Judge ruling IYP.

[KærvekTheMerciless]

I was watching a game the other day. Bant+ vs. Mono-red Burn.

In one turn, Red player casts Lightning Bolt, Price of Progress and Fireblast FTW.
Bant player responds with Mindbreak Trap.

No question, he gets to exile something. Obviously, since he played Mindbreak Trap, he'd like to exile everything. Red player responds to that by saying he can only exile Fireblast, since the spells were played separately. Bant player states that all three spells were set down on the table at the same time.

Obviously, we need a judge ruling. I would imagine the judge would err on the side of the Red player, since he controlled all three spells that triggered Mindbreak Trap, but it is also surmisable that the judge would rule with Bant player, since all three cards were laid on the table at once.

Any ideas?

[citanul]

Afaik, when playing multiple spells or triggers without anouncing that you retain priority means that you used a shortcut. Priority in theory is passed between each spell and the Bant player can back up the game state until the point where he wants to act.

The same is true for triggers, if you have Nantuko Shade and activate it three times you should think that you can react to all 3 at the same time and play a shock and it would die. This is not correct. You'll have to back up the state to where you want because the moment the third trigger is on the stack the Shade should already by a 4/3.

The red player is correct.

[KærvekTheMerciless]

That's the problem, the judge would present him with the choice, one at a time or all at once. This is the part that gave us the headache. Bant player figured it would cause the judge to be forced to read Red player's mind. Obviously, Red player is thinking (BURN BURN BURN). I'm thinking that if it causes this much of a task for a judge, heads would explode and the game would end in a draw.

[dorsch]

The relevant part of the Tournament rules is this:


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.

It depends a lot on the exact circumstances and communication between the players.

Did he slam all 3 spells at once onto the table? Did he play them one by one? Did he just put them down onto the table without paying mana and saccing lands yet? Did the Bant player ask or say anything during the casting of the spells?

I can imagine different scenarios which all match the OP's descripion and would be ruled completely different.

[Maveric78f]

Obviously, Red player is thinking (BURN BURN BURN).
Exactly. The red player never intended to retain priority. A simple reason to know that: he has not reason to intend this.

That is sad, but the burn player will only have his FB countered, since by default players are considered letting their spells resolves, even when you announce several at the time. However, I strongly wonder why the opponent played the trap in the first place.

The U player should have asked the burn player if he retained the priority to play all his spells and kill him in a damage explosion. Flattered he would have answered "yeah, burn burn burn hah!" and then the U player could have said "hah, this was a TRAP!".

[Maveric78f]

I can imagine different scenarios which all match the OP's descripion and would be ruled completely different.

I can't imagine a single one that could bend towards the U player. Simply on the basis of the rule text you quoted.

[citanul]

None of the scenario's he mentioned change it at al. The Red player is correct unless he clearly indicated that he wanted to retain priority.
You can do this by saying: 'I play this without passing priority' and then cast all 3.
Or cast one, say you want to respond yourself, cast the second, repeat and cast the third.

Unless clearly indicating that, you are passing priority. Now there are exceptions, the most commonly used interaction for this is probably Infernal Tutor and Lion's Eye Diamond. If you cast Infernal Tutor, then crack LED without saying you passed priority would mean the following:
Cast infernal Tutor, reveal card from hand, let it resolve, find card, crack LED afterwards and discard the found card.
The correct way to play it is cast Infernal Tutor, say that you wish to react to it yourself and crack LED, then givining the option to your opponent to counter.
If you just pass priority, not cracking LED and he sais ok it will be to late. I think a judge would rule in the favor of the combo player if he didn't make clear that he retained priority but acted fast enough without seeing if the opponent had a counter or not.

[dorsch]

I can't imagine a single one that could bend towards the U player. Simply on the basis of the rule text you quoted.

What if the Bant player asked something like "So you cast these spells at once?"
Or if the Burn player plays the first spell and says "Wait! I got some more!!!! BUUURNNNN"
Or if the Burn player did during the whole match put each spell immediately into the grave after casting, but now he puts each spell in the middle of the table, on top of each other?

It is most likely that he didn't state anything, so the judge should assume he passed priority. But the scenario description was very short, so I don't want to assume anything.

An argument you should never use is "Obviously his intention was [insert random statement]"
Maybe the Burn player is very cunning (Ok, I know its unlikely) and wanted on purpose to cast the spells without passing priority? Maybe he knew his opponent plays the trap and the Burn player has a Red Elemental Blast for which he needs a target, because he needs threshold for Barbarian Ring?

I absolutely do NOT think any of these scenarios happened, but they COULD. Most likely the Burn player was just lazy and it is indeed apropriate to assume he did use the shortcut and inteded to pass priority.

How should I know anything out of these two sentences?

In one turn, Red player casts Lightning Bolt, Price of Progress and Fireblast FTW.
Bant player responds with Mindbreak Trap.

[Anusien]

Obviously, the judge is going to investigate and find out how the Burn player played these spells, whether the Bant player took any damage, how these spells were cast previously in the match.

But yes, the default shortcut dorsch posted is there for a reason, and this is pretty much it. We're going to allow the Bant player to back up to any point in the chain if they want, but at the end of the day, they're only going to get one spell with Mindbreak Trap.