Hello everyone,

I would like to know your opinions on the following topic.


With the introduction of the Crew mechanic to events we judge, I am a bit concerned about possible attempts from Spikes to “rules-lawyer” more casual players and generally about feel-bad moments caused by ignorance to the official shortcuts.


It has happened to me several times in the past, usually with manlands or Surrak, for example:
A casual player wants to attack with his not-yet-animated Mutavault and asks his opponent “Go to combat?”.
The other player says “OK”.
The active player taps some lands and declares Mutavault as an attacker.
The nonactive player yells “JUDGE!”
After investigation, which shows that this is the first time the interaction came up in the match and the casual player does not know that there is some “official” shortcut, I rule in favor of the nonactive player and the casual player is not allowed to attack with the Mutavault this turn.


I expect to have such scenario come up more often due to Vehicles, especially at Limited events.

1) Do you think that we should go vigilant and educate players on such interactions more? I am thinking about writing at least a short article to Czech community. Maybe a more “official” international article could be useful (*wink, wink* at Player Experience Sphere). Would it be too much to include it in Players' Meeting announcements (at least at the beginning of the PPTQ season)? Or do we leave it and let the players learn the hard way only?


2) If we decide to go proactive and try to teach players on the interaction, what is the best way? Do we want teach players how to proceed “properly” in the scenario? Actually, what is the “most proper” way for the active player in this scenario?


3) Should we educate also ourselves? I have seen judges decide in such situations inconsistently (e.g. overturned appeals in GPs). Would it make sense to be vocal in our judge communities about the scenario? (hey, actually, that's what I am doing right now :-D) Should we publish some “cookbook” for this scenario? Like how to proceed in the situation (e.g. to separate the players, not to forget to ask this and that…).


Thanks for reading and I look forward to your ideas and opinions!

Milan

Hello Milan,

I think educating the players is certainly a very good way to handle it (I had it come up several times while playing the prerelease, especially because there are tappers in the format too). Writing an article foer your local community might be a good way, I will make a post on our local player facebook page later today. An extra announcement during the meeting is a good idea too, as long as the speech doesn't become swamped with too many topics (it's good to alter between some hot issues from tournament to tournament).

As for the proper way, I havn't seen the issue yet with judges handling it inconsistently myself, but if that is the case then extra education can never hurt! I think the way it has been handled for thez Mutavault-example is the proper way here too: if you want to attack with a vehicle you have to crew it before declaring attackers, so at the beginning of combat at the latest.

Cheers,


Jona

Education is, as always, a very good idea. But remember that PPTQs and GPs are Competitive REL events. And the expectation is that players know the rules (even though the reality is obviously different). When I'm kicking off a PPTQ I always stress that it is Competitive, and that games will be more strict than at FNM. It's important to remind people that today will be a little different to what they're used to. I think it's too much to include in your opening speech - player's have zero attention span, and you need to get the deck reg and swap done which is far more important.

Also, these players are not “Spikes”, “Rules Lawyers”, or “Casuals” (generally perceived as derogatory terms) - they're just Players. It's important to approach each judge call neutrally, and not to allow your view of the individuals colour how you resolve a black and white call. When you start thinking “that mean Spike is trying to Rules Lawyer that poor Casual”, you risk being the judge ruling inconsistently.

But I believe saying the beginning of combat is not enough you have to state you are maintaining priority or state you are making a vehicle. If you say beginning of combat and nothing else you are passing priority and if the opponent does nothing it is too late to make a vehicle? Is this correct?

Graham

Sent from my iPhone

On 26 Sep 2016, at 09:11, Jona Bemindt <forum-30179-8725@apps.magicjudges.org<mailto:forum-30179-8725@apps.magicjudges.org>> wrote:


Hello Milan,

I think educating the players is certainly a very good way to handle it (I had it come up several times while playing the prerelease, especially because there are tappers in the format too). Writing an article foer your local community might be a good way, I will make a post on our local player facebook page later today. An extra announcement during the meeting is a good idea too, as long as the speech doesn't become swamped with too many topics (it's good to alter between some hot issues from tournament to tournament).

As for the proper way, I havn't seen the issue yet with judges handling it inconsistently myself, but if that is the case then extra education can never hurt! I think the way it has been handled for thez Mutavault-example is the proper way here too: if you want to attack with a vehicle you have to crew it before declaring attackers, so at the beginning of combat at the latest.

Cheers,


Jona

—————————
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/193220/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/30179/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/30179/?onsite=yes

You can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/

Originally posted by Graham Theobalds:

If you say beginning of combat and nothing else you are passing priority and if the opponent does nothing it is too late to make a vehicle? Is this correct?

This is correct. What Milan was saying was that the latest opportunity you have to Crew is the Beginning of Combat step. It's obviously tricky to get there without something like your opponent tapping your creature at the beginning of combat though.

3) In my experience the judge inconsistency is when things like “beginning of combat” or “leave main phase” are said. I've had some discussions about that these past few days with multiple judges.

What I get from this thread: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/27443/?page=1

If AP wants to get priority in beginning of combat, she has to state explicitly that she is the one that wants to take an action next:
- I would like to crew in beginning of combat?
- I would like to get my priority in beginning of combat?
- I would like to do something in beginning of combat?

Anything that's less explicit about whose move it is and thus invites NAP for a reaction will shortcut to NAP's priority in beginning of combat:
- beginning of combat?
- combat phase?
- leave main phase?

1) I like mentioning it in the announcements of a limited PPTQ. I also like your other suggestions =)

2) The above is the technically proper way for AP to do it, but the best way to teach in my opinion is to first crew and then ask your opponent anything. So I like to proactively teach the simple way and the above only if a player really wants to know.
“Always crew before you ask your opponent anything, like ‘combat?’ or ‘attacks?’. If you first ask a question, then you're too late to crew.”

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

When I'm kicking off a PPTQ I always stress that it is Competitive, and that games will be more strict than at FNM.
…
player's have zero attention span, and you need to get the deck reg and swap done which is far more important.

Then why not cut that first line instead? Who is helped by that? I believe a concrete example can do more than an abstract statement.

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

Also, these players are not “Spikes”, “Rules Lawyers”, or “Casuals” (generally perceived as derogatory terms) - they're just Players.

“Spike” and “Casual” are supposed to be neutral terms. Or do you mean derogatory to use in this context?

Edited Toby Hazes (Sept. 26, 2016 04:29:25 AM)

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

Also, these players are not “Spikes”, “Rules Lawyers”, or “Casuals” (generally perceived as derogatory terms) - they're just Players. It's important to approach each judge call neutrally, and not to allow your view of the individuals colour how you resolve a black and white call. When you start thinking “that mean Spike is trying to Rules Lawyer that poor Casual”, you risk being the judge ruling inconsistently.

Thanks you, Mark, for that point. You are right that we should be careful when using such terms (especially while wearing a shirt with the Judge logo). Of course I do not base my rulings on anyone being a Spike. But I admit, that I sometimes feel bad together with the “casual” player when I have to teach the that Competitive lesson the hard way. I am a bit biased in this, because, from my experience, “casuals” are those who drive sales and bring the most value for their LGS, not the spikes.

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

It's obviously tricky to get there without something like your opponent tapping your creature at the beginning of combat though.

That is why I am asking in the point 2). What should the player do? Say something like “I want to go to beginning of combat and keep priority”?

I'm right there with you Milan - it's the players attending FNM every week that keep shops running! I feel similarly to you. But once we know about potential internal bias we can adjust accordingly.

The phrase you suggest works, but the question then is - what does it accomplish? While I've only played the prerelease I can't think of a reason why you would need to Crew in combat rather than Main Phase. Even if there was a beginning of combat trigger, you could just resolve it and Crew afterwards.

Originally posted by Milan Majerčík:

That is why I am asking in the point 2). What should the player do? Say something like “I want to go to beginning of combat and keep priority”?

"Move to beginning of combat and crew my Renegade Freighter."

If a player is unaware of the standard shortcut, we should definitely help them so that they are aware of them and otherwise understand why they exist. Beyond that, if the player wishes to deviate from a standard shortcut, we should encourage them to communicate clearly and explicitly as to what action they are going to take.

Could a player not just declare an intent to move to the beginning of combat? Or would he or she be passing priority in that step as a result of that declaration?

If a player makes a statement that they plan to pass priority into the Start of Combat, unless they are explicit that they wish to get priority then the opponent will get priority

We should simply rename the Begin of Combat step to the Crew my Vehicles step; problem solved :)

Originally posted by Gareth Tanner:

If a player makes a statement that they plan to pass priority into the Start of Combat, unless they are explicit that they wish to get priority then the opponent will get priority

As far as I'm aware, even a statement like “Move to the Beginning of Combat step, I have priority” will result in the opponent receiving priority. The only way to get priority in the Beginning of Combat step is by announcing that you intend to take an action there with the priority that you have received; as per MTR 4.2, players may not request priority and do nothing with it.

Also see this blog post.

Originally posted by Bryan Li:

Gareth Tanner
If a player makes a statement that they plan to pass priority into the Start of Combat, unless they are explicit that they wish to get priority then the opponent will get priority

As far as I'm aware, even a statement like “Move to the Beginning of Combat step, I have priority” will result in the opponent receiving priority. The only way to get priority in the Beginning of Combat step is by announcing that you intend to take an action there with the priority that you have received; as per MTR 4.2, players may not request priority and do nothing with it.

I believe this is incorrect. While it is true that players may not request priority with the intention of doing nothing with it, just to troll and waste time, there is nothing inherently wrong with requesting priority with the intention of doing something, and then changing your mind mid-sequence. For example:

Player is playing Ad Nauseaum Tendrils (ANT), which is a Legacy deck that (ab)uses the interaction between Infernal Tutor and Lion's Eye Diamond.

Brief aside: For those unfamiliar, the interaction is that, with the Infernal Tutor on the stack, and with the ANT player explicitly retaining priority, you can sacrifice the LED to simultaneously empty your hand and also add 3 mana to your mana pool. Since the Hellbent on Infernal Tutor checks only on resolution, this allows you to cast essentially a free Demonic Tutor which also adds 1 mana to your mana pool.

The way ANT games tend to play out, on the kill turn the player tanks for about 3 minutes while they calculate and go through the math and operations of exactly how they're going to win, and then play the rest of the turn very quickly once they have the turn mapped out completely. However, because this initial step of planning out the turn takes a long time, ANT players tend to (or should tend to, but that's another topic) get Slow Play warnings more frequently than other players. Thus, this player, who has been tanking for a while, decides to cast his Infernal Tutor, and then tank with the Tutor on the stack, to advance the game state. So he casts Infernal Tutor, announces “retaining priority”, and then tanks. After he's done thinking, he announces “Ok, I'm done, passing priority”.

As far as I'm aware, there is nothing wrong with anything that has happened here.

At Regular REL I would check both parties explanation, rewind the game and use the moment for education.

At Competitive REL I would check both parties explanation, not rewind and use the moment for education.

Edited Lars Harald Nordli (Sept. 26, 2016 10:09:30 AM)