel that “Damage?” is absolutely offering a shortcut to the combat damage step. If NAP was going to make a vague question to establish whether AP was passing priority, they should had said something like “Any response to blockers?” or “Effects?” or “Effects before damage?” or even just “Pass?”

I would say they missed their chance to sacrifice to the husk in this case.

Edited Daniel Ruffolo (June 5, 2016 03:57:47 PM)

If I'm NAP, and I say “blocks?” AP says “yes”. Can I animate manlands to block with them?

I think it's interesting to see how, so far, all L1's firmly state that we are now dealing damage, and all L2's state “I'd have had to be there”.

I would start by asking Nissa what she was trying to do and how she thinks that the Combat Phase works. Depending on her answers, I could see myself DQ her for lying, DQ her for cheating, do nothing and have combat damage resolve right now, or declare we are now in the declare blockers step with Nissa asking Ashaya if she is passing priority.

I would also definitely ask in which game they are, and how Nissa has been playing Husk the rest of the day (so yes, it's important to notice whether this happens 5 minutes into round 1 or 40 minutes into round 7). If they have had combat scenarios like this several times already and Nissa sort of tries to shortcut the process, I would be totally fine with that.

Most important of all, I would educate Nissa on how shortcuts, combat and communication in general work, to repeat these kinds of scenarios.

Originally posted by Guy Baldwin:

If I'm NAP, and I say “blocks?” AP says “yes”. Can I animate manlands to block with them?

I agree with this line of thought. NAP has the last priority pass before combat damage so once AP indicates a pass NAP can decide to do something or let combat damage happen.

If we treat this as a shortcut depending on the exact wording we get in the unwanted territory again of gotchaing yourself by not using the correct words. And what if they both speak English as a second language? The “combat” shortcut and unintentional gotchas needs to exist to protect NAP. Here nobody needs protection.

So I don't believe I had to be there =)

Eskil Myrenberg
If they say “OK” and immediately indicate they're saccing, I feel it's a
simple OoO as they are in one smooth motion indicating where they'll end up.

The person saccing and the person saying OK are not the same person right?

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

Guy Baldwin
If I'm NAP, and I say “blocks?” AP says “yes”. Can I animate manlands to block with them?

I agree with this line of thought. NAP has the last priority pass before combat damage so once AP indicates a pass NAP can decide to do something or let combat damage happen.

If we treat this as a shortcut depending on the exact wording we get in the unwanted territory again of gotchaing yourself by not using the correct words. And what if they both speak English as a second language? The “combat” shortcut and unintentional gotchas needs to exist to protect NAP. Here nobody needs protection.

So I don't believe I had to be there =)

Eskil Myrenberg
If they say “OK” and immediately indicate they're saccing, I feel it's a
simple OoO as they are in one smooth motion indicating where they'll end up.

The person saccing and the person saying OK are not the same person right?

Unless I misread it the person sacing is the one that said damage. The active player is the one that said ok to damage.

N: Damage?
A: Okay.
N: Sacc Loam Dryad to Husk

Originally posted by Sophie Hughes:

Nissa controls Nantuko Husk, which she uses to block a 5/4 Tireless Tracker, and a Loam Dryad. Once blockers are declared, Nissa says “Damage?” and Ashaya says “Okay”. Nissa then tries to sacrifice Loam Dryad to Nantuko Husk.

How do you feel about this?

I'm ok with this. Nissa is allowed to activate Nantuko Husk's ability before moving to the combat damage step.

Nissa asking “damage?” to Ashaya is (in my opinion) similar to asking “do you want to do anything before we go to damage.” Nissa really gains no unfair advantage here by just asking “damage”. In either case, Ashaya has to pass priority to Nissa before entering the combat damage step and Nissa can act whether or not Ashaya does anything after blockers are declared and before damage.

Without a defined shortcut, it requires investigation as to what “Damage?” means. This is something that the active player should have confirmed - “do you mean you want to move straight to assign damage?”

Without being there to ask questions, I would generally go with ask what NAP meant by “Damage?” and if they indicated they were confirming that AP had no further actions after blockers were declared and they wanted priority then I'd allow the sacrifice.

Oh, then I completely misread who was activating husk.

I still lean towards allowing it, although for different reasons ^^
(summarised fairly well by Toby and Eric).

Cheers
/Eskil
Den 6 jun 2016 02:35 skrev “Sophie Hughes” <

I think Toby nailed that one down.

I would allow to sac before damages. For me, it's that same philosophy that stays behind allowing to animate manland when NAP ask “Blockers?”, described in latest Kevins article.

Originally posted by Dustin De Leeuw:

Depending on her answers, I could see myself DQ her for lying, DQ her for cheating

I found this interesting, why would you consider this cheating?