I do not think that I would hold a player to this “shortcut”, but I consider “Attack for 2” with intention to pump to be the opposite of clear communication. Maybe it is better to allow it because that is the way the player talk, or because there would be unintended consequences (off the top of my head: what if the value is incorrect?).

I also do not see how “Attack, take 2” could not be a shortcut, and I don't look forward explaining the difference to a disgruntled player.

Originally posted by Abeed Bendall:

This feels like its a huge handicap to the attacking player.

I don't know about that. If a player wants to do post-blocks shenanigans (or just leave the possibility open), he can refrain from stating for how much he attacks until his opponent asks. I just do not feel the “In order to encourage players to communicate well, we must allow them to deceive their opponent by pretending to communicate well” vibe.

We taught players to not animate their manlands in the beginning of combat step, we could probably teach them to not say for how much they attack unless their opponent ask or they really intend to deal X (which is the huge majority of the “Attack for X” statements).

Originally posted by Marc DeArmond:

There's no reason to include the “for 2” when you intend them to take more damage unless you're trying to fake your opponent out, something we definitely don't encourage and the Tournament Shortcut rules help control that kind of speak.

This is the part I disagree with. Often players get into the habit of calling the current power of their attacks as a matter of habit/clarity. Some examples:

I swing for 6 - (attacking with Geist of Saint Traft indicating the Angel token)
I swing for 1 - (attacking with Noble Hierarch indicating the exalted trigger)
I swing for 5 - (attacking with a 2/2 and a 3/3)
I swing for 4 - (attacking with a 4/5 Tarmogoyf)

These aren't exactly the same situation, but the point is that players get into a habit of calling out the power of their attacks. What each of these have in common is that they are merely representing the current boardstate (including acknowledgement of triggers).

We are now considering penalising a player for providing information on the game state - which doesn't sit right with me. So to me we're punishing the wrong player in this situation since it seems like it's NAP that is rules lawyering here to get an advantage and not AP trying to trick NAP into not blocking etc.

Everyone seems to base their argument on the “fact” that “attack for n” does not mean “attack, you take n damage” but rather something along the lines of “attack with n power”. As a player I have never encountered an opponent who meant that statement to not mean “attack, you take n damage”. Basically, the only situation where someone would use “attack for n” is when the opponent is tapped out and has no blockers, a situation in which this very much is a shortcut, but also is of no relevance whatsoever.

If a situation arises, where NAP understood this as a shortcut and AP didn't mean this to be a shortcut, well, you would have had to be there.

Edit: The forums ate a part of my first sentence. oO

Edited Julien de Graat (Jan. 28, 2015 01:38:13 PM)

John Carter, those are great examples, why I think it's not shortcut.

Apart from any nuances of language, I find it profoundly strange that AP could unintentionally shortcut through a turn-based action controlled by NAP.

I have been following this pattern for close to 20 years at this point:
“Swing 5.”
“No blocks.”
“Giant Growth. Take 8.”

It would be quite a shock to me if this suddenly became an improper way to play the game.

Originally posted by Julien de Graat:

Everyone seems to base their argument on the “fact” that “attack for n” does not mean “attack, you take n damage” but rather something along the lines of “attack with n power”. As a player I have never encountered an opponent who meant that statement to not mean “attack, you take n damage”. Basically, the only situation where someone would use “attack for n” is when the opponent is tapped out and has no blockers, a situation in which this very much is a shortcut, but also is of no relevance whatsoever.

If a situation arises, where NAP understood this as a shortcut and AP didn't mean this to be a shortcut, well, you would have had to be there.

Edit: The forums ate a part of my first sentence. oO

Funny thing… I've never played against one who did mean “attack, you take n damage” as far as I could tell.

Just a thought:

We distinguish “Attacks” versus “Attacking” in the rules. “Attack” or “attacks” clearly indicates the TBA of declaring an attack. “Attacking” is a status of a creature. Is it not then feasible that when I turn a guy sideways and say “attack for 2” I am communicating a statement of my current declaration of attacks? That's how I've played it.

“Attacking for 2” may mean anything from Declare Attackers step, Declare Blockers step, Combat Damage step, even End of Combat step. I think it's reasonable to ask that we clarify where we are in the turn, and when the opponent says “no blocks”, we are in the Declare Blockers step. AP has priority, and can pump.

We can agree the strategically “best” option is to wait until the last minute with the most information to decide whether to pump. This consideration of “best” strategy underlies why we allow multiple stacks of activated abilities to be considered separate actions if interrupted. Would we not have some leeway here to allow the AP to make the best decision and imply that he's attacking un-pumped but has the option to pump?

Are we not expecting NAP to possibly be aware of the pump? It seems like awareness of the cards is something I would want to test in tournament Magic. Personally, I'd like for AP to be able to “attack with a 2-power creature” and have some leeway for the opponent to overlook a pump and make a bad block or take more damage. On-board tricks are real.

When I attack with my creatures, and my opponent asks for how much, and I say 6, that doesn't mean I want to shortcut to combat damage, that means I'm informing my opponent of the current attack value of the attacking creatures, so that he can decide what to do with that information (blocking, casting a relevant spell, whatever). This is not an obscure question that only happens in the deepest pits of tournament magic, it happens all the time. So I don't see an issue with players ‘attacking for 2’ just to give the opponent the answer to the obvious question. ‘Attack, no pump’ sure, that's a shortcut, but let's not abuse a rule that was created to make the game more appealing by removing some of the technical bite to in fact, push players to play even more technical. I for one will quit playing this game once I have to announce every pass of priority lest I accidentally start a shortcut.

In my playgroup of tens of competitive players, the established way of
communicating is exactly as Joshua's:

Attack for 2.
No blocks.
(Before damage,) Giant Growth; take 5.

Or:
Attack for 2.
No blocks. Take 2?
Giant Growth; take 5.

Or:
Attack for 2.
No blocks.
Take 2.

This is exactly the way I would want players to play as a judge. Clear
communication, and both sides take responsibility to make sure they're on
the same page. This is one of the key issues, I think. Rules-lawyering a
player into a game state he was not planning to enter into and isn't an
established shortcut is far from what we should be trying to achieve.

AP cannot say “Attack for 2” to take away NAP's opportunity to block or
take action. At the moment AP says “Attack for 2”, he is passing priority
after declaring attackers. This is the current state of the game. As such,
NAP can't use this statement to say they're in combat damage now. If NAP
isn't sure what state of the game they're in, it's his/her responsibility
at this point to find out, just as it is with unannounced triggers, etc.




2015-01-28 10:19 GMT-05:00 Jona Bemindt <

There seems to be some level of dialect/regional/playgroup specific language happening here. I'll be honest, if this happened to me (just rewriting the relevant example):

Them: “Attack for 5.”
Me: “Take 5.”
Them: “Giant Growth. Take 8.”

I would consider the person on the other side of the table a cheaty face. I'm aware that not everyone would. From the point of pure technical play, anytime you declare power before damage is giving away advantage.

Additionally, if the above is legal then the below is also legal.

Them: Attack for 2.
Me: Take 2.
Them: Exalted trigger, take 3.

I'm very uncomfortable with that.

The latter is not legal, because if you're not missing the Exalted trigger,
you're attacking for 3.

2015-01-28 11:17 GMT-05:00 Marc DeArmond <

Marc, while I agree that squishy Exalted handling is annoying, I don't think there's anything really broken - thus, nothing to fix. (For your first example, I completely disagree with your CheatyFace conclusion.)

Consider a slight variant on your example:
AP: Attack for 2
NAP: no blocks … take 2?
AP: uhh, wait - Exalted! take 3!

That's a very clearly forgotten-but-remembered-in-time trigger, not a Missed Trigger, and they've demonstrated awareness when it would affect the visible game state.

In both examples - the one we don't really like, and the one we'd allow - the NAP retains the same responsibility: assume the triggers are not forgotten before making decisions, and maybe call attention to a trigger you'd prefer to be Missed, in order to make the correct decision.

* * *

As others have noted, it's very clear that there are regional, cultural and/or language differences re: how we interpret “attack for N”. That confirms what I was saying before - this is not, and can not become, an established shortcut.

Just as with triggers, there's a burden on both players to confirm uncertainties before making decisions. Saying “no blocks, so I take 2?” is exactly that - NAP confirming where they are in the game state. AP can agree - they've now accepted an informal shortcut to Combat Damage - or can interrupt after Declare Blockers with a pump effect, etc.

Consider this scenario:
AP: attack for 2
NAP: no blocks, I take 2?
AP: no, Giant Growth, take 5
NAP: oh, then I'll kill your dude with ___

Very common, and perfectly acceptable. NAP wants to shortcut to damage, AP interrupts, so we're not in damage yet and NAP can still kill the attacker before damage.

d:^D

The latter is not legal, because if you're not missing the Exalted trigger,
you're attacking for 3.
—————————

I don't believe that the above is correct, yet. If “Attack for 2” means only that one passes priority after attacking, then it does not imply that a trigger has resolved or has been missed, because neither would be the case upon a simple pass of priority according to the MT rules.

The above assumes that “Attack for 2” means “I attack, and after all triggers have resolved I believe that its power is 2” I don't have a problem with that interpretation, but others might. I think this goes to show that “Attack for 2” is actually quite problematic indeed in terms of whether it is or is not a shortcut.

Love the discussion :)

-Eric S.

So, just for clarity's sake… (This is reshaping my view on language and cheatyfaces so I'm trying to be very specific, not trying to be a jerk)

We are interpreting “Attack for X” to mean “I am attacking with X power of creatures during my declare attacker's step before any triggers are resolved unless X includes power from specific triggers at which point those triggers are considered resolved (unless interrupted by an opponent) but any other triggers may or may not be forgotten depending on if they have an immediately visible effect on the game state.”

I'm fine with this, I just want to be clear.

I dont think we need to be THAT clinical about it, but it seems right.

I mean its a a game of Magic, not a legal disclaimer.