I was taking a Level 2 Practice Exam and the answer to one of the questions didn't sit right with me (I got it wrong of course).

I will approximate the situation out of respect of the confidentiality of Judge Center exams.

Alex controls a Scavenging Ooze, 3 Forests, and has 3 Grizzly Bears cards in his graveyard. He says, “Activate Scavenging Ooze 3 times targeting each of the Grizzly Bears” and taps 3 Forests to pay for the activations. Nina says, “Wait I want to cast Flame Javelin after you activate it twice.”

My instinct was to rule that Alex had retained priority throughout his actions and the game should proceed with 3 activations on the stack. However, the correct answer was to rewind the actions to the point at which Alex had activated the Ooze twice with one Forest untapped. Then Nina may cast Flame Javelin and the game proceeds.

The reference in the answer text was to MTR 4.2 which has a bullet which reads:
“Whenever a player adds an object to the stack, he or she is assumed to be passing priority unless he or
she explicitly announces that he or she intends to retain it. If he or she adds a group of objects to the
stack without explicitly retaining priority and a player wishes to take an action at a point in the
middle, the actions should be reversed up to that point.”

With that, it's pretty clear that I was wrong, but if we don't assume that a player is holding priority during these actions, are we then assuming that the shortcut is always “Activate, Pay, Pass Priority, Resolve, Repeat?”

As a player, I have certainly allowed my opponent to activate a batch of abilities and then cast the removal spell with them all on the stack if he wasn't passing me priority between them. Was I guilty of GRV or FtMGS? Or by allowing me to act with them on the stack was my opponent agreeing to a different shortcut (i.e. “Activate, Pay, Retain Priority, Repeat”)? If you were a judge in this situation, would you rule that my opponent's Ooze was a 2/2 or a 4/4 when I attempted to kill it?

My question is twofold. First, I want to know if the play of responding with all of the abilities on the stack is legal,

Second, why is the MTR worded this way and is there an opportunity for improvement?

Edited: Changed Flame Slash to Flame Javelin, since I made no mention of a Hypersonic Dragon in play. :)

Edited Cameron Bachman (Dec. 3, 2013 10:15:09 PM)

I'll address your second question first.

Part of why this shortcut exists is simply to speed up the game. Suppose
that this shortcut didn't exist, that I have an “inflatable” creature like
Nantuko Shade, and that I suspect you have a Lightning Bolt. It would be
very tedious for me to explicitly announce each activation of the Shade
ability individually and confirm that you're passing priority, only for you
to then Bolt the creature at some point in the middle.

Another reason is that this is how players naturally play the game. As
much as possible, we want tournament policy to work with players'
instincts, not against them.

As to your first question, I don't see that an actual infraction has been
committed here; the two of you simply don't agree on the game state. If
called to the table, I would rule that the Ooze is a 4/4, since that's what
the shortcut says. Moreover, if you're aware of how the shortcut it
supposed to work, but try to represent the game state in a way that goes
against the default shortcut to your own advantage, you're heading into
Serious Conversation territory.

P.S. Flame Slash is a sorcery… ;)

First of all, I obviously wasn't familiar with this shortcut. Instead, I've always seen batch actions as nonverbal communication to say that I am retaining priority. This is often necessary because of a language barrier since I am usually playing in my second language (Korean) and wouldn't know how to say “I am retaining priority.”

Another wrench to throw into this: What if Nina asks “are those all on the stack,” before casting Flame Javelin? In this case it would appear that she is declining the shortcut. How do we proceed from there?

It is not Nina's choice how Alex activates the abilities. If Alex doesn't
want them all on the stack in response to one another, they aren't. Alex
gets to decide how Alex passes priority.

Let me just confirm that the following works:

Nina: So you have three activations on the stack?
Alex: Yep.
Nina: Okay. Lightning Bolt targeting your Scavenging Ooze.

Is there anything wrong with Nina “tricking” her opponent into not using the shortcut?

The shortcut used to be the other way around many moons ago. And it sucked if you weren't familiar with it. One Nationals I survived the Triskelion + Mephidross Vampire combo because I knew at the time that, unless they said otherwise, all the activations were on the stack.

The rules were eventually cleaned up and all the “gotcha” shortcuts removed and replaced with the more obvious ones we have now (including for example the “go to combat?” shortcut)

Thanks for the context Mark. I suppose this one feels more in line with the advantage to skilled players than a gotcha. It seems (to me) that this is very much in line with the Lighting Bolt vs. Giant Growth strategic part of the game and the assumption is simply made that the player is being careful, even if they aren't.

I can see how my “perfect world” would leave others feeling bad.

I like to play Hive Mind Combo in Modern and I usually just lay out 2 or 3 pacts at once, in the order I'm casting them, to signal that I'm retaining priority.

(I know…. shame on me for being the judge that plays Hive Mind)

Edited Cameron Bachman (Dec. 3, 2013 11:49:24 PM)

with hive mind and pacts, you retain priority automatically anyway because
there's a trigger that gets put onto the stack after each cast.

> Sam Sherman <forum-7304-2de0@apps.magicjudges.org> hat am 4. Dezember 2013 um
> 09:22 geschrieben:
>
>
> with hive mind and pacts, you retain priority automatically anyway because
> there's a trigger that gets put onto the stack after each cast.
>
And after the trigger is put on the stack? Do you still retain priority? If so,
does that mean any trigger that triggers on casting invalidates this standard
shortcut?

i assume so, when a trigger goes on the stack active player gets priority.

The shortcut simply says that by default I am assumed to take actions one
at a time, letting them resolve in between.

As always, you may break a shortcut by explicitly saying that you aren't
using it, and explaining what you are doing instead.

In the case of Hive Mind, you are explaining what's happening to your
opponent, and your opponent probably needs to make targeting choices in the
middle, so you don't need a shortcut.

In the case of Nantuko Shade, you can ask them “So, you are putting all
three of these on the stack together, or one at a time?” If they actually
say they're all on the stack together (and almost certainly they won't),
you can Bolt in response to all three. If they say all three are on the
stack, they have again explicitly broken the shortcut.

> Sam Sherman <forum-7304-2de0@apps.magicjudges.org> hat am 4. Dezember 2013 um
> 14:21 geschrieben:
>
>
> i assume so, when a trigger goes on the stack active player gets priority.
>
How is putting a trigger on the stack different from putting a spell you're
casting or an ability you're activating on the stack, with regards to the
shortcut?

MTR 4.2:
“Whenever a player adds an object to the stack, he or she is assumed to be
passing priority unless he or she explicitly announces that he or she intends to
retain it. "

AP casts a spell, Hive Mind triggers, AP puts the trigger on the stack, and
(technically, by the CompRules, AP gets priority again, but) the shortcut tells
us to assume that AP automatically passes priority, because he just added
something to the stack.

Where do you disagree with my interpretation?

I would say that the distinction here is that Hive Mind added a trigger to the stack, not the player. The player can decide what order triggers might go onto the stack, but they cannot prevent a triggered ability from going on the stack. Ergo, the source of the trigger added the ability to the stack so AP get priority by default.

As I feel we've gone over the Nantuko Shade thing thoroughly, some discussion of the Hive Mind thing:

A lot of it I believe has to do with what the players do, I'd say. After a trigger occurs and a player acknowledges it, it is now up to AP to explicitly retain priority on it. For example, AP's enchantment puts a trigger onto the stack and he points at the Hive Mind and says “Trigger?” In this instance, AP is acknowledging that he got priority and is informing his opponent that he is passing priority. If his opponent says “Hive Mind trigger,” then AP needs to say something about retaining priority or “while I still have priority…”

Imagine a world where you had to explicitly pass priority every time. I've seen this type of magic played (outside of MTGO) and it's terrible. The CompRules and MTR don't disagree here. A trigger happens, AP gets priority, and unless he acknowledges (when that trigger is acknowledged) that he would like to keep the priority that the CompRules say he gets, he is passing it to his opponent per the MTR.

Originally posted by Nicholas Brown:

I would say that the distinction here is that Hive Mind added a trigger to the stack, not the player. The player can decide what order triggers might go onto the stack, but they cannot prevent a triggered ability from going on the stack. Ergo, the source of the trigger added the ability to the stack so AP get priority by default.

If we're going to be technical…

603.3. Once an ability has triggered, its controller puts it on the stack as an object that’s not a card the next time a player would receive priority. See rule 116, “Timing and Priority.” The ability becomes the topmost object on the stack. It has the text of the ability that created it, and no other characteristics. It remains on the stack until it’s countered, it resolves, a rule causes it to be removed from the stack, or an effect moves it elsewhere.

…but I would stress that if we're getting into the technical minutia on the application of MTR 4.2, that in general, it might be overlooking that the intent of MTR 4.2 is to get away from technical minutia. Especially in terms of making it easier to play the game, rather than get into certain semantics.

Edited Brian Schenck (Dec. 4, 2013 06:48:22 AM)