Here's what I know:

- CR 106.4a requires players to announce floating mana in their pools.

- MTR 4.2 acknowledges that players may take shortcuts, including “prematurely” making decisions before they would normally be made, such as paying the cost of an Extort trigger at the time they cast the original spell. In most cases the player is beholden to that choice; this shortcut is exempted, however, if an opponent responds.

So what happens if I cast a spell, tapping out with one more mana than the spell's cost and indicating I'm paying for an Extort trigger, and my opponent responds with a Spell Rupture with X=1 without explicitly specifying that he's passing priority for the Extort ability first? Is that one mana, which is technically floating, but not explicitly announced, legal to use, or am I committing a GRV (violating 106.4a) if I elect to use that mana for the Spell Rupture? Is it instead that the mana has been committed to the Extort and we ignore the provisions of MTR 4.2 (this seems less likely/reasonable, but worth asking)?

Or is this essentially a Demigod of Revenge problem and the onus is on NAP to know the moving parts of the game and when he should declare his Spell Rupture?

Seeing as no one else has addressed this point, I suppose I shall.

Yes, this is the same this as Demigod. Fortunately, we have a really easy way of deciding if a player has resolved extort: are the life totals changed?

Hopefully by now, everyone has seen Toby's recent blog?

In light of that, I am happy to share my thoughts on this.
When you played your spell and indicated you were paying one for Extort, you proposed a shortcut - to the point where the Extort trigger is resolving. So far, so good.

MTR 4.2 (actually, all of section 4) is intended to minimize ambiguity, encouraging clear communication … and helping us handle situations that are unclear. I am not likely to ignore the guiding principles of MTR 4, and let you take advantage of this lack of communication. To me, it's much more like “Persecute Blue! … oh, no response? OK, I'll name Red.”

In this case, I would probably just ask your opponent if he had a response to the Extort trigger that you were trying to shortcut through. He'll say “no”, of course, we'll go ahead and let that resolve - and no, you can't change the choice you've already declared - and then Spell Rupture for 1 is now targeting your spell.

Are we not concerned about “rewinding” or slowing down the process to highlight every step essentially creating a coaching/strategic advice problem?

Edit: Devin- I certainly agree if we had stopped to change life totals that it would be far clearer that Extort has resolved. I'm just concerned with the specific ambiguities of if the player snap-counters, who's actually on the hook here.

Edited Rebecca Lawrence (March 8, 2013 11:28:25 AM)

Originally posted by Nathaniel Lawrence:

Are we not concerned about “rewinding” or slowing down the process to highlight every step essentially creating a coaching/strategic advice problem?

It's possible in any situation when we are called to the table that our answer to a player's question will “coach” the player (or his opponent) an an appropriate response. Even asking the question to clarify the timing of events could “tip off” a player on what he should say to try to game the system.

While there are ways to minimize this, especially in being neutral and asking open-ended questions, it is possible that you will give the player the idea to take an action. It's reasonable to try to avoid this, especially avoiding any kind of overt advice, but that can be limited to making sure you answer the player's question without going into too much detail. Not simply yes/no, but hardly an exhaustive coverage of CR XXX.XX.

Originally posted by Nathaniel Lawrence:

I certainly agree if we had stopped to change life totals that it would be far clearer that Extort has resolved. I'm just concerned with the specific ambiguities of if the player snap-counters, who's actually on the hook here.

I don't think you will find a hard and fast rule here. (Edit: Read this as “it isn't possible to have a hard and fast rule here” and you will need to apply a bit of judgment in the course of asking questions.) In a lot of situations, the person taking the action is going to be the one who needs to clarify when they are acting. If you declare attackers, then I need to be clear on when I'm casting my instant. We can presume that I'm likely to be casting in the declare attackers step, giving the timing. But, if there is a trigger involved, I'll need to be clear on when I'm acting unless I'm clear on the outcome. “Oh, you attacked with your one creature? Alright, kill it with Shock before it gets +1/+1 from exalted.”

In the event that a player isn't clear… Well, then it is kind of that player's fault, isn't it? If I want a certain outcome, it behooves me to be the one clear on what I want. If that means giving up strategic information, then that's the issue I have to deal with. Especially in making sure I know the rules well enough to know what and when I am supposed to do.

Edited Brian Schenck (March 8, 2013 09:54:17 PM)