I am now convinced that “Attack for 2” is not a shortcut (hard to argue with the numbers), but I'd like to know what kind of statement it actually is.

I don't think anyone would allow “Attack for 2” with a 3/4 Tarmogoyf. I'd call that a CPV and (probably) backup to the Declare Attackers step. However, I do not really know how to draw the line in a fashion that is consistent with all the situations that have been described as ok in this thread. I'll play it by ear, something I am not entirely comfortable with.

With that in mind, the most important point is that this is not currently a problem in tournaments. Finding an elegant and comprehensive solution would be nice, but not if it caused more problems than it solved.

Edited Florian Horn (Jan. 28, 2015 05:14:11 PM)

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 couldn't say about the first part because I don't understand what you mean, but as for the “…but any other triggers may or may not be forgotten depending on if they have an immediately visible effect on the game state.”, that should always apply because that is the MT rule.

Take the following situations with regards to saying “attack for [some
number]”

Scenario 1:
1) AP attacks with a Grizzly Bear saying “Attack for 2.”
Obviously ok

2) AP Attacks with a Grizzly Bear with a Noble Hierarch on the field saying
“Attack for 2”
Also ok (for the time being)

3) AP Attacks with a Grizzly Bear with a Noble Hierarch on the field saying
“Attack for 3”
Also ok as they acknowledged the exalted trigger and have established
a shortcut past it.

4) AP attacks with a Grizzly Bear with a +1/+1 counter on it saying “Attack
for 2”
Not ok (CPV)

In the first 2 situations we have a creature that has a Power of 2 when it
is declared as an attacker so a declaration of “Attack for 2” isn't out of
the ordinary. However the last situation is one where the
derived information delivered by the AP does not match the actual value of
the information and so falls into CPV territory. The Tarmogoyf question is
exactly this last situation. But if the player said “attack for 3” with a
3/4 Tarmogoyf being turned sideways we are right back to the initial
situation of them declaring their attacker appropriately. In fact, for
almost every creature in magic (barring some wild exceptions), if a player
says “Attack for X” where X is the creature's power when declared as an
attacker, then I'm ok with it.

Edited Patrick Cool (Jan. 28, 2015 05:22:57 PM)

Originally posted by Eric Shukan:

I couldn't say about the first part because I don't understand what you mean, but as for the “…but any other triggers may or may not be forgotten depending on if they have an immediately visible effect on the game state.”, that should always apply because that is the MT rule.

That language was included to clarify that I could point out one trigger in the “Attack for X”, and not point out another until later.

Example:
Attack with Kolaghan, the Storm's Fury (4/5 with a +1/+0 trigger)
Say “Attack for 5”.
During damage I could still deal 6 damage because of Exalted.

Well put, Darren.

“Attack for X” is a nebulous statement that could mean any number of things. If you're not sure what your opponent means by any such nebulous statement (e.g., one that's not a documented or previously established shortcut), clarify it before you act on assumptions that prove false. That's common sense (which, as we've all seen, is anything but common…)

d:^D

I like Domo's interpretation of the situation (it helps that I used to be a member of Domo's playgroup, full disclosure). The way I believe “attack for 2” should be interpreted is “I attack. I also propose a shortcut wherein I pass priority into declare blockers assuming you do so as well, and, at the time we enter declare blockers, the total power of my creatures is 2 (and any triggers which would make my creature's power greater than 2 have been forgotten)”. That's the way I've always heard the phrase used, and I'm more of a fan of gotcha'ing the guy who intentionally misrepresents his Exalted triggers than gotcha'ing the guy who misinterprets his opponent's shortcut (the former borders on what we used to call Cheating - Fraud, IMO).

One thing to remember: AP is not responsible for declaring how much he is attacking for. Creatures' power is derived information. If AP is not comfortable getting gotcha'd this way, he can simply say nothing about how much he is attacking for, wherein tne onus is on NAP to assume the status of the triggers, or to outright ask, at which point AP has to be honest (assuming the game has progressed to declare blockers). Due to this, I feel as though AP delaying his triggers leans on the side of angle shooting more than strategic play, and I've been taught that angle shooting is a bad thing and we should punish those people.

EDIT: Forgot the term “angle shooting” :p

Edited Lyle Waldman (Jan. 28, 2015 05:53:38 PM)

Uggh. I'm unfortunately fine with that rules-lawyering, although
intuitively, I would play with the latter definition. In any case, (let's
not sidetrack too far into Exalted) I'm strongly against “Attack for 2”
being an unambiguous shortcut straight to damage. =)

2015-01-28 11:40 GMT-05:00 Eric Shukan <

Players in general are pretty sloppy with their play and language they use to communicate. The only point in time that we would be involved is if both players don’t agree on where they are in the turn. By that I mean, AP “I attack for 2” NAP says ok. AP tries to do something before damage. NAP says that it’s too late. NAP either has a false understanding of the rules, is trying to rules lawyer the opponent or thinks they are in a different part of the turn. I would ask both players separately and away from the table “Where in the turn do you think we are?” and “What did your opponent do to indicate where you think you are in the turn?” The answers to those questions will guide you on how to handle the rest of the situation. I don’t feel there is enough information in the original question to fully give an answer one way or another.

I'm very hesitant to add any baggage to saying “attack for two.” If I say just say “attack” that will almost always be met with the question “how much?” “Attack for X” save time and makes things clearer ninety percent of the time. If we treat “attack for two” as a shortcut we'll start teaching player not to share derived information at all. I'd much rather allow the Exalted angle shot than disincentivise communication that is helpful in almost every other case.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

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.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

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.

I'm not sure if you've changed your mind on this, or you're considering these different situations. Or I'm completely missing how you're interpreting all this.

I'm very uncomfortable though with AP saying ‘attack for 2’ (with a 2/2 and an exalted trigger lying around) and then NAP blocking with a 2/2 and us allowing AP to ‘remember’ his exalted trigger at that stage. NAP could reasonably have assumed AP to have forgotten his trigger. (i.e. in your second example, would you change your mind if NAP blocked with a 2/2 or a 3/3 - or even a x/6 (putting it in Bolt range))

Can someone help me be less uncomfortable about us allowing the exalted trigger to be applied later in any of these situations?

Originally posted by Edward Bell:

I'm very uncomfortable though with AP saying ‘attack for 2’ (with a 2/2 and an exalted trigger lying around) and then NAP blocking with a 2/2 and us allowing AP to ‘remember’ his exalted trigger at that stage. NAP could reasonably have assumed AP to have forgotten his trigger. (i.e. in your second example, would you change your mind if NAP blocked with a 2/2 or a 3/3 - or even a x/6 (putting it in Bolt range))

Under the current Missed Trigger policy, a trigger is considered to be missed when the player doesn't show awareness the first time the trigger has an visible affect on the game state. This means, the first time it “matters” in this scenario is once combat damage is dealt.

NAP has the option to either play the game of “oh, i'm sure my opponent did miss the exalted trigger, so let's block this bear with my bear”, which could create a feel bad moment for him. Or, he asks his opponent about any effects that change the power/toughness of the opponents bear. NAP has to answer this question, and if he replies “it's a 2/2”… well now the creatures can trade with each other. Asking the player about any effects that changes P/T might remind his opponent that there is indeed a exalted trigger, even if he had forgoten about it before. But it's AP's decision to play the guessing game of “did my opponent forgot about his Trigger or not?”, and the outcome could potentially create a disadvantage for him.

Attacking with a creature and telling your opponent the value without acknowledging the changed power because of, for example, exhalted isn't the best example of clear communication. But NAP has more then enough opportunitys to clearify before making any suboptimal decisions.

Originally posted by Edward Bell:

I'm not sure if you've changed your mind on this

Nope. The first quote is an example of someone who intentionally - but legally! - misleads their opponent into thinking they've forgotten their Exalted trigger. The second quote is someone who does forget, but remembers and demonstrates awareness of it before it affects the visible game state.

The key difference in the two is not in how we rule, but rather how we can't let our dislike for the first example change how we apply policy.

d:^D

Originally posted by René Oberweger:

Edward Bell
I'm very uncomfortable though with AP saying ‘attack for 2’ (with a 2/2 and an exalted trigger lying around) and then NAP blocking with a 2/2 and us allowing AP to ‘remember’ his exalted trigger at that stage. NAP could reasonably have assumed AP to have forgotten his trigger. (i.e. in your second example, would you change your mind if NAP blocked with a 2/2 or a 3/3 - or even a x/6 (putting it in Bolt range))

Under the current Missed Trigger policy, a trigger is considered to be missed when the player doesn't show awareness the first time the trigger has an visible affect on the game state. This means, the first time it “matters” in this scenario is once combat damage is dealt.

NAP has the option to either play the game of “oh, i'm sure my opponent did miss the exalted trigger, so let's block this bear with my bear”, which could create a feel bad moment for him. Or, he asks his opponent about any effects that change the power/toughness of the opponents bear. NAP has to answer this question, and if he replies “it's a 2/2”… well now the creatures can trade with each other. Asking the player about any effects that changes P/T might remind his opponent that there is indeed a exalted trigger, even if he had forgoten about it before. But it's AP's decision to play the guessing game of “did my opponent forgot about his Trigger or not?”, and the outcome could potentially create a disadvantage for him.

Attacking with a creature and telling your opponent the value without acknowledging the changed power because of, for example, exhalted isn't the best example of clear communication. But NAP has more then enough opportunitys to clearify before making any suboptimal decisions.

Here's my problem with this rationale: A attacks and says “Attack for 2”. Before declaring blockers, N says “how big is your guy?”. A says “A 2/2”. Since N hasn't declared blockers yet, it is reasonable (although super angle-shootey) for A to say that he is still in declare attackers with the trigger on the stack and hence he is still allowed to resolve his trigger when N moves to block.

Furthermore, even if N begins to move cards around, unless N declaratively moves to blocks, A is allowed to pretend to not know that N is positioning blockers. A is thus allowed (although this is super angle-shootey again) to “forget” his trigger pretty much all the way until N formally declares blockers. To be a bit more clear, allow me to illustrate by example. I believe the following is legal, if we assume that A does not have to declare the resolution of Exalted in his “Attack for X” statement:

A: Attack for 2.
N: How big is your guy?
A: 2/2
N: (shuffles cards around, positioning creatures in front of each other) Block like this.
A: My 3/3 eats your 2/2 due to Exalted.
N: ?????????

I have a problem with this scenario being anywhere close to legal. This definitely deserves a Missed Trigger at least, if not a full on CPV.

Edited Lyle Waldman (Jan. 29, 2015 04:03:04 PM)

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Furthermore, even if N begins to move cards around, unless N declaratively moves to blocks, A is allowed to pretend to not know that N is positioning blockers.

A is not, but that's not actually relevant to the situation at hand. Once N starts moving around and declaring blockers, A has to do a very good job to convince me that she hasn't let the game progress to the declare blockers step. This affects more than just missed triggers; I'm not going to let A go back and activate an ability once N has started blocking. Similarly, once N has actually started the process of assigning blockers, A can't answer with “2/2” any more, because that would miss the trigger. It does feel a little awkward, but there's always going to be a corner case to every policy.

Originally posted by Sean Hunt:

there's always going to be a corner case to every policy

and most of those only ever happen in these Forums… ;)