While I see the logic that supports Jeff and Ben, I've never played that way. In my experience, lots of players “attack for N”, and wait to see how blocks are declared before adding any tricks. And lots of players, after hearing “attack for N”, will think and then say ‘OK, no blocks, take N?“

I do agree that ”attack for 2“ … ’no blocks, I'll take 2' … ”hah! Exalted says you take 3!“ feels very scummy. (Maybe it's the tone of voice I hear when I read that - heh!)

I think that ”attack for N“ is generally meant as a shortcut to Declare Blockers, not to damage. I also know that some players might use it to shortcut straight to damage. And, I suspect some players move quickly between the two, depending on circumstance. I don't think we can settle on a standard shorcut, because of the different assumptions we're seeing just in this small sample size.

One principle that Ben mentioned, which is very important, is that AP controls the pace of his or her own turn. There's a current L4 debate about a different ”shortcut", where the majority opinion hinges on this key concept. That alone could sway me to side with Jeff, Ben and others … but all those years of experience that muddles it all leaves me convinced that we can't assume shortcut to damage resolving.

d:^D

Jack, sometimes shortcuts do push players into a play they didn't want to make, or weren't trying to make. I don't know that this fact alone could disqualify this as a shortcut, nor should it be a really strong factor. Consider that for the better part these shortcuts are helping to protect the NAP and keep the AP from gaining advantage.

That being said, I did edit my post above (thanks Prillaman and Francisco for pointing out the error in my reading). Sorry Jeff and Jeremie, I'm a traitor :(

I'm interested about what will come from this shortcut vs predicting future game state, which this is at heart.

I am, however, a bit apprehensive about this being tossed in with that discussion. For me “attacking for two” merely states that I am declaring an attack with this creature that has two power and isn't a proposed short cut. But apparently I will need to wait out the next policy update to see what exactly will be in there.

I am on the fence on this one. While I agree with Scott that this statement is not usually meant as a shortcut to the Damage step, I also don't see the point of saying “for two” in this situation. It forces the defending player to use stultifying language :
AP : Attack for two?
NAP : Ok.
*AP writes the new life total of NAP*
NAP : Wait, I want to kill your creature before damages.

Moreover, it means that we must make a difference between “Attack, take 2” and “Attack for 2” that I feel quite artificial.

I dont see a lot of confusion or debat here - and maybe its the fact that I am junior to everyone else right now - but if a player says “Attack for 2”, how are we getting straight to damage? I understand what you all are saying with the shortcut, but I think we may be over thinking this.

I see this as a player stating the obvious, his creature of 2 power is attacking. There seems to be no indication that we are moving straight into damage. There are cards out there that care about the power of an attacking creature, granted this is not the case, but playing heavily with those cards can influence a player to make note of his attacking creature's power. (I am, of course, excluding the whole Exalted trigger example - as that is clearly not what we are discussing.) I still have players around me who make note that they are drawing their card for the turn, in case I want to Stifle it. But I am getting off track….

As a player, and as a Judge, if a player makes the note of his creature's power at the time of attacking it doesnt mean that its locked in (unless the controller made note that he will NEVER use the pump ability, but that is extremely unlikely) for damage. Many a times, I have attacked and noted my creature's power and waited until the declaration of blocks (or lack thereof) to be made before I made my decision to pump. If we were to hold him to his decision at the point of attack then we are taking away a vital aspect of the game: strategy. We would, effectively, be telliing the player that he needs to make all decisions right then and there OR we would be discouraging communication. Neither of which I see as a positive thing.

AGAIN - maybe I see it this way because I am relatively new (or at least newER than most involved in this discussion right now) and it is influencing me. But I dont see it…

Originally posted by Darren Horve:

I still have players around me who make note that they are drawing their card for the turn

That's actually a great habit - after all, the IPG has that clause about confirming your draw with the opponent before it happens…

As a note, I see absolutely no difference conversationally between “Attack, take 2” and “Attack for 2”. I understand that some other people see a difference here. But to me, these mean the same thing.

“Attack, take 2” - I am skipping straight to damage.
“Attack for 2” - I am attacking with a 2 power creature.

I can see, “Attack, take 2?” as a player moving straight through.

English is not my native language but I can't see how “Attack for 2” can be translated into “attacking with a 2 power creature”.

If you were attacking with 3 creatures, I never heard anyone say Attack for 2, for 5 and for 3“ but I did hear people say ”Attack for 10".

I have to disagree with people saying that this is AP shortcutting to combat damage. It leaves a glaring hole imo for a player attacking with a creature with variable P/T like goyf. This would mean that declaring an attacking goyf (which is 99% of the time the first question the defending player is going to ask) AND stating its power means that you cant take any action?

This feels like its a huge handicap to the attacking player - especially if he has something like a fetchland in play that would grow the goyf.

And if we are going to say that “Attack for 3” is a short cut to combat damage could we also not then assume that the defending player asking “how much damage?” is the defending player offering to shortcut to the same point?

The shortcut interpretation seems very unnatural (in that - that's now how I play the game) to me. If I ever state anything like “Attack for X” I always mean something along the lines “here are the attacking creatures with total power equal to X, no need for you to count it”.

I just had a thought here - if we rule that “attack for 2” skips forward to combat damage being dealt, then there's absolutely no benefit to the player in saying anything other than “attack”. If you just say “attack”, then you still have all the options available to you. If you say anything else (like “attack for 2”, “attack with my 2/2”, etc.), then a judge might come over and say I can't do anything else before combat damage. This just seems like we're forcing players into a certain way of speaking, and not in a good way (as in - not in a clear, techincal way).

Basically, what Abeed said.

Here's what I see when I imagine Attack for 2 = shortcut

“Attack for 2”
“Ok”
“After no blocks, pump my dude.”
“Nope, you proposed a shortcut for damage.”
“JUDGE!”

“Attack for 2”
“Ok. Block”
“Nope, you said ok and accepted my shortcut for damage.”
“JUDGE!”

Both of the scenarios are stretches in my book. Frankly, if a player tried to say they were proposing a shortcut, I'd asked how they proposed such. “Attack for X” in my part of the world has long had X as current damage amount. I'd likely see the shortcut guy as someone trying to engineer the rules to try and shoehorn his opponent in ways the rules don't intend. In particular, the players is attempting to generate confusion specifically to mislead a player and try to trap them on a technicality. Since this isn't a textbook example of a shortcut, I'd default to clarifying the last point when players agreed what was happening and moving on from there–a creature that has power = 2 declared as an attacker during the declare attackers step.

If we allow such tomfoolery, then what we're encouraging is rules lawyering and arguing semantics. I'm no fan of either. And should someone try this at my event, I'm happy to insist that any non-defined shortcut be clarified to the point that all players agree before considering the the shortcut as accepted.

I was originally in support of the “Attack for 2 = shortcut”, but after reading John's post I'm firmly in the other camp. Those are two highly abusable situations that we as judges should be doing our best to avoid, and saying that “Attack for X” is a shortcut promotes such suspicious play.

Originally posted by Mitja Bosnic:

I just had a thought here - if we rule that “attack for 2” skips forward to combat damage being dealt, then there's absolutely no benefit to the player in saying anything other than “attack”. If you just say “attack”, then you still have all the options available to you. If you say anything else (like “attack for 2”, “attack with my 2/2”, etc.), then a judge might come over and say I can't do anything else before combat damage. This just seems like we're forcing players into a certain way of speaking, and not in a good way (as in - not in a clear, techincal way).

It's already “best” for a player to simply state “attack”. The power of a creature at any point is derived information, so even if you ask me how large my Tarmogoyf is I can always just respond with “figure it out yourself” (assuming, of course, this is a competitive event).

Regardless, I still do not like the idea of a comment such as “I attack for 2” to be proposing a shortcut, especially as we have not declared where we wish to finish our shortcut at all.