But Adam, in Tobis Blog Life changes are explicitely mentioned among other actions that need immediate physical actions. Why do you then think on this case the change in life total after each of the triggers should not be immediately apparent?

Originally posted by Christian Genz:

But Adam, in Tobis Blog Life changes are explicitely mentioned among other actions that need immediate physical actions. Why do you then think on this case the change in life total after each of the triggers should not be immediately apparent?

I'm actually trying to avoid citing his blog as a source. While it's a wonderful resource, his blog is based off of the original source documents of the CR, IPG, and MTR. We should be able to derive the answer based solely on those.

Brian Schenck
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 guess that all depends on what the ‘O’ answer ends up being. If AP does get a “take-back” then she's unwittingly stumbled into an excellent way of checking if NAP is paying attention to her triggers.

With that being said, anyone who knows me knows I would gleefully sit here all day and debate both sides of this argument. I'm still not firmly in one camp or the other as this intersection of the MTR/CR/IPG seems to result in some room for interpretation. Many experienced and well respected judges have posted their opinions and backed it up with appropriate citations.

Not to disrespect anyone's opinion here, but I'm very curious to know what the 4's and 5's think and why.

Originally posted by Adam Zakreski:

I guess that all depends on what the ‘O’ answer ends up being. If AP does get a “take-back” then she's unwittingly stumbled into an excellent way of checking if NAP is paying attention to her triggers.

This is plenty easy to check without a take-back. Just physically run through the loop once before declaring the shortcut. This is probably good practice anyway, to demonstrate that the loop is a loop and avoid mistakes on both players part–and if they let you complete the loop without announcing a trigger, then you know they've forgotten.

For those arguing about the fact that Suture Priest includes the word “may” in regards to it's triggered ability: Would your ruling on the floor change if the card in question was Soul Warden? The life gain is mandatory on the triggered ability here and no choice is made with the trigger, so this just removes that portion of the discussion.

This alteration seems to follow the example listed in 716.2a of the Comprehensive Rules:

“Example: A player controls a creature enchanted by Presence of Gond, which grants the creature the ability ”{T}: Put a 1/1 green Elf Warrior creature token onto the battlefield,“ and another player controls Intruder Alarm, which reads, in part, ”Whenever a creature enters the battlefield, untap all creatures.“ When the player has priority, he may suggest ”I'll create a million tokens,“ indicating the sequence of activating the creature's ability, all players passing priority, letting the creature's ability resolve and put a token onto the battlefield (which causes Intruder Alarm's ability to trigger), Intruder Alarm's controller putting that triggered ability on the stack, all players passing priority, Intruder Alarm's triggered ability resolving, all players passing priority until the player proposing the shortcut has priority, and repeating that sequence 999,999 more times, ending just after the last token-creating ability resolves.”

In this example the phrasing of “I'll create a million tokens” indicates allowing the opponent's triggered ability to go on the stack without the declaration referencing the trigger at all. I would imagine this would work the same way in regards to Soul Warden.

If we make the assumption that this is a legal shortcut based on the example in this case, I don't see it to be a stretch that it's a legal shortcut with the triggers from Suture Priest happening as well (even without them being mentioned). Then it comes down to whether we believe that a choice being made upon resolution of an ability counts as taking an action (as putting the ability on the stack has already been covered as being fine in the shortcut). After some thought, my ruling would be that saying “yes or no” to the “may” part of the ability does not count as an action and is simply part of the resolution. I would agree with A shortcuts to death.

Originally posted by Christopher Wendelboe:

In this example the phrasing of “I'll create a million tokens” indicates allowing the opponent's triggered ability to go on the stack without the declaration referencing the trigger at all. I would imagine this would work the same way in regards to Soul Warden.

This analogy does not work. In the example given in the CR, the player proposing the loop is aware of the trigger and is intentionally including it in the loop: he is in fact relying on it to untap his elf during each iteration. In that case, the underlying principle of mutual understanding is not violated. In the Suture Priest case, the proposing player is not aware of the trigger, and so it cannot possibly be concluded that she meant to incorporate it into her proposal of a shortcut.

I am not yet convinced that the distinction between optional triggers and mandatory ones is relevant here. From my reading of the CR, what matters is that the players both understand what will happen during each itteration, and so they reach an agreement to save time by using a shortcut over many iterations. As Markus so eloquently put it earlier:

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 completely.

This, in my view, is key. Neither player should expect the end result to be different by use of a shortcut than it would have been had they played it out. Consider the implications if we were to rule otherwise: there is now the possibility that, in certain situations, there may be a strategic advantage for a player not to use a shortcut and instead to insist on resolving the situation manually. I don't think it is in anyone's interest to encourage this line of thinking.

Originally posted by Adam Zakreski:

Christian Genz
But Adam, in Tobis Blog Life changes are explicitely mentioned among other actions that need immediate physical actions. Why do you then think on this case the change in life total after each of the triggers should not be immediately apparent?

I'm actually trying to avoid citing his blog as a source. While it's a wonderful resource, his blog is based off of the original source documents of the CR, IPG, and MTR. We should be able to derive the answer based solely on those.

It is actually part in the IPG: "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.“
If NAP allows AP to get a second token without mentioning the trigger AP lets the game continue after the point where she should have remembered the trigger. I think nobody would argue about that if we weren't in a loop, right?

Now the question I ask myself is why some are thinking that loops alternate this rules that much. NAP can't cause AP to miss a trigger by playing fast (which basically happening if you go through a loop). While I'm thinking about that I see that one could argument that by playing to fast AP never gave NAP a chance to acknowledge her trigger. However I think this is not applyable here because with proposing the shortcut AP basically asks NAP ”Do you have anything to add to this procedure“ which she denies (otherwise the shortcut would never start) She would have had the chance to say ”After the first token you lose one life". So she had the possibility to acknowledge the trigger at the appropriate time/position in the game, but chose to only do it after all tokens were in play.

I would rule ‘in favour of the player with the Exarch’.

Formally: the player proposing shortcutting a loop needs to explain the
“game choices” and the “predictable results” of the choices .
Here, I believe it's clear that the life loss wasn't explained, or even
considered by the player; so I would say that the shortcut was not well
proposed. If you think it is, I think the loop will be stopped during the
first iteration according to CR 716.2b.

Philosophically: if there was no loop, but we're playing it out, during the
first iteration, the Suture Priest player would acknowledge the life loss.
At that time, the Exarch player would realize the effect of what they're
doing and stop, or stop at a certain number of tokens. The loop rules exist
to speed up the game; forcing a player to take actions that they wouldn't
take if the loop was played out seems counterproductive.



2015-04-05 19:05 GMT+02:00 Florian Horn <

Originally posted by Adam Zakreski:

I guess that all depends on what the ‘O’ answer ends up being. If AP does get a “take-back” then she's unwittingly stumbled into an excellent way of checking if NAP is paying attention to her triggers.

With that being said, anyone who knows me knows I would gleefully sit here all day and debate both sides of this argument. I'm still not firmly in one camp or the other as this intersection of the MTR/CR/IPG seems to result in some room for interpretation. Many experienced and well respected judges have posted their opinions and backed it up with appropriate citations.

Not to disrespect anyone's opinion here, but I'm very curious to know what the 4's and 5's think and why.

Agreed. This is an interesting conversation regarding some elements of the rules and policy that intersect in a different fashion. IMO, it's possible there might be an “O”fficial answer that ultimately supports one approach or not, and were I a betting person, it may be that there's some internal discussion to that end. (Both on the rules side as well as on the policy side.) There's been some really good points about potential ramifications of any particular outcome in handling the situation.

But, I largely suspect there is more desire to avoid weighing in on the matter for the time being, and any weigh-in will largely be to serve as an end to the conversation. I expect there to be very little “my personal opinion” on this thread (edit: From L4s and L5s that is).

Edited Brian Schenck (April 24, 2015 05:51:06 PM)

Originally posted by Christopher Wendelboe:

Would your ruling on the floor change if the card in question was Soul Warden?

Yes - I believe this makes all the difference - the Soul Warden proposed shortcut and all of its outcomes can be understood from the boardstate - this is definitely the case where I would allow a player's understanding to come into play.

The Suture Priest means we need a decision (the may clause) from the opponent at every iteration and none has been suggested in the shortcut. Ignoring how unlikely it is; presumably those arguing for the instant loss would offer the opponent the choice not to do the damage - so the NAP gets all those choices but the AP can't respond?

If the NAP had cast a Quickened Beck half of Beck // Call would we determine that they would have chosen the ‘May’ here and drawn their deck?

Originally posted by Marc Shotter:

The Suture Priest means we need a decision (the may clause) from the opponent at every iteration and none has been suggested in the shortcut. Ignoring how unlikely it is; presumably those arguing for the instant loss would offer the opponent the choice not to do the damage - so the NAP gets all those choices but the AP can't respond?

At Competitive REL, it is reasonable to expect the players to understand the rules well enough to play the game and reasonably understand the consequences of the actions they propose. That is a responsibility that we place squarely on the player. If the player didn't understand the consequences of the shortcut and the opponent does understand the consequences of the shortcut, that's not on us at all. It's still squarely on the player.

Originally posted by Marc Shotter:

If the NAP had cast a Quickened Beck half of Beck // Call would we determine that they would have chosen the 'May' here and drawn their deck?

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 feel like I need to add my 50 cents here.

Seems like this situation raises an interesting question towards the current policy: if the player is allowed to try and catch his opponent on missed triggers and intentionally missing opponent's triggers is not considered an infraction, then how far player can go in this attempt? Is there a limit besides common sense here? (and this one is no good as A, N and judge might have different opinions)

Here, A proposes a loop that implies N missing a trigger and the loop, of course, is broken if N notices the trigger needed to resolve. A cannot include the missed trigger in the proposed loop description as it will actually be pointing out the trigger for N, but, as allowed by current policies on missed trigger, A is allowed to make a play to see if N remembers the trigger. Therefore, clarification is needed, can A make a shortcut implying 1bln triggers missed by his opponent, or not?

Originally posted by Teun Zijp:

I would rule ‘in favour of the player with the Exarch’.

Formally: the player proposing shortcutting a loop needs to explain the
“game choices” and the “predictable results” of the choices .
Here, I believe it's clear that the life loss wasn't explained, or even
considered by the player; so I would say that the shortcut was not well
proposed. If you think it is, I think the loop will be stopped during the
first iteration according to CR 716.2b.

Philosophically: if there was no loop, but we're playing it out, during the
first iteration, the Suture Priest player would acknowledge the life loss.
At that time, the Exarch player would realize the effect of what they're
doing and stop, or stop at a certain number of tokens. The loop rules exist
to speed up the game; forcing a player to take actions that they wouldn't
take if the loop was played out seems counterproductive.



2015-04-05 19:05 GMT+02:00 Florian Horn <

I totally agree with this interpretation.

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

Adam Zakreski
I guess that all depends on what the ‘O’ answer ends up being. If AP does get a “take-back” then she's unwittingly stumbled into an excellent way of checking if NAP is paying attention to her triggers.

This is plenty easy to check without a take-back. Just physically run through the loop once before declaring the shortcut. This is probably good practice anyway, to demonstrate that the loop is a loop and avoid mistakes on both players part–and if they let you complete the loop without announcing a trigger, then you know they've forgotten.

This might not work in this example, as NAP could forget their trigger the first time or try and be cunning and not announce the trigger formally choosing not to have the AP lose life.

Originally posted by Arman Gabbasov:

This might not work in this example, as NAP could forget their trigger the first time or try and be cunning and not announce the trigger formally choosing not to have the AP lose life.

NAP can't accept one shortcut and then force a different one to get played out. If a million iterations of the “no life loss” loop is accepted then that's what will happen.

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

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’.

Edited Marc Shotter (April 24, 2015 10:43:28 PM)