Hi everyone,

the following situation happened this weekend. Player N controls Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite and is at 5 life. Player A has enough sources to play Walking Ballista with X=5. Ballista resolves and player A says “I will kill you?”. So he actually proposed a shortcut that he intends to remove all counters from it.

The problem is that Walking Ballista dies to state-based actions after the counter number three is removed, because its toughness will be 0 due to Elesh.

The common sense tells that the solution of this situation would be that the proposed shortcut does here as much as possible, so player N drops down to 2 life, Ballista dies and the players continue playing. But when I looked into the CR, I found this:

719.2a. 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.

If I understand this rule correctly, player A has just violated it. Therefore he should be given a GPE-GRV warning and the judge lets him propose another shortcut, which is legal. I find this very unfair because player A just forgot about the continuous effect of Elesh and by doing this ruling, I would affect the game quite a lot.

Thank you in advance for your help!

Edited Karel Jílek (July 31, 2017 07:31:38 PM)

When Player A says “kill you” it's pretty clear that he means “remove all counters from Walking Ballista targeting you”. While that doesn't match his exact words, interpreting it any other way leads to inconsistencies and allows tricky wordplay.

If I reveal a Lightning Bolt from my hand and say “kill your Tarmogoyf”, but it becomes a 3/4 when the Bolt is put into the graveyard, we don't consider that a violation. I simply made a tactical error.

Make a shortcut that violated the rules… is make an ilegal shortcut. I think all agree with this, but…

Make an ilegal shortcut is a GRV?
Can this case fit under “Tournament Error — Communication Policy Violation”?


My reasons:
the information about a Walking Balista with 2 counters +1/+1 dies is derivated information {I think}… and copy from IPG:

Definition:
A player violates the Player Communication policy detailed in section 4.1 of the Magic Tournament Rules. This infraction only applies to violations of that policy and not to general communication confusion.

make a shortcut that break the correct representation of derivated information, and violating them the 4.1 of MTR… It can be them TE-CPV??

Edited Iván R. Molia (July 31, 2017 10:25:00 PM)

Originally posted by Isaac King:

When Player A says “kill you” it's pretty clear that he means “remove all counters from Walking Ballista targeting you”. While that doesn't match his exact words, interpreting it any other way leads to inconsistencies and allows tricky wordplay.

This sounds like you're arguing for the opposite viewpoint – as you say, it means “remove all counters from Walking Ballista targeting you”, which isn't possible. This sounds like an illegal shortcut proposal to me.

I think the CR shortcut rules are just not suited to tournament play, and the MTR doesn't go far enough in extending them. There should be language in the MTR rule that says you do as much of an illegal shortcut as possible, instead of getting a GRV and doing none of it. I think this would match general expectations of what should happen here – which I completely agree is “Ballista dies and NAP goes to 2.”

While “kill you?” certainly does signify an intention to remove all of the counters, NAP is responsible for realizing that this can't happen as described. If he scoops without making AP actually kill him, he has made a tactical error. Much like the old ruling where a player says he will fetch 2 Mogg Fanatics for the win (knowing that he has none remaining in his library), I would view this as a bluff, and not a shortcut. Of course, if NAP does not agree to the shortcut of “you're dead”, you should watch to make sure that the correct sequence happens when AP starts removing counters.

Originally posted by Jake Eakle:

This sounds like you're arguing for the opposite viewpoint – as you say, it means “Remove all counters from Walking Ballista targeting you”, which isn't possible. This sounds like an illegal shortcut proposal to me.

That's a fair point, I didn't think my statement through :). I think the same logic applies though, the proposed shortcut is actually “remove as many counters as I can”.

Originally posted by Jake Eakle:

I think the CR shortcut rules are just not suited to tournament play

That's definitely true, they aren't comprehensive like the rest of the comp rules. You pretty much have to pretend that they're actually in the MTR, and apply your own extensions to them as you would to other things in the policy documents.

Originally posted by Isaac King:

If I reveal a Lightning Bolt from my hand and say “kill your Tarmogoyf”, but it becomes a 3/4 when the Bolt is put into the graveyard, we don't consider that a violation.

That is definitely right, because it is not actually proposing a shortcut. This means nothing else than “I target your Tarmogoyf with my Bolt”, which can be legally performed.

Originally posted by Iván R. Molia:

Make an ilegal shortcut is a GRV?
Can this case fit under “Tournament Error — Communication Policy Violation”?

From the IPG, GRV definition:

It handles violations of the Comprehensive Rules that are not covered by the other Game Play Errors.

Player A has just violated the rule 719.2a mentioned above. I understand the CPV as misrepresenting an information as defined in MTR 4.1 which is, in my point of view, not this case. Examples of CPV also look quite different from this.

I would love to see an official answer for this, because the discussion so far is not much convincing for me.

When I read the original post:

Originally posted by Karel Jílek:

Player A has enough sources to play Walking Ballista with X=5. Ballista resolves and player A says “I will kill you?”.

I was tempted to just (flippantly) reply “NAP should say ‘hey, you’re welcome to try that!'”. :)

A bit more seriously: AP has proposed a future game state that isn't going to happen, but that's not illegal. If NAP believes that “bluff”, it's legal for them to concede (sad, but legal). Hopefully, NAP just lets AP try, and then points out that the Ballista dies as soon as the 3rd counter is removed.

Don't get too lost in thinking that AP has violated the Comp Rules; players are allowed to bluff (i.e., make misstatements about what *might* happen in the future); they're also allowed to do so unintenionally (i.e., when they've made an error). Until an actual infraction occurs, we don't care what they've predicted.

d:^D

This is a really hand-wavey part of policy so we probably won't come to a correct answer.

It is my belief that Karel is correct, and that proposing an illegal shortcut is indeed illegal, and NAP can't interrupt part of an illegal shortcut to their advantage.

AP has proposed a shortcut, and NAP's options are to accept it, or interrupt it at some point. Accepting it is not legal, but interrupting it may be.

I assert that situations like this are indeed Game Rule Violations, and the player proposing a shortcut should receive a warning with no actions as part of the shortcut being taken.

So, while Scott's statement about bluffing is true, players ARE allowed to make misleading or incorrect statements about what might happen in the future, I'm saying that they can't do so if they are construed as suggesting that those things happen right now.

I'm a bit confused here. Scott's statement is that AP is allowed to bluff
by making this suggestion, NAP is allowed to either a) concede to it or b)
ask AP to perform it and then have their Walking Ballista die when they
try. Joe's position seems to be that NAP can't die to this shortcut as
that's not legal (although a bit of semantics, since the difference between
“I take 5 damage from Walking Ballista and then lose as a state-based
action” and “I concede” is realistically going to be difficult to suss out)
but that NAP can (?) interrupt the shortcut at the point where the Walking
Ballista dies. Do I have that right? And Scott's opinion is that AP
should not get a warning unless…unless they actually kill their opponent
with WB? But maybe not if NAP concedes?

I agree wholeheartedly with Joe that this is a weird corner-case of policy,
but I'm still curious about the fficial position. Does Scott's answer
on this topic carry the ?

I would like to hear from Karel how that situation ended up on the event.

I'm quite sure that in life, it will have two outcomes:
a) NAP don't know how that interaction works and concede on spot
b) NAP know how that interaction works and ask AP to go through motions of that play, allowing him to play Ballista X5 and stating after 2 ‘pings’ that Ballista will die due to SBA.

I don't want to came up with elaborate way to apply infraction here just because AP misplayed there. I agree with Uncle Scott reasoning.

Edited Bartłomiej Wieszok (Aug. 4, 2017 07:44:47 AM)

Justin, all - unless I specifically state otherwise, ALL of my posts represent the Official position/answer.

And, everyone is still entitled to share their (differing) opinions; however, those opinions do not, and cannot, invalidate the Official stance on a situation.

Joe, if AP tried to remove a fourth counter, then an infraction would occur, and unless NAP stops it right away, they've failed to maintain the game state. Until we cross that line, nothing has gone wrong. While it seems likely that AP has forgotten about Elesh Norn's -2/-2, it's also possible that they're just hoping that NAP forgets it, and accepts their bluff. If we intervene, we destroy a legal bluff. Don't do that.

So, yes, my post is the correct answer, whether or not it's the comfortable answer.

d:^D

To elaborate a bit on why some of our policy exists as it is … Story Time!

Many years ago, at a Pro Tour, Mike Long was about to declare attackers; however, it was a critical point in the game, and he told his opponent something like “I have to make sure I can survive your counter-attack next turn, so these aren't final yet”. He then proceeded to arrange potential attackers, and potential blockers for the next turn, and doing some thinking out loud. At one point, he put a creature with “~this~ can't block” in front of a likely attacker, hoping to mislead the opponent into worse decisions during Mike's attack.

A well-meaning judge, watching the match, said “that can't block”, and Mike was - justifiably - livid. While the judge's observation was accurate, he had intervened at a point where no infraction had (yet) occurred. The judge didn't realize that Mike was creating a bluff - one that probably made the difference in that game's outcome. As I remember it, the wording about judges not intervening unless an infraction occurs was added, or at least strengthened, soon after this incident.

In this scenario, we can't know if AP or NAP *will* commit an infraction, but we can be vigilant in case they do.

d:^D

Scott, you haven't addressed the main question posed by this thread – why is it the position that AP has not committed an infraction by suggesting an impossible shortcut? You wrote in your first post

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

AP has proposed a future game state that isn't going to happen, but that's not illegal.

However, As quoted by Karel in the OP, the CR seems to pretty clearly say the opposite:

Originally posted by CR 719.2a:

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.

Here, AP is describing a sequence of game choices (“remove five counters”) that cannot be legally taken, and therefore is not permitted to propose this shortcut by this rule.

One possible interpretation I can imagine here is that, rather than being a GRV, AP's suggestion is simply not a shortcut. Instead, it's simply an incorrect statement about the future, which will not become an infraction until the 4th counter is actually physically removed. Is that the interpretation, or is there something else we're missing?

He didn't propose “remove 5 counters”, he proposed “kill you.” If he tried to remove 5 counters, that would be an appropriate time for a judge to intervene.