Snapcaster Question

[Atikin]

Just came across the scenario, not sure whats correct. My opponent is attacking with a 4/5 goyf and I know he's holding a path to exile. While knowing this, i cast snapcaster and it resolves. I target lightning bolt in my graveyard (hoping to block with snapcaster and bolt goyf). In response to the EtB targeting bolt he casts path to exile on my snapcaster, and of course i lose from there. What I'm wondering is what would happen if the enter the battlefield trigger resolved, and then he tries to path my snapcaster. Once the trigger has resolved does he have time to path before I can block?

Additionally, in real life whats the fine line between "I'm targeting bolt" and "bolt now has flashback". Do you play slowly and give them as much time as possible to respond to the trigger, or do you target bolt, wait a couple seconds, assume nothing is being done, and the EtB trigger has resolved?

[lochlan]

Once the trigger has resolved does he have time to path before I can block?

Yes. Presumably you are flashing in Snapcaster during Declare Attackers. After the trigger resolves the active player gets priority again and both players must pass priority without doing anything before you move to the next step. So as soon as the trigger resolves, your opponent (the active player), has an opportunity to Path Snapcaster before you move to Declare Blockers, preventing Tarmogoyf from being considered a blocked creature.


Do you play slowly and give them as much time as possible to respond to the trigger, or do you target bolt, wait a couple seconds, assume nothing is being done, and the EtB trigger has resolved?

Typically my opponents will say "OK" or "it resolves" to indicate that a spell or ability has resolved. Once you put the EtB trigger on the stack your opponent has to explicitly pass priority for it to resolve, you can't just "wait a couple seconds" and the ability is somehow resolved via your opponent's inaction. If your opponent doesn't say anything after a few seconds you could ask them if it resolves, however.

[Atikin]

Yes. Presumably you are flashing in Snapcaster during Declare Attackers. After the trigger resolves the active player gets priority again and both players must pass priority without doing anything before you move to the next step. So as soon as the trigger resolves, your opponent (the active player), has an opportunity to Path Snapcaster before you move to Declare Blockers, preventing Tarmogoyf from being considered a blocked creature.



Typically my opponents will say "OK" or "it resolves" to indicate that a spell or ability has resolved. Once you put the EtB trigger on the stack your opponent has to explicitly pass priority for it to resolve, you can't just "wait a couple seconds" and the ability is somehow resolved via your opponent's inaction. If your opponent doesn't say anything after a few seconds you could ask them if it resolves, however.

I would be casting it during declare blockers. Second part makes sense, but there's definitely cases where certain actions of your opponent imply priority. Not everything has to be explicitly stated by them. When you fetch against a mono black deck, you pick your deck up and start looking through it, you dont wait for a stifle...

[lochlan]

I would be casting it during declare blockers.

Then you can't declare Snapcaster as a blocker. The very first thing that happens during Declare Blockers is:


509.1. First, the defending player declares blockers.

Which happens way before the active player gets priority (rule 509.5). The last opportunity to flash in Snapcaster such that he can be declared a blocker is at the end of Declare Attackers.


Second part makes sense, but there's definitely cases where certain actions of your opponent imply priority. Not everything has to be explicitly stated by them. When you fetch against a mono black deck, you pick your deck up and start looking through it, you dont wait for a stifle...

If you activate a fetchland's ability when playing against a mono black deck, the mono black deck has an opportunity to respond with instant-speed effects. However, during the course of playing both players may decide that not explicitly passing priority in that case is a mutually understood shortcut, which is fine. But only when you've both established a mutually understood shortcut could you successfully argue that "certain actions...imply [passing] priority."

That's not to say that in this scenario at competitive REL you'd necessarily be penalized for going ahead and fetching without asking, assuming your opponent wanted priority and a judge was called. In my opinion, most judges would probably just give your opponent priority and the game would proceed normally from there. Mainly I think not passing priority here and picking up your deck would just kind of be bad etiquette. Either way, I see where you are coming from but I think passing priority explicitly is a good idea, simply to make sure everything is well-understood.

[phazonmutant]

Which happens way before the active player gets priority (rule 509.5). The last opportunity to flash in Snapcaster such that he can be declared a blocker is at the end of Declare Attackers.

An accurage ruling, but just to be pedantic, they removed the concept of "at the end of" a step a while ago. Things can trigger at the beginning of a step or happen during a step.


If you activate a fetchland's ability when playing against a mono black deck, the mono black deck has an opportunity to respond with instant-speed effects. However, during the course of playing both players may decide that not explicitly passing priority in that case is a mutually understood shortcut, which is fine. But only when you've both established a mutually understood shortcut could you successfully argue that "certain actions...imply [passing] priority."

That's not to say that in this scenario at competitive REL you'd necessarily be penalized for going ahead and fetching without asking, assuming your opponent wanted priority and a judge was called. In my opinion, most judges would probably just give your opponent priority and the game would proceed normally from there. Mainly I think not passing priority here and picking up your deck would just kind of be bad etiquette. Either way, I see where you are coming from but I think passing priority explicitly is a good idea, simply to make sure everything is well-understood.

Definitely agree with the part about bad etiquette. One of the things that annoys me the most about people new to legacy is they just have so little understanding of the stack and the idea that people might want to do things in response to fetchets, etc. Granted it doesn't come up much in other formats, but in legacy I've responded to fetches, Snapcaster triggers, with lots of things, not just Stifle.

That being said, I've attended a bunch of judge seminars about player communication, and one thing they always mention is that rounds would never finish in time if players had to explicitely pass priority and not shortcut. Some amount of shortcutting is good, as long as you're comfortable with keeping track of the actual game state and being willing to back up if you go too fast.

As an example I saw at GP Indy a year or so ago, my friend was playing Maverick against LSV playing Stoneblade. My friend has Ooze in play in a fairly complicated board state, and LSV very casually and rapidly announces Snapcaster and immediately picks up a Plow in his bin and points it at Teeg, then exiles it. That's perfectly valid - if my friend had been thinking clearly, he would have asked to back up to the trigger and exiled the Plow. Instead, he attempted to mimic LSV's play speed, exiled his Teeg, and lost.