Nissa is simply dead.

I'm with Craig in this Situation. There is no infraction. Furthermore, I would not rewind at all

Let's emphasize what really happened, setting aside the possible “Joke”: Nissa tried to resolve an unclear game state (Jace could be attacking, or Jace's ability could have been achtivated) by making an assumption on what happened and proposing an shortcut to resolve the action (She assumed, that Jace is attacking, so she would like to resolve combat damage by stating “no blocks”). At this point it's perfectly fine for Atarka to either comply with Nissas assumption or to clarify her actions regardless of her original intent.

Cosidering the “Joke” part: I would heavily discourage this. “Jokes” like this could easily be abused by competitive players to trick unexperienced opponents. Who says that Nissa didn't just tried to trick her opponent into wasting her Jace activation? She'll had a hard time to convince me, that this is an “obvious and common Joke”. Communication is key in any magic game, if I can't take my opponents statements about game actions serious, how am I supposed to play the game?

Conclusion: Both players failed to communicate clearly. Atarka should have announced, what she is doing while tapping the Jace and Nissa should have asked what Atarka is doing before making any assumptions. By stating “no blocks” Atarka is taking the initiative here by proposing a shortcut and giving Nissa the opportunity to act accordingly.

Farid, would your opinion change if Atarka was in the process of drawing a card, but stopped herself when she heard Nissa state “No blocks”?

I agree with your conclusion: no infraction, no rewind, but I'm wondering whether A starting to draw a card would change anything.

Jace attacking isn't impossible situation. We saw that at last PT, there are combat tricks and raid triggers. I would start by asking aside Atarka for honest answer what was her intent while taping Jace. If she answers that it was what she intended and she can back up her story, then we are going with that. Nissa shouldn't make so dumb jokes.
If Atarka would honestly say, that she wanted to activate Jace but went with Nissas interpretation, then I would start investigation for Cheating.

Outcome for that scenario really depends on answers that we receive from both players, Atarka especially, but “by default” I would lean to “Nissa's dead”.

edit:

Originally posted by Huw Morris:

I'm wondering whether A starting to draw a card would change anything

For me, it would change everything - there we have undisputed proof that Atarka intention was to loot and she went with opportunity to get free kill (cheat)

Edited Bartłomiej Wieszok (Nov. 10, 2015 01:35:28 PM)

Originally posted by Huw Morris:

Farid, would your opinion change if Atarka was in the process of drawing a card, but stopped herself when she heard Nissa state “No blocks”?

I agree with your conclusion: no infraction, no rewind, but I'm wondering whether A starting to draw a card would change anything.

If Atarka reached for her library to draw (possibly looking for confirmation from her opponent) Nissa could reasonably assume, that Atarka had activated the ability of Jace. We should be investigating for sure. If you believe, that Nissa tapped Jace and deliberately failed to communicate in order to gain an reaction from her opponent if it's safe to attack or to loot, then we are in Cheating Territory.

But if you come to the conclusion, that Atarka didn't intentionally obscured her actions IMHO the original intent of Atarka doesn't count anymore, if Nissa is proposing an reasonable shortcut Atarka can rightfully comply.

Originally posted by Farid Taoubi:

Nissa is proposing an reasonable shortcut Atarka can rightfully comply.

But if Atarka intent was to loot, we don't have “shortcut” there, instead we have something like that:

• A: I will loot
  N: No block then, hue-hue
  A: Well, then I will deal lethal to you
  N: ?!!
  

Intention is, in my opinion, the key there. Atarka can't do “Schroedinger” action there by taping Jace and looking out that outcome will be from Nissa side.

Edited Bartłomiej Wieszok (Nov. 10, 2015 03:08:43 PM)

Originally posted by Bartłomiej Wieszok:

Farid Taoubi
Nissa is proposing an reasonable shortcut Atarka can rightfully comply.

But if Atarka intent was to loot, we don't have “shortcut” there, instead we have something like that:

• A: I will loot
  N: No block then, hue-hue
  A: Well, then I will deal lethal to you
  N: ?!!
  

Intention is, in my opinion, the key there. Atarka can't do “Schroedinger” action there by taping Jace and looking out that outcome will be from Nissa side.

I think we instead have:

• A: I tap Jace.
  N: No block then, hue-hue
  A: Well, then I will deal lethal to you
  N: ?!!
  

In my opinion communication is the key there. If there is some “schroedingers action” due to lack of communication, both players are required to clarify the game state. If Nissa does make an assumption on whats happened, and Atarka complies, then the game state is clear again.

Perhaps it's worth breaking this down a little more.

A: Taps Jace.
N: Offers a shortcut to the AP having priority in the declare blockers stage with Jace attacking.
A: Accepts N's shortcut and casts Become Immense.
N: Loses the game.

If A didn't want to attack, he just needed to refuse the shortcut.

You can't have “shortcuts” if one or more players doesn't understand what's actually going on. The Comp Rules themselves are explicit on this point. Emphasis is added in the following:

Originally posted by CR 716 "Taking Shortcuts:

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.
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.

As is made obvious by Nissa's reaction, the joke wasn't the proposal of a shortcut. If no shortcut was proposed, there's nothing to hold the players to. Atarka omitted an important piece of Free information (the game action represented by tapping Jace), and may possibly be misrepresenting it now. The situation needs an investigation.

EDIT: Had the player names switched around

Edited Michael Shiver (Nov. 10, 2015 05:23:51 PM)

This isn't about shortcuts (although tapping Jace to attack would be a shortcut).

This is about Nissa making a bad assumption. Nissa assumes that Jace is being tapped for it's “loot” ability. She then acts on her bad assumption, and makes a joke … that costs her the game.

For those wanting to investigate Atarka, imagine the line of questioning:
Judge: “Atarka, did you intentionally tap Jace without saying anything in hopes that Nissa would assume you were looting, make a joke about not blocking, and thus allow you to win with Become Immense?”

Also, part of your investigation is the believability of Atarka attacking with Jace. After all, she has Become Immense in hand, and if Nissa doesn't block, it's lethal - it's perfectly reasonable that she might make that attack, for the win.

Finally, don't forget to consider whether or not Nissa is trying to trick Atarka; perhaps she expects Atarka to loot with Jace, but is holding Gideon's Reproach, so she suggests that Jace is attacking and unblocked… is that not just as “bad” as what some are accusing Atarka of doing?

My summary: no infraction(s), Nissa lost to her own actions.

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

For those wanting to investigate Atarka, imagine the line of questioning:
Judge: “

I would ask simpler question - what was your intention while tapping Jace. As I stated earlier, I need almost no persuasion to convince me, that this was an attack. That question however allows me to check ground for more serious infraction - cheating from Atarka side. There fore also, my default “nissa is dead” approach.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

My summary: no infraction(s), Nissa lost to her own actions.

d:^D

Scott, I seem to take from your answer that you wouldn't bother investigating this, and that Nissa has a hard lesson to learn about joking when it could cause confusion in the game state. What if you do investigate (or, you're the head judge and your floor judge had investigated and now you're addressing an appeal), and Atarka said something along the lines of “Well, I was going to loot, though I hadn't yet reached for my library and hadn't announced it yet, but when Nissa gave me a line of play that was better I took her up on it!”

I'm inferring, though you don't directly say it, that even in this case you would come to the same conclusion. Am I correct in assuming that, even in this case, you're inclined to judge that Nissa has an important lesson to learn about joking in a way that could create a confused game state, and that Atarka has done nothing wrong by taking this rather generous gift from her opponent? Does Atarka's original intent matter in this situation?

Originally posted by John Trout:

What if you do investigate (or, you're the head judge and your floor judge had investigated and now you're addressing an appeal), and Atarka said something along the lines of “Well, I was going to loot, though I hadn't yet reached for my library and hadn't announced it yet, but when Nissa gave me a line of play that was better I took her up on it!”

Then I would still not disqualify Atarka, because I would have a hard time to believe that Atarka think what she did was not allowed.

I'm all in favor of investigating, and I think we, as judges, aren't investigating enough. However, there are some situations where you have no good questions to ask.

To investigate, you start with your first impression (Atarka always attacked with Jace or Atarka was activating Jace's ability and changed her mind after Nissa's comment), then think to any unknown information that would change your mind about this, then consider which question and to whom would get you that information, and then ask them. The issue for me is about step number 2: I can't think of any realistic information that would change my mind, as this very specific hypothetical scenario was crafted in way to make sure there aren't any (there is no communication of any sort, there isn't any relevant information in Atarka's motions, etc.). So I can't think to relevant questions that would actually make the investigation progress, and as such, there is no point in delaying the event further.

As a side note (not directed to you, John, it's more of a general comment about how this thread went), while I understand the appeal of crafting such scenarios and discuss them, I would like to point out that the more specific the scenario, the less likely any of us will ever encounter it, and the less insight there is to gain from the discussion. Any situation could be twisted with weird specifics that will make it harder and harder to come to a conclusion - basically, everytime someone comes with a clever way to solve the conundrum, you just add “yes, but what if something happened that prevented us to get this information”. In order to keep these discussions educational and usable in real life situation, please refrain from doing so.

- Emilien

Would this change anyones opinion if Atarka had been looting with Jace for multiple turns?

Originally posted by Darren Horve:

Would this change anyones opinion if Atarka had been looting with Jace for multiple turns?

It wouldn't change my mind. As Uncle Scott pointed out:

Scott Marshall
Also, part of your investigation is the believability of Atarka attacking with Jace. After all, she has Become Immense in hand, and if Nissa doesn't block, it's lethal - it's perfectly reasonable that she might make that attack, for the win.

Even if (somehow) Atarka has looted with Jace for the last ten turns in a row, it doesn't change the fact that attacking this turn instead is a reasonable line of play, even just to see if you can get your opponent to hand you the win.