Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Hopefully, NAP just lets AP try, and then points out that the Ballista dies as soon as the 3rd counter is removed.

If NAP is aware of the interaction between Elesh Norn and Walking Ballista, can they force NAP to kill their own Ballista by “interrupting” the shortcut after the third activation? Or can AP say “Nevermind, I will keep my Ballista with 5 counters on it” when NAP asks them to try?

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

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

The thing that bugs me with this interpretation is that, if there was no Elesh Norn on the battlefield, I would say that AP has offered an ad-hoc shortcut for “I cast Ballista with X=5, activate its ability, let it resolve, activate again, let it resolve, activate again, let it resolve, activate again, let it resolve, activate again, let it resolve”. In particular, I would allow NAP to respond to the fifth activation with a life-gain spell, and I would not allow AP to change their mind if NAP did not concede.

Originally posted by Bartłomiej Wieszok:

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

If I was alone at the event, I would just let the Ballista die, putting NAP down to 2 life and issue no warnings. I had an opportunity to discuss this with other judges (it was MKM Series). I got both of these answers (that is why I am asking here). In the end, we agreed on the “life total 2” option.

Scott, thank you for your answer, it completely makes sense. But I still do not understand, why do we have the rule 719.2a? In my opinion, it adds a lot of confusion here. If we had shortcuts only in MTR, I think nobody would even think of issuing a GRV warning here and backing up.

Originally posted by Karel Jílek:

why do we have the rule 719.2a?

Because players create “infinite” loops, and without the shortcut rules in the CR, then opponents could insist that they play out each step. That happens at any REL (including my favorite, Kitchen Table REL).

CR 719 focuses primarily on loops, and how shortcuts apply to loops. It also acknowledges that just about every turn in every game ever played includes a LOT of shortcuts.

As a mental exercise, imagine the first two turns of any game, where nothing happens beyond each player playing a land - and the 2nd player drawing, of course - and figure out how many times the passing of priority was skipped via shortcut.
Another exercise - get a friend, and play a game without any shortcuts; every priority pass must be explicitly stated. Not only will you gain a fuller understanding of the need for 719, esp. 719.1, you'll probably also have one less friend. :)

Perhaps the most important part of 719:

Originally posted by CR 719.1a:

The rules for taking shortcuts are largely informal. As long as each player in the game understands the intent of each other player, any shortcut system they use is acceptable.

Arguably, playing Ballista with X=5 and then saying “kill you?” is a shortcut (technically more than one), but, as per 719.1a, it's really an abbreviation for either “I'm going to hope you don't remember Elesh Norn” or “I forgot all about Elesh Norn” - and until forgetting Elesh Norn actually leads to an illegal play, we just observe.

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Arguably, playing Ballista with X=5 and then saying “kill you?” is a shortcut (technically more than one), but, as per 719.1a, it's really an abbreviation for either “I'm going to hope you don't remember Elesh Norn” or “I forgot all about Elesh Norn” - and until forgetting Elesh Norn actually leads to an illegal play, we just observe.

I know this has been the ongoing conversation here, but I just want to be 100% clear: I can knowingly propose an illegal shortcut hoping that my opponent “forgets” a game rule?

Isn't this counter to the philosophy behind the Failure to Maintain Game State infraction?

Edited Rebecca Lawrence (Aug. 8, 2017 03:09:49 PM)

Originally posted by Nathaniel Lawrence:

I can knowingly propose an illegal shortcut hoping that my opponent “forgets” a game rule?

That's not exactly correct, nor is it what's happening here; others seized on the idea that this is an illegal shortcut, and ran with it.

This is a bluff (or a mistake). Bluffing is allowed, and yes, you can propose an impossible future game state and hope your opponent falls for your bluff. If it's a mistake, then either the opponent or the judge will need to point it out when it happens and not before.

d:^D

A bluff requires foreknowledge that whatever is suggested isn't the actual truth of what you're capable of, and that's the problem - reading it as a bluff requires tacit acknowledgement that the player instigating the bluff knows that their actions can't result in the game state they've proposed.

A mistake, sure, fine, mistakes happen. Letting it go as a bluff seems approximately equivalent to saying "If you can do something to make your opponent think you aren't going to be breaking any rules in a series of actions that include deliberately illegal play and they scoop from it, you're in the clear."

Edited Rebecca Lawrence (Aug. 8, 2017 10:11:20 PM)

This situation happens in other games, too. In my early days, I was a
duplicate bridge player. (I might resume if I ever get any time and a
decent partner.) Once, I “claimed” all the rest of the tricks having enough
winners between both hands to take them all. But it turns out there was no
way for me to cross from my hand to the dummy hand to lead those winners.

So what happened? Once I made the claim, my opponents had two choices. They
could accept my claim, in which case I get to score the hand accordingly
(this is what actually happened), or they could propose a sequence of
events consistent with my claim and interrupt the claim at that point. (In
this case, it would be me taking all the winners in my hand, making legal
plays from the other hands as appropriate, and then having me lead one of
my non-winners so that they could win and act from there.) As it turns out,
the director (equivalent to a Magic judge) was watching, and only asked me
about it after the round was over. Once it was clear that I wasn't cheating
(I was a relatively new player and honestly didn't think about it), he
explained what the problem was and let it go.

So here, we need to accept that such things could happen, and let it go
until it becomes an issue, i.e. the player makes an illegal play. If the
opponent concedes before that illegal play is made, it's just like any
other concession.

Originally posted by Dominick Riesland:

So here, we need to accept that such things could happen, and let it go
until it becomes an issue, i.e. the player makes an illegal play. If the
opponent concedes before that illegal play is made, it's just like any
other concession.

I'm not certain your analogy is apt. The position being advanced here by Scott and others is that the proposal of a future illegal play is not in itself illegal, even if done intentionally. In your case, it sounds like the director ruled you made a simple mistake and were not intentionally cheating. Would he have allowed it as a legal bluff if you had said that you were fully aware that you couldn't execute the claim, but hoped your opponents would concede anyway? If so, then the analogy holds, but if not then we are talking about different situations.

Moreover, bluffing off hidden knowledge such as the contents of your hand(s) is a different beast than bluffing where the thing being proposed is public, yet impossible as presented - the game rules are in force at all times and last I checked we aren't in the business of only issuing infractions/correcting game states when they are caught by an opponent.

Just to be clear, Scott, if NAP says, “okay, I'm at two, and Ballista is in the graveyard,” is that in fact where we are in the game state, and do we enforce that? Or does AP get to propose the game loss, and if NAP says, “no actually I don't die,” the game state is still at the point where Ballista has 5 counters?