If I propose to resolve the stack, can I stop partway through?
Asked by Urge 4 years ago
Situation: I cast Gigadrowse and replicate it x times to tap my opponent's x permanents (the main spell and one of the copies are both targeting the same one of their permanents). I plan to Remand the main Gigadrowse back to my hand once the rest of the copies have resolved, but I also want to keep it available while the copies resolve in case my opponent tries something. I don't want to manually go through the stack asking if each individual Gigadrowse copy resolves until the physical card, so I want to just say something like "Do they resolve?" and then if my opponent says yes, I'd Remand my Gigadrowse after all the copies have resolved. Am I allowed to do this, or does my saying "Do they resolve?" automatically imply that I am not going to cast any more spells? Thanks.
Perhaps asking if there are any responses to the stack as presented would work better. If no one has any, you could then say, "Okay, after the copies resolve but before the original does, I cast Remand ," and continue from there.
Asking if "they resolve" or "the copies resolve" might imply letting the whole stack pass, which is where it's ambiguous.
June 17, 2019 7:18 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... Accepted answer #4
Kogarashi- I actually like Urge's new wording better than asking about "responses to the stack as presented". "The stack as presented" just feels like you are proposing to resolve all spells and abilities on the stack to me. Asking if the "copies resolve" seems pretty clear that they are only proposing a shortcut to after the copies resolve, not after the original does. Something along the lines of "I'd like to respond to the original after the copies resolve" would probably work best.
Urge- Just something to let people know that the priority passes you are proposing is allowing the copies to resolve but not the original. If you propose a shortcut you have to specify the end point. If everyone else is fine with that end point then you jump to it, if not they can (in turn order) propose an earlier stopping point. After the last player has agreed to a stopping point (it only goes around once since everyone has said that they are fine with passing priority to a point further than the proposed stopping point or to that point) the game jumps to the proposed point and the game continues as normal with no one being held to earlier proposed shortcuts.
June 17, 2019 8:22 p.m.
Raging_Squiggle says... #5
Just say “I have a response before my real Gigadrowse resolves. Do the others resolve?”
You don’t have to say what your response will be, and if your opponent says yes, the copies will resolve down to the real one, where you can then respond, as you had clearly stated.
June 19, 2019 1:17 p.m.
Tyrant-Thanatos says... #6
There's no reason imo to freely give your opponent the information that you have intentions to intervene later in the stack. Asking if they have any responses should be fine. If they have no responses, the stack resolves one copy at a time with priority rounds between each resolution. There is no reason your opponent should have the knowledge that you intend to use any of your given priorities before you have that priority.
Maybe I'm being a bit strict here, but afaik, by the rules, you have no obligation whatsoever to inform your opponent that you intend to use a later priority in the turn.
June 22, 2019 10:31 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #7
You have no obligation to inform them that you intend to respond at a certain time, however; if you wish to shortcut you have to declare a stopping point for the short cut. You can't just ask "any responses" and then shortcut to just before the last one resolves. The choices are to either resolve one trigger at a time or propose a short cut with a clear and well defined stopping point. I am of the opinion that your opponent will figure you are up to something if you don't shortcut and there will be nothing gained by it, but that is an option. The problem with just asking "any responses" is that your shortcut does not have a defined stopping point in that case.
June 22, 2019 11:44 p.m.
I can't resist hopping in on the discussion. My opinion is that a stack with more than 2-3 things on it has to be resolved one-by-one as it usually involves decisions and responses. In this situation however I don't know how it would matter either way - good players would float their mana before you tap their lands (if thats what you are aiming) and if they have responses they will respond to the Remand regardless of short-cuts and whatnot as when you cast it, they get priority back.
A little side note: In my LGS we had a situation. Player 1 plays and resolves Legion Warboss . Then he immediately says "I attack you for 1 with my goblin token", to which player 2 respond "before we enter the combat phase I Cast Down you warboss and there isn't a token created". Our judge accepted this (the response from p2) as there is passing of priority from player 1 to player 2 at the end of p1's main phase, and p2 uses this opportunity to kill the creature, before changing phases.
June 24, 2019 9:38 a.m.
In the future, please remember to hit the "Mark as Answer" button to indicate your question has been resolved and you have no further follow-ups. Since this has been answered for a couple days, I have gone ahead and marked Gidgetimer's post, as it most clearly summarizes the shortcut rules and the need for a proposed stopping point before letting items begin resolving.
Rhadamanthus says... #1
If you want to do something unusual or complicated then you need to be clear about what you're doing. "Do they resolve?" is a little unclear and might lead to confusion or an argument depending on the situation. If you want to propose a shortcut to let the copies resolve and hold priority then you need to be more specific.
June 17, 2019 4:41 p.m.