Printable View
If I say :
"I activate 3 times my shusher tagetting my fireblast."
What is the ruling?
Do we consider that I pass priority during each activation, and that each new activation is played once the previous one has resolved?
Or do we consider that I retain priority and at the end all three activations are on the stack?
Edited for clarity: I misunderstood the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maveric78f
Can I have a confirmation because I'm 95% sure that the ruling has changed semi-recently (within the last year) and that's why I ask.
I'm sorry but it's not convincing. You're comparing fondamental ruling with tourney ruling (which I'm asking for). For instance, I know that if I play demigod of revenge and you play counterspell in response, then the ruling says that by default, you have waited for the resolution of the triggered ability of demigod before playing counterspell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skeggi
Edit : and please do not take it personal Skeggi, but I'd like to have the opinion of a rule guru (cdr, lego, ...)
I am not quite what you would call a guru (never even bothered making the judge test as I rather want to play whenever possible). Nevertheless I am able to give you a quote of the fitting section of the Communication Guidelines and the explanation to go along with it.
Source (Penalty Guidelines (second from top) Edit: section 51 (oops))Quote:
If [a player] 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.
That means that the actions are going to be reversed to the point when your opponent wants to respond.
Now if your opponent is able to Trickbind (which is the only reason I can imagine for activating Shusher multiple times in a row) your first activation your Fireblast won't be uncounterable at any point. To avoid this you should activate your Shusher three (or two) times explicitly saying that you don't want to pass priority between the activations.
Van Phanel has the right section of the Penalty Guidelines (although he misidentified the section). Here is the full quote, under section 51 of the Penalty Guidelines dealing with common shortcuts:
If you don't say otherwise, you're assuming to be passing priority in between steps. To keep priority you'd have to say, "X, and in response Y" or some such.Quote:
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 intend 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.
This means that when you say "Pump Psychatog: 1, 2, 3, 4..." they can no longer go "okay in response to the last one, kill Psychatog. You never said you were passing priority, so they're all in response."
Actually the following situation happened in the tourney I did yesterday (I was not involved in the game).
Player 1:
I play shusher
Player 2:
ok
Player 1:
I take 2 red manas, play fireblast, you're dead.
Player 2:
In response, I BEB your shusher.
Player 1:
In resp I activate 3 times shusher targetting Fireblast (he panicked obviously, because it was obvious nobody was playing trickbind)
Player 2:
Then, in resp I counterspell your Fireblast.
Player 1:
Errrr, no mana left...
Maveric78f:
Wait all, it seems to me that this ruling has changed not long ago and that you can't anymore take advantage of such a situation.
Everybody:
Of course, you can.
Maveric78f:
Ok then let's continue that tremendous game...
I don't need a guru when you're telling something I want to hear.
The player should be explicit what "in response" means; are you responding to the first or the last activation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maveric78f
It's obvious the Counterspell player is trying to take advantage of how it was ruled circa the time Psychatog was printed - he's responding to the last activation and assuming priority has not been passed in between.
Of course now it doesn't matter whether he's repsonding to the first or the last; if it's the first, Shusher can be activated two more times; if it's the last, two Shusher activations have already resolved.
well, it sucks... I'm the player 2:wink:
If he's doing it this way because Trickbind is a factor, he might be stacking the Shusher effects. Hence why clarifying is always good.Quote:
Originally Posted by cdr
The way Mav's post reads, it looks like the player is trying to play around Trickbind by placing several Shusher activations on the stack without passing priority, and not resolving activations independently. How exactly do you rule in this situation, recognizing that the player has almost certainly punted and that clarifying questions will probably give him a takeback?Quote:
Originally Posted by cdr
Mav said: "(he panicked obviously, because it was obvious nobody was playing trickbind)". Not playing Trickbind, Trickbind was not a factor. And even if it was, it would not matter.
The Shusher player did something common: he said "activate this X times". We have a defined way of handling this. If he does not explicitly say he was retaining priority - and he did not - he is assumed to have passed priority between each activation.
The Counterspell player was attempting to take advantage of a technicality which no longer exists. The Shusher player did nothing wrong. The Shusher player does not have to say whether he is passing priority or not, and I would not expect any player to do so.
Weird. So if a player plays around Trickbind but does so incompetently, they're assumed to have not done so i.e. you must be explicit?
No different than the mentioned Counterspell + Demigod - if you want to do something different than a defined default, you must be explicit.
So if Player B is unclear as to what's going on, can he ask A for clarification or is it assumed that A is activating, passing priority, and repeating that twice more?
Again, it's assumed - or rather implicit. The Counterspell player can ask the Shusher player whether he's passing priority (but can't ask just in an attempt to confuse the Shusher player), but it's not necessary.
I expect the Counterspell player, who expects he is capitalizing on his opponent's mistake, will be taken aback when told how the situation is handled - now the Counterspell player has to clarify which activation he is responding to.
Not as much as being the player 1. Weird, your first post here?Quote:
Originally Posted by sakimmd
Sorry for the necro.
If my opponent says I play Infernal tutor and I crack the LED. Can we refer to this ruling to demand him to resolve the IT before cracking the LED?
I know that's not fair play (I'm building myself a nice reputation here...). But is it possible to make him screw up his combo with this ruling?
No.
Anusien quoted the shortcut policy above, read it again:
If he's saying "Infernal Tutor, crack LED" it's quite obvious he's retaining priority. "Infernal Tutor, crack LED" is not "adding a group of objects to the stack".Quote:
51. Shortcuts
...
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 intend 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.
If he's saying "Infernal Tutor, responses?" he's passing priority, and if you pass priority back the Tutor resolves without him having a chance to do anything else.