Player controls two Bomat Couriers; both of which have cards exiled to them. Player announces “I'll sacrifice both of my Couriers”. What happens?

Their intention is - most likely - to put both abilities on the stack after each other, so by the time the abilities resolve, they paid the cost for it (discarding their hands), so they get to put all cards into their hands.

However, it seems like MTR shortcuts don't support this:

MTR 4.2
- Whenever a player adds an object to the stack, they are assumed to be passing priority unless they
explicitly announce that they intend to retain it.
- If a player adds a group of objects to the stack without explicitly retaining priority, they are assumed
to be adding them to the stack individually and allowing each to resolve before adding the next. If
another player wishes to take an action at a point in the middle of this sequence, the actions should be
reversed to that point.

…which basically means the abilities are put on the stack and resolved one by one - and they have to discard the cards from Courier #1 to activate the ability of Courier #2! (Unless they explitictly retain priority.)

My solution would be to ask the Player what and how they want to do, and if they explain correctly, let them put all cards into their hand; but this sounds like deviation for me. The opponent could also argue that it doesn't comply with the MTR.

Am I missing something? :)

First, the activation cost of Bomat Courier includes discarding your hand; to activate both of them in this manner means both costs are paid before either one can be resolved.

Unless the player specifically stated that they wanted to activate the second one after the first one resolves - and that'd be an odd choice! - they won't have to discard the cards retrieved from the first one to resolve.

I'd say that the first phrase you quoted, from the MTR's list of shortcuts, applies here - their actions & wording makes it clear that they are retaining priority, and activating the second Courier before passing priority.

The second phrase you quoted is meant to cover situations like Nantuko Shade - as I recall, that's the card that inspired this shortcut - where one player says “pump it 4 times” and the opponent wants to respond. Prior to adopting this shortcut, the opponent could claim they were responding before any of those pumps resolved, yet it was clear that the player intended to pump, resolve, pump, resolve, etc. Many arguments ensued, and we got a great new piece of policy!

Hopefully, this clears things up a bit?

d:^D

Thank you, it does! :)

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

I'd say that the first phrase you quoted, from the MTR's list of shortcuts, applies here - their actions & wording makes it clear that they are retaining priority, and activating the second Courier before passing priority.

Scott, could you elaborate this a bit more? For me it is still kind of unclear, how can one reach your conclusion by reading the MTR.

Especially:
-What is the shortcut in MTR applied, which results in “their actions & wording makes it clear that they are retaining priority, and activating the second Courier before passing priority.”?
-Why the rule “If a player adds a group of objects to the stack without explicitly retaining priority, they are assumed
to be adding them to the stack individually and allowing each to resolve before adding the next. If
another player wishes to take an action at a point in the middle of this sequence, the actions should be
reversed to that point.” is not applicable for this?

Edited Szilveszter Nadas (Aug. 29, 2018 04:06:19 AM)

Szilveszter, it's not possible to “sacrifice both of my Couriers” without invoking that first shortcut - i.e., retaining priority after activating the first one.

I wonder if part of the confusion is because of the English language's many oddities; one of the hardest parts of writing policy is only saying exactly what you want a non-native English speaker to understand…

d:^D

Originally posted by Szilveszter Nadas:

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

I'd say that the first phrase you quoted, from the MTR's list of shortcuts, applies here - their actions & wording makes it clear that they are retaining priority, and activating the second Courier before passing priority.

Scott, could you elaborate this a bit more? For me it is still kind of unclear, how can one reach your conclusion by reading the MTR.

Especially:
-What is the shortcut in MTR applied, which results in “their actions & wording makes it clear that they are retaining priority, and activating the second Courier before passing priority.”?
-Why the rule “If a player adds a group of objects to the stack without explicitly retaining priority, they are assumed
to be adding them to the stack individually and allowing each to resolve before adding the next. If
another player wishes to take an action at a point in the middle of this sequence, the actions should be
reversed to that point.” is not applicable for this?

If I might hazard a guess:
My rule of thumb here is that we should generally allow a player to take the actions that they are trying to take, unless there's a good reason not to. (and defined or mutually understood shortcuts can be a good reason not to)

The answer to your first question is to look at the actions the player takes. If they say “sacrifice both couriers” and attempt to put both piles of cards into their hand, it's clear what they are attempting to do, even if they don't use the words “hold priority” or “in response.” If they seem confused about how to resolve the abilities, then it's not really clear what they intended to do and you may have to seek further clarification about the specific timing of the activations.

To your second question, I think there is an argument that the shortcut can apply in this situation, but that this isn't the scenario it is intended to cover, and straightforwardly applying the shortcut here creates some significant awkwardness. Since this situation lacks the abuse case the shortcut is intended to prevent and the implementation is awkward in any event due to the “discard the hand” cost, it's probably best to consider this situation as not really covered by the shortcut, superficial similarities notwithstanding.

Edited Andrew Keeler (Aug. 29, 2018 04:54:51 AM)

Sacrificing Bomat Courier is required in order to activate the ability. If the player puts both Bomat Couriers into their graveyard before putting any exiled cards into their hand, the only possible interpretation of that is that they've activated both abilities before passing priority. The second shortcut doesn't apply because the player was quite clear in their actions that they wanted to retain priority.

It is much clearer now, thank you all.

Edited Szilveszter Nadas (Aug. 29, 2018 02:58:13 PM)

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Szilveszter, it's not possible to “sacrifice both of my Couriers” without invoking that first shortcut - i.e., retaining priority after activating the first one.

Originally posted by Szilveszter Nadas:

Sacrificing Bomat Courier is required in order to activate the ability. If the player puts both Bomat Couriers into their graveyard before putting any exiled cards into their hand, the only possible interpretation of that is that they've activated both abilities before passing priority.

I'm a bit confused by both these posts.

I agree with the conclusion that the player obviously meant to retain priority and draw all the cards. I think the fact that he didn't discard any cards to the second activation makes that clear.

But I'm not sure why sacrificing the Couriers is relevant.

For example:

• AP: You're at four? Sacrifice all four of my creatures to Goblin Bombardment to kill you. puts all creatures into GY.
  
• NAP: Okay, Summary Dismissal to counter all four abilities. I'm still at four.
  
• AP: Obviously I was doing those one at a time. Judge!

Under that circumstance, all the creatures were sacrificed at once–but according to my understanding of the MTR, the shortcut applies here 100% and NAP only gets to counter one ability. What am I missing that makes sacrificing both Couriers “not possible?”

I think the difference lies in the fact that the player didn't put in their hand the cards exiled with one of the Bomats and then discarded them to active the second Bomat's ability
The only way to do it this way is by retaining priority. Something that's just not true in the case of the Goblin Bombardment

Eli, the difference is in what's legal. In the Goblin Bombardment scenario, it is legal to activate the abilities one-at-a-time, so we go by the MTR shortcut and assume that's what happened. In the Bomat Courier scenario, it is not legal to put both Bomat Couriers into the graveyard if the abilities are being activated one-at-a-time: you'd have to resolve the first ability before activating the second. By taking an action that's only legal if one were activated right after the other, AP has clearly indicated that that's what they're doing.