Howdy all.
I thought I would post both my questions in one topic for expediency.
I have 2 questions.
1. Can cards from the Ugin's Fate boosters be played in competitive magic?
At the moment I tell all my local players NO because the insert that came with the pre-release clearly said “cards in the Ugin's Fate boosters are prizes and cant be used in tournament decks”
I see no distinction for pre-release vs FNM so I am not allowing the cards.
All the cards have a holo-foil mark like the new rares and mythics irrespective of rarity

Number 2.
If I attack with a Rakshasa Death Dealer and actually say “I attack for 2” have I stopped myself from pumping it to 4/4 or higher as I have announced its damage value?
This as opposed to saying “I declare attack” and then “Before damage, I pump”
Essentially, if a damage value is announced, at any time before the damage step, is it then “locked”?
Would this answer change between regular, competitive and professional play?

Moved to Competitive REL.

Daniel

ad1. “cards in the Ugin's Fate boosters are prizes and cant be used in tournament decks” I believe it apply only to prerelease event, so those cards are legal in any format, where proper FRF cards would be legal (like IDW promo cards).

ad2. As long as you are still in at last declaration blockers step, you can still pump him. “I attack for 2” would make you only miss any triggers that pump his power that could occur before, and wasn't announced then.

Bartlomiej's answers are pretty spot on.

The prerelease information is…for the prerelease. It doesn't apply to “tournaments” in the abstract.

Announcing a value for attacking doesn't lock in anything. It offers an indication of the creature's power, yes, but you still have a good few chances at priority before the combat damage step.

I disagree. “I attack for 2” is proposing a shortcut to the damage assignment step. If the opponent accepts the shortcut, then he takes 2 and AP has priority again after the damage is dealt.

Edit: Apologies, I misread the question. If someone says they're attacking for X, then that's a little bit different than what I thought. Originally I believed the person said “Attack, take X” which is a clear indicator of the combat damage step. Attack for X is an indicator of where we're currently at, but does not necessarily mean combat damage is being dealt. That being said there are a variety of factors that could certainly make it go the other way, against the attacker.

Edited Benjamin McDole (Jan. 27, 2015 02:31:07 PM)

I'm inclined to agree with Jack. If I state that I am attacking for 2 I am simply declaring how much power my creature has at the time. If I were instead to say “I attack, you take 2” I would consider it differently.

I am in Jeff and Ben's camp. Unless the defending player takes any game actions, the declaration is a proposed shortcut that puts us into the damage step.

I cannot agree that this case involves a proposed shortcut. Per MTR 4.2:

Most tournament shortcuts involve skipping one or more priority passes to the mutual understanding of all players; if a player wishes to demonstrate or use a new tournament shortcut entailing any number of priority passes, he or she must be clear where the game state will end up as part of the request.

(Emphasis added).

This case does not fall under any of the pre-established shortcuts listed in MTR 4.2, and so if it is a shortcut at all it must be a new one proposed under the section quoted above. A simple statement such as “attack for 2” is by no means a clear representation of where the game state will end up: it might be interpreted to mean that the player intends to go to combat damage if NAP has no responses, but it might equally be interpreted to mean “I attack with this creature, whose power is currently 2” (i.e. the player is simply being helpful by letting his opponent know how big his creature is, anticipating that his opponent would ask anyway before deciding whether or how to block). This ambiguity precludes the shortcut, as AP has not met the requirement of being clear as to the proposed end state.

Indeed, the very fact that AP later tried to activate the Death Dealer's ability before damage indicates to me that he never had any intention to pass priority more than once after declaring attackers, so I cannot believe that he intended to propose any such shortcut. In the absence of an unambiguously expressed intention, I can see no reason to hold him to a shortcut which is not one of the standard pre-established ones listed in the MTR.

Originally posted by Robert Hinrichsen:

Indeed, the very fact that AP later tried to activate the Death Dealer's ability before damage indicates to me that he never had any intention to pass priority more than once after declaring attackers, so I cannot believe that he intended to propose any such shortcut. In the absence of an unambiguously expressed intention, I can see no reason to hold him to a shortcut which is not one of the standard pre-established ones listed in the MTR.

Oddly, the way the shortcut rules work, you don't need to intend to pass priority in order to end up passing priority. The statement “Attack for 2” breaks down into “attack” = I am attacking you with this creature, “for 2” you will be taking two damage. If the NAP agrees, things should happen as proposed. 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.

I agree with Robert for all the reasons he listed. my gut was with Jeff and Ben, but a close reading of mtr 4.2 doesn't support the ruling that it's a proposed shortcut. Not enough has been said to assume a “mutual understanding of both players”…in fact, there's evidence to the contrary.

Looks like it's the 2's versus the 3's here. (which I usually take a hint that there's something I'm missing)

“I attack for 2” or “Swing for 2” doesn't feel like a shortcut to the damage step to me, it seems like it could easily be a statement of the current board state. (And passing of priority unless they say indicate they're holding priority)

And using that to try to fake your opponent out? It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to expect players to know that there are chances for effects before damage. (at least at competitive)

Are we saying that because the statement is correct to the current game state it's a shortcut but if it was incorrect it's a “prediction of the future game state” and so we're in the Declare Attackers still with Active player having priority?

This seems a little inconsistent to me

It kind of remind me of the question we had with exalted:
- “I attack with this creature”
- “How big is it?”
- “2”
- “No Block”
- “Okay! You take 3… The exalted trigger was on the stack when you asked”
- “Judge!!”

The MTR shortcuts were written to allow a normal flow of the game without being able to cheat with shenanigans having to do with unclear game state.

Normally for me, saying “Attack for 2” means “You take 2 if you don't do anything”. In this case, I'm with Jeff and would say that the damage is locked if the opponent doesn't do anything.

Just my opinion of course :)
Jeremie

If we hold AP to this “shortcut” to the damage assignment step combat damage step (come on, Jeff ;) ), we encourage his future communication with his opponent to be worse, because if he says things, there's a chance of being “gotcha'd” by a judge.

Jeremie - the quote you provided can work exactly the opposite way. The “normal” flow of a game is that I attack, you block, and then we look at damage. If you don't block, I still get that chance.

Shortcuts are designed, in part, to stop players gaining advantages from sloppy play and *lack* of communication (see, for example, the “default” of attacking a player instead of any planeswalker). They shouldn't be used, as I feel they are in this manner, to hold a player to something he had no intention of doing. He isn't trying to catch his opponent out by use of ambiguous phrases, he isn't trying to “backtrack” in his turn, he's simply communicating. Why punish him for that?

Edited Jack Doyle (Jan. 27, 2015 10:54:06 AM)