I'm not certain from reading 716 as to whether or not the player who originally suggested the shortcut is able to genuinely further shorten it, or if what's meant by "each other player" means that once a shortcut has been suggested, only the other player(s) are able to truncate it before the game-state is agreed upon and advanced.
With this hanging overhead, imagine the following sequence:716.2a At any point in the game, the player with priority may suggest a shortcut by describing a sequence of game choices, for all players, that may be legally taken based on the current game state and the predictable results of the sequence of choices. This sequence may be a non-repetitive series of choices, a loop that repeats a specified number of times, multiple loops, or nested loops, and may even cross multiple turns. It can’t include conditional actions, where the outcome of a game event determines the next action a player takes. The ending point of this sequence must be a place where a player has priority, though it need not be the player proposing the shortcut.
Example: A player controls a creature enchanted by Presence of Gond, which grants the creature the ability "{T}: Put a 1/1 green Elf Warrior creature token onto the battlefield," and another player controls Intruder Alarm, which reads, in part, "Whenever a creature enters the battlefield, untap all creatures." When the player has priority, he may suggest "I’ll create a million tokens," indicating the sequence of activating the creature’s ability, all players passing priority, letting the creature’s ability resolve and put a token onto the battlefield (which causes Intruder Alarm’s ability to trigger), Intruder Alarm’s controller putting that triggered ability on the stack, all players passing priority, Intruder Alarm’s triggered ability resolving, all players passing priority until the player proposing the shortcut has priority, and repeating that sequence 999,999 more times, ending just after the last token-creating ability resolves.
716.2b Each other player, in turn order starting after the player who suggested the shortcut, may either accept the proposed sequence, or shorten it by naming a place where he or she will make a game choice that’s different than what’s been proposed. (The player doesn’t need to specify at this time what the new choice will be.) This place becomes the new ending point of the proposed sequence.
Example: The active player draws a card during her draw step, then says, "Go." The nonactive player is holding Into the Fray (an instant that says "Target creature attacks this turn if able") and says, "I’d like to cast a spell during your beginning of combat step." The current proposed shortcut is that all players pass priority at all opportunities during the turn until the nonactive player has priority during the beginning of combat step.
716.2c Once the last player has either accepted or shortened the shortcut proposal, the shortcut is taken. The game advances to the last proposed ending point, with all game choices contained in the shortcut proposal having been taken. If the shortcut was shortened from the original proposal, the player who now has priority must make a different game choice than what was originally proposed for that player.
Player A: (after demonstrating an infinite combo)"...so, I'll generate 10 billion Blue mana?" <-shortcut proposed
Player B: "When you're tapped out for the first time, I play [answer card]." <-shortened!
Player A: "Well, you won't be able to, because instead of passing priority for the first effect in the sequence I'm going to use Aether Vial to put Meddling Mage into play, naming the spell you just told me you'd cast to 'wreck me'."
So, bear in mind that I've never seen this happen and that for as long as I can remember everyone typically treats this situation as though Player A were too late to use Meddling Mage in this way -- they essentially act as though the loop has de facto already started and so everything being suggested is actually occurring in response to Player A going off, when really the Comp Rules appear to handle this by saying all players agree on the future state of the game, then move to that game state as a reflection of the suggested choices. So the suggested response to the combo is not on the stack, in fact nothing may be on the stack while the shortcut is being proposed.
If this is at all legitimate it would be one of the biggest dick moves of all time, or at least it would make Meddling Mage playable in an alternate universe. I'm inclined to think that this rule doesn't actually give Meddling Mage superpowers -- I'm just having trouble rationalizing how it doesn't, without robbing Player A of the chance to re-shorten his opponent's suggested shortcut (which is a shortened version of Player A's original shortcut).
Originally Posted by Dissection
Card is already on the stack and cast. It will resolve but won't be cast able once the meddling Mage is in play with the card named.
“There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle".
- Albert Einstein
When player A proposes the shortcut and says "ok?" then he is passing priority. He can't ask whether or not player B is going to do anything about it without passing priority. After priority is passed, player B can play the answer card, and then there's no way that a Meddling Mage can stop it.
Ok but wait, because i know that is how we play it, but that is not what actually happens if we are truncating shortcuts.
Look at the example for 716.2b. Player A draws and says "go". Player B says "actually I have effects during combat." The proposed shortcut, according to the stated example, is for all players to pass priority until combat. *It doesn't even include putting the suggested spell/effect on the stack.* it's a shortened version of the shortcut 'proposed' by Player A, which was simply "go", meaning "we both pass on an empty stack until your turn begins."
By this example, I see no reason why Meddling Mage could not be played either as a Vial drop, or as an alternative to 'we both pass priority until combat'. Nothing is on the stack yet; it is still the precombat main phase as far as the game is concerned.
Edit -- also this is a good example because Player B doesn't actually name the spell, just that he has one. Much like the precocious Cabal Therapy declarations that we should avoid; at the very least, it should sharpen our concept of what a good player should say. It shouldn't be, "actually, cast [this spell] during combat", it should be far more vague in the action while being explicit in its timing. "I have effects during your [phase of the turn]" as opposed to just "end of turn, Bolt your Rootwalla."
Let us try this from a different angle:
Player A and B are at 1 life, with a battlefield devoid of nonland permanents. It is Player A's turn, and he has cards in hand, up to and including Orim's Chant. Player A draws a Raging Goblin, windmill slams it, and turns it sideways and says, "Kill you?" The shortcut here is pretty major: "I cast Raging Goblin; you pass. I move to combat; you pass. I declare this creature as an attacker; you pass. You declare no blockers; I pass. Damage is dealt; we both pass. State based effects declare you to have lost the game."
Player B says, "I have effects after attackers are declared but before blockers." Player B just happens to have Wing Shards. He does not announce what it is, just that he has effects. The shortcut is truncated now, to "Player A casts Raging Goblin; Player B passes. Player A moves to combat; Player B passes. Player A declares Raging Goblin as an attacker; Player B now has priority."
Player A says, "In that case, before combat; Orim's Chant, no kicker, targeting you."
This is a huuuge rewind of the game state -- but according to the shortcut rules, no it isn't, because the shortcut had not actually been agreed upon yet. This hasty decision to attack with Raging Goblin, instead of Player A being appropriately cautious, is now corrected by the other player's actions; if he says he has effects during combat, Player A can respond with a new shortcut. If he has no effects before combat, he takes 1 and dies.
Again -- I really know that this is not the way we are typically playing Magic, and I have little-to-no-doubt that this would get someone shiv'd like in a prison movie after the tournament. But also, I'm not certain that this isn't a legal thing to do.
I mean it's kind of a "who's the beatdown" question, right -- in a shortcut proposal, who really has the power; the person who skips the most steps, or the person who is the most explicit? Player A's apparent slop in the above example gives him a huge leeway to use Orim's Chant as a counterspell, and while the example is a bit of a straw-man (this wouldn't even be an issue if Player B just had Swords to Plowshares, Lightning Bolt, any number of less conditional removal spells), it seems like a situation where Player B is just necessarily out of luck. Player A has allowed a lot of the game to be skipped over, such that it can be returned to and corrected. His only guide on this journey is Al, who appears in the form of Two Explores that only Player A can see and hear. Player A leaps from phase to phase, setting play mistakes right that once went wrong, and hoping each time that his next leap will be the Top 8.
sent from phone, don't be a dick
No, what we skip to isn't the Combat step. It is the combat step with priority on player B. This is why your meddling mage example does not work: By defining a loop and saying "I will conduct this loop X times" means you have proposed a shortcut and you are held to that shortcut until your opponent has a response. You cannot use the fact that your opponent decides to stop you on the Ith iteration and vial in meddling mage, since you do not have priority. What your opponent has said in a sense is "When I get priority in the Ith iteration of this loop, I will not simply pass and actually have something to do".
So player A proposes a shortcut until SBA are checked after damage.Let us try this from a different angle:
Player A and B are at 1 life, with a battlefield devoid of nonland permanents. It is Player A's turn, and he has cards in hand, up to and including Orim's Chant. Player A draws a Raging Goblin, windmill slams it, and turns it sideways and says, "Kill you?" The shortcut here is pretty major: "I cast Raging Goblin; you pass. I move to combat; you pass. I declare this creature as an attacker; you pass. You declare no blockers; I pass. Damage is dealt; we both pass. State based effects declare you to have lost the game."
Player B accepts the shortcut up until the designated point. Reminder: This is beyond the point were player A has priority, as he has already stated intentions of not doing anything in this point.Player B says, "I have effects after attackers are declared but before blockers." Player B just happens to have Wing Shards. He does not announce what it is, just that he has effects. The shortcut is truncated now, to "Player A casts Raging Goblin; Player B passes. Player A moves to combat; Player B passes. Player A declares Raging Goblin as an attacker; Player B now has priority."
He does not have priorityPlayer A says, "In that case, before combat; Orim's Chant, no kicker, targeting you."
Once again, Player B isn't interrupting the shortcut at a point he has no control over: he is interrupting the shortcut when he receives priority in the Declare Attackers step. Player A is held to his choices in the shortcut up until this point and the game progresses until the point of interjection. There is no rewind, just a shortened shortcut. player A cannot do anything but lament his decision not to think ahead.This is a huuuge rewind of the game state -- but according to the shortcut rules, no it isn't, because the shortcut had not actually been agreed upon yet. This hasty decision to attack with Raging Goblin, instead of Player A being appropriately cautious, is now corrected by the other player's actions; if he says he has effects during combat, Player A can respond with a new shortcut. If he has no effects before combat, he takes 1 and dies.
Again -- I really know that this is not the way we are typically playing Magic, and I have little-to-no-doubt that this would get someone shiv'd like in a prison movie after the tournament. But also, I'm not certain that this isn't a legal thing to do.
Matt Bevenour in real life
I don't see where priority is even passed until both players agree on the order of events.
I also do not see where it states that, in the event a proposed shortcut is shortened and reproposed, that the original player is bound to their stated actions. The shortcut is now "we both pass until player B has priority after attackers are declared." Player A should be able to either accept it or truncate it further by suggesting a different game action than originally proposed (ie, passing), by my reading.
UNLESS what I'm reading from 716.2b is intended to mean that a shortcut can only be proposed once, then reviewed and shortened by the other player(s) in the game, and once each player has weighed in exactly one time on the proposed shortcut, it is taken. In this way, Player B will always have the final say on any shortcut A takes, and vise versa.
If that is the case, then I believe multiplayer games would allow for poorly chosen words to give Player C power of veto. Player C would not weigh in until after Player B does, due to turn order; if Player C opts to cast Silence or Meddling Mage via tricks as a proposed shortcut before combat, then that should stick like I think it does, should it not? They would be well within rights to cast Silence before combat since they've had no chance to weigh in.
sent from phone, don't be a dick
The "last player" here in 716.2c isn't about two players proposing back and forth. The last player is the last in turn order with the current turn.
Players only get one pass at modifying a shortcut
IE: 5 players in a game:
Player 1: Shortcut proposal until discard
Player 2: i accept that.
Player 3: I got something in the end step.
Player 4: I got nothing that I would want to do before the now new endpoint of the short cut (the end step)
Player 5: I got something in postcombat main. When I get priority I will do something though I'm not saying what.
Player 1: Welp I should have thought of that beforehand but because I've committed to doing these things, I cannot change my mind now that I've figured out players 3 and 5 have stuff they want to do. If only I've thought this out.
We now do player 1's shortcut up to player 5's priority in that designated step.
The reason for these turn order decisions are that this is the order things would have to be chosen anyway. If Player 3 didn't want player 2 to make a certain play, he would have the chance to do so anyway, so giving them the chance he already had changes nothing.
If that is the case, then I believe multiplayer games would allow for poorly chosen words to give Player C power of veto. Player C would not weigh in until after Player B does, due to turn order; if Player C opts to cast Silence or Meddling Mage via tricks as a proposed shortcut before combat, then that should stick like I think it does, should it not? They would be well within rights to cast Silence before combat since they've had no chance to weigh in.
Matt Bevenour in real life
Yes. Okay. That was the only way I figured any of it made sense, but I could see a couple of potential interpretations and so I was confused.
Disagree.The reason for these turn order decisions are that this is the order things would have to be chosen anyway. If Player 3 didn't want player 2 to make a certain play, he would have the chance to do so anyway, so giving them the chance he already had changes nothing.
Since there is (ideally) hidden information between all the players at one point - they each have (at least) one card in hand and do not know what it is - this situation could have played out like this:
Player A: I cast Raging Goblin. Effects?
Players B & C: No.
Player A: I'll declare an attack.
Players B & C have no reply.
Player A:(taps Raging Goblin) I'll attack Player B.
Player B: Before blockers, I'll cast Wing Shards, targeting Player A.
Player C: *to herself* meh I shoulda cast Silence in response to the goblin......oh well
Now, let's use the shortcutty McShortcut approach, where people play fast and loose because, like, emotions or something. vOv
Player A: (rips Raging Goblin off the top) Bwahaha (windmill slam) kill you, Player B <-zomg shortcut
Player B: Uh how about Wing Shards you before blockers? <-shortcut truncated
Player C: Woah woah woah, so since apparently we're in shortcut mode now, let's back up to main phase so I can cast Silence on Player B. <-shortcut truncated again
Player B: You're a giant dick.
I mean we could talk about other more relevant plays, like "if C wanted B dead so bad why didn't they cast Silence in response to the Raging Goblin in the first example?" but it's not really a strategy-related question so much as a "what do the rules legitimately allow for" question (besides, she's got Player A to fret over as well - who knows why/when she might want Silence to resolve?). As far as I can tell, *this* seems like a fair use of shortcut proposal that allows Silence to act as (if nothing else) a Remand; if only because Wing Shards has goofy timing restrictions in order to even be effective.
I don't expect this would come up too often -- but it can change the state of the game in a meaningful way if someone's holding, say, Time Stop or something that would just dump every object that's also a card from the stack to the graveyard. A proper sequence of events would potentially see different lines of play, so it's harder to suss out which plays are "strategically" better (which isn't the purpose of the question anyway, heh).
B needlessly gives away information in the above by naming their proposed effect. 716b says that everyone will get a crack at naming a place to truncate the proposed shortcut without being required to state what action they will take. It is unfortunate, though, that A derives some advantage by shortcutting no matter what, by forcing B to let C "respond" to even an unknown effect.
An odd thing about 716b is that it seems to say that you have to precisely state where you will make a game choice different than that proposed, even if you could give away less information by stating an earlier point. In the above, this would mean that B cannot simply say, "No, let's start at the point that Raging Goblin is played," because you're not proposing different choices until later. That seems weird to me. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that the proper response to someone windmilling an already-attacking Goblin and then quoting detailed interpretations of shortcut subrules is to punch them in the dick or dick-equivalent.
Yeah, that *is* weird. On one hand, with all the implicit priority passing and step/phase changes, it's fair that a system which allows shortcuts also mandates that you have to have a valid reason for changing them; you can't just deny a shortcut only to pass priority anyway. On the other hand, it means you're giving away information which a player later in the turn cycle is well-able to use against you.
Just have them explicitly go through the steps. "Go through things one at a time" is what I usually say.
Matt Bevenour in real life
Me too, but the rules seem to indicate that you technically have to state a place where you want to interact. In the multiplayer Goblin/Wing Shards/Silence example, this leads to a situation where the Wing Shards player is forced to give the Silence player information ("I want to truncate the proposed shortcut immediately after attackers are declared") which that player would otherwise not have. This situation arises only because the Goblin player has shortcut something.
Yes, but when that happens, it happens with the shortcutting player already having passed priority, thus being unable to cast silence. So there is no issue.
Thus as a best practice it is usually best to manually do the loop 1-2 times to illustrate it, and make sure there are no interactions from other players, before proposing said loop.
Yeah, exactly. "I plan on doing stuff" is potentially hazardous in such a setting.
Fortunately this only seems to apply to multiplayer, but it's worth knowing. It adds a weird dynamic to "can't" effects at Instant speed.
sent from phone, don't be a dick
We're not talking about a loop anymore, just shortcuts in general. See the Raging Goblin/Wing Shards/Silence situation above.
It's a 3-player game, and the first shortcut was ripping Raging Goblin, windmill slamming it and immediately proceeding to attack Player B. B truncated the shortcut of resolving Raging Goblin and announcing an attack by suggesting instead they would casting Wing Shards; Player C cast Silence as a response to entering combat.
sent from phone, don't be a dick
This thread has been quiet for awhile, so perhaps no one is interested any longer, but I stumbled upon it, so I thought I'd weigh in.
With the "Raging Goblin, Wing Shards, Silence" example, I think everyone has overthought the issue to the point of confusion.
Player A rips and slams his "attacking" goblin. This is effectively proposing a shortcut that moves through the combat damage step. If player B just says, "I'll cast Wing Shards (obviously once the goblin is attacking)." They really just made a big mistake. It's a multiplayer game, so it's probably friendly, but that's the awkward part of multiplayer, as timing becomes even more important to preserve the "integrity" of the game. Anyway, assuming player B just announces Wing Shards, then player C really has every right to say, "Wait. I'm going to cast Silence at the beginning of combat step." The onus is ultimately on player B to check with player C if they have any actions before the point at which they're planning on taking their own action (i.e. casting Wing Shards).
716.2b Each other player, in turn order starting after the player who suggested the shortcut, may either accept the proposed sequence, or shorten it by naming a place where he or she will make a game choice that’s different than what’s been proposed. (The player doesn't need to specify at this time what the new choice will be.) This place becomes the new ending point of the proposed sequence. - Emphasis mine
Now, admittedly, it's a bit odd and gives away some info if player B turns to player C and says, "Do you have anything before attackers are declared?" but I think there's not much you can really do about it. I guess the best course of action is for player B to say, "I'm OK with moving into combat." Player C should then say, "I want to stop (on my priority) in the beginning of combat step (before attackers are declared)." That's really the cleanest it can get.
Now, note that the rules do hold a player to the shortcut they propose with respect to taking the actions they describe/imply, up to the point the sequence was interrupted. So, assuming these 3 players handled the situation correctly as described in the paragraph above, player B can't try to back up and say, "Well, actually, I'd like to cast my own Silence targeting player C in response to the Raging Goblin [thereby preventing them from casting their own Silence (ignoring that player C could respond with their Silence at that point)]" as they have already implied that they're looking to shortcut to after attackers are declared.
So, what have we learned? Not that it was the intent of the OP, but we've learned that maintaining integrity in a multiplayer game is facilitated greatly by avoiding shortcuts, or at least going through the shortcut methodically enough so that all players are aware of the timing constraints involved. No one likes "take backs" or "rewinds," as they put us in the situation of either getting screwed over or being a dick. Best idea is to avoid these situations altogether.
Regarding handling shortcuts in 1v1, tournament play: Make sure you understand how to properly propose a shortcut and what that proposal implies (namely that you are held to the actions described up to the point that your opponent opts to interrupt the sequence, if they so choose). The reality of proposing a shortcut is that the player making the proposal is actually giving up some information; that's the cost of efficiency. If you want to be 100% clear and avoid making a mistake or getting blown out, manually demonstrate your loop or work through the first few steps of your shortcut. If you're lucky, your opponent will propose the shortcut, which means you'll be working with a minor bit of extra info and have given up nothing.
The above examples are the exact reasons why I will never again in my life play a game of multiple-player Magical Gathering Cards.
All the annoying jargon and behaviour of tournament scene, all those wannabe-pros with their "herp derp, tempo, value, grindy, bolt, bolt, bolt" are outweighted by the fact that not only they do know how the game works, but they're also willing to keep its integrity; ok, maybe except for Bertognonuzzichiogliacicciolini (or w/e his name) and similar dudes.
The constant take-backs, misunderstanding, misinformation, wrong interpretation of game rules/state/phases, the so-called "spirit of multiplayer game", dicking about everything possible while turning the game into lawn darts mixed with tic-tac-toe, all this makes multiplayer sooo much uncomfortable I can't even tell.
Everytime someone tries to enforce even the simpliest/importantest rule like APNAP or "declare all attackers at once" or "choose proper targets", or simply "know how the stack works", some 20 y/o idiot in a Nightscrounge T-shirt starts screaming "this is a friendly game, we play friendly game!" and proceeds to skip/bend seven rules so that he may Animate Dead the WGD without any other player interfering "wow, that was one of an intense game, my sirs, it was totally amazing how Lucy played the Signet, then Dick dicked with 1/2 Mortivore, then we hated out the rules nazi daring to play 'Creeping Mold, target your Bazaar' and then just whoa I won, I'm genius. So much fun! Another one? I'll take my 24MindTwist.dec, do you mind?"
/ot
yeah I played this one too
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote