Example 1:
I'm player A, playing my Ink-Eyes deck, in a commanding (har har) situation. I can produce over 40 mana, and I cast
Demonic Tutor, searching for my
Gray Merchant of Asphodel. My current devotion to black on board is 15. I have
Phyrexian Reclamation and
Ashnod's Altar in play. I play Gary, it happens.
Player B, loses 17 life- he has 2 cards in hand, 60 life, nothing of note in their graveyard, and 2 Islands open.
I demonstrate that I have enough mana, and life to continue playing Gray Merchant from my hand this turn.
In this hypothetical, even if player B has
Counterspell- the sheer amount of resource lead should reasonably lead them to understand that if they have an answer, they should show it, or scoop. It isn't worth the time involved to force me to count my total mana and continue running Garys until the gamestate dictates their loss. If player B consistently forces me to track my total mana the entire time, and replay every Gary- regardless of the rules; the playgroup is likely to take umbrage- and I wouldn't say they were wrong for doing so.
Example 2:
I'm player A, this time in the worse position. I have 3 cards, 8 mana open with my
Kefnet, the Mindful deck. I have 20 life.
Player B, this time is far, far ahead in the Battlecruiser game- playing
Roon, of the Hidden Realm. His win is a little less obvious than a Gary loop- consisting of 26 damage that I cannot block on the field. The game has gone on for half an hour. Player B says "I have a
Tooth and Nail, do you have an out?"
What this means to me, is not that my opponent is being arrogant- but that the game has gone, and if I have a
Cyclonic Rift, now is the time to show it. In many playgroups, this is the moment the game should end for the sake of getting in another game. So, I concede. I could pretend that I have a
Cyclonic Rift up until the combat damage step. Usually, how this situation plays out is that because we exit the game in the information exchange- if I had the Rift, he would concede, and if he didn't, I would. This isn't about breaking rules, it's about the reality of battlecruiser Magic requiring some level of shortcutting, because we are on 4 people's clocks. Even if I had the Rift, in this hypothetical, it's insanely hard to build enough reach with Roon or Kefnet to make the game end in a timely fashion. If I made him play out the T&N, declare combat, turn his guys sideways (except for the vigilant ones), and then count the total damage, I would be within the rules to do so. However, at that point- I'd be pushing for a technicality in casual Magic, and wasting the time of everyone in the playgroup waiting for another game.
This thread started from an accusatory positon of people taking these shortcuts; but the basis of these shortcuts is in the reality of the situations that play out. Hypothetically, I could come back from that losing situation, but my opponent demonstrating that he can T&N with their overwhelming boardstate is a good social call. While there ARE situations where a player projects inevitability far before it's established, and it is appropriate to say "play it out"; the reality of EDH, is that these shortcuts come up when the outcome is pretty clear to both players. Through effective communication, they truncate the sheer time sink for the sake of the group's play experience.
Neither of these scenarios have anything at all to do with what is being discussed in this thread. I fail to see how two common (and legal) shortcuts have any bearing on whether or not an entirely theoretical and indemonstrable series of events should be allowed. If you can't actually walk through your loop even once to demonstrate that it works, why should it be allowed to skip to the desired gamestate?