Hello! I was wondering what was everyone's take on this situation, given a Competitive REL setting:

Andrew controls a Rabblemaster, and he says “I'd like to declare attackers”. Nelson responds by casting Bile Blight and saying “Bile Blight your Rabblemaster”. Andrew says “Ok, resolves, Rabblemaster dies, I get a Goblin token”, to which Nelson calls a judge, since he believes it's not the case.

Both players agree what's written above is what happened, nothing else was said nor done

According strictly to the MTR, Andrew should get a token, so my question is not strictly about what's written on the MTR. Should we consider Nelson's intent here? Should we punish him for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time? Is going by the book the best approach?

I don't see how Andrew gets a token.

The way the scenario is written, Andrew wants to shortcut to his declare attackers, but in doing so skips the beginning of combat rabblemaster trigger, but acknowledges it after Nelson responds to Andrews proposed step change? We're clearly still in Main 1, and we never left.

This came up in a match I was playing the other day; I was very careful to say “before we go to Combat, Bile Blight your Rabblemaster”.

Perhaps the question is, should Nelson (in your example) be at a disadvantage because of inferior/incomplete rules knowledge? We hold firm that superior rules knowledge is a skill that should be rewarded. Is this inverse also true, and fair?

d:^D

Originally posted by Erik Halverson:

I don't see how Andrew gets a token.

The way the scenario is written, Andrew wants to shortcut to his declare attackers, but in doing so skips the beginning of combat rabblemaster trigger, but acknowledges it after Nelson responds to Andrews proposed step change? We're clearly still in Main 1, and we never left.

Andrew does not need to acknowledge the trigger before it resolves, even though he proposed the shortcut.

A statement such as “I'm ready for combat” or “Declare attackers?” offers to keep passing priority until an opponent has priority in the beginning of combat step. Opponents are assumed to be acting then unless they specify otherwise

Andrew has done nothing wrong. Since Nelson did not specify otherwise, he casted Bile Blight on the Beginning of Combat Step. Since the triggered ability could still be on the stack, it has not yet been missed (and he acknowledged its existence correctly).

Scott Marshall
This came up in a match I was playing the other day; I was very careful to say “before we go to Combat, Bile Blight your Rabblemaster”.

Perhaps the question is, should Nelson (in your example) be at a disadvantage because of inferior/incomplete rules knowledge? We hold firm that superior rules knowledge is a skill that should be rewarded. Is this inverse also true, and fair?

d:^D

I believe rules should be applied consistently and reward players that take their time to learn them. But that's my take, and I wanted to know what other judges thought about this (since I've found out there are judges that believe Andrew should not get a token here).

Edited Emilio Franceschini (March 4, 2015 03:34:00 PM)

I believe he should not get a token. Nothing Nelson did actually agreed to the phase change or shortcut. Andrew purposed a short cut to a certain phase, Nelson denied said short cut by putting something on the stack at his first available priority. Players cant force their opponent into a new phase without a priority pass.

-Ariel Adamson

You're right that technically Andrew should get a token. Saying “declare attackers” is an offer to pass priority up until the opponent gets priority in the beginning of combat step and if the opponent interrupts the shortcut by casting an instant, it's assumed that they are acting in the beginning of combat. By which time the Rabblemaster trigger would already be on the stack.

But I think that I would go with Nelson's intent in this case. We aren't trying to make players into rules robots, and if we don't take intent into account, we could get more ugly “esper charm targeting myself” situations. The fact that he called a judge seems to suggest he knows that he can kill his opponent's creature before the trigger. I would probably just ask Nelson when he is casting the Bile Blight and if he says “main phase” or “before the trigger”, then I'd rule that the token doesn't happen.

Originally posted by Ariel Adamson:

I believe he should not get a token. Nothing Nelson did actually agreed to the phase change or shortcut. Andrew purposed a short cut to a certain phase, Nelson denied said short cut by putting something on the stack at his first available priority. Players cant force their opponent into a new phase without a priority pass.

-Ariel Adamson

That's not how the shortcut rule goes. As I quoted:

A statement such as “I'm ready for combat” or “Declare attackers?” offers to keep passing priority until an opponent has priority in the beginning of combat step. Opponents are assumed to be acting then unless they specify otherwise

Nelson casted a spell without specifying which step he was casting it on (or at least something like “before combat”). Therefore, we assume we are on beginning of combat step.

The rules are fine on my situation, there's no problem there and my question is not about that. My question is about the philosophy behind enforcing those rules.

Edited Emilio Franceschini (March 4, 2015 03:31:28 PM)

After review of the MTR, it in no uncertain terms supports Emilio's initial claim that Andrew gets a token.

It feels sticky, but as an arbiter of the rules, I would have to agree at this point.

Edited Erik Halverson (March 4, 2015 03:43:13 PM)

I don't personally see how this is any different from the Desecration Demon philosophy, which essentially boils down to the notion that the NAP always has “control” during these sort of phase/step transitions, and ultimately decides whether their action is being taken in the Precombat Main Phase, or during the Beginning of Combat Step. If Nelson believes they acted at the appropriate time, then that's what I'd be going with - along with a caution to be more clear about when, specifically, such actions are taking place in the future.

I don't feel like Nelson is demonstrating an inferior understanding of the rules if they believe they have acted in an appropriate time to prevent the token from being created; perhaps more questions are warranted to determine this, though, and my ruling may change depending on what Nelson's answers are.

Edited Rebecca Lawrence (March 4, 2015 03:58:39 PM)

I agree with Nathan, taking the reverse situation as an example if a player uses explicit wording to try and trick their opponent into acting when they don't want. We ask the opponent when they wanted to act I will do the same.

Originally posted by MTR 4.2:

Opponents are assumed to be acting then unless they specify otherwise

That is policy.

Ariel Adamson
Nelson denied said short cut by putting something on the stack at his first available priority

That isn't stated anywhere in policy.


What I'm seeing in this thread is a number of people suggesting that we just assume what Nelson should have said/done, instead of sticking to policy.

d:^D

Edited Scott Marshall (March 4, 2015 04:17:23 PM)

Originally posted by Emilio Franceschini:

given a Competitive REL setting

I'd say this is the key point to be looking at. Given a competitive REL setting, players are expected to know the rules of the game and follow them as they will be held to those rules. With that in mind, a shortcut was proposed with the statement “I'd like to declare attackers”. From here, we are in the begin combat phase unless NAP specifically states otherwise due to MTR 4.2.

Events run at competitive REL aren't meant to be a friendly learning environment. It's a competitive event with meaningful prizes at the end. This is still a learning experience for NAP, just not a friendly one.

Had Emilio started by saying:

Originally posted by Emilio Franceschini:

given a Regular REL setting

things would be different. This is where you can go over how shortcuts work and educate the player on the rules of the game. You also have a chance to allow what was intended rather than what happened. In this situation I would start by explaining how shortcuts work and stress the importance of being clear about stating when you are taking your actions. I would then back the game up to first main phase and continue play, allowing NAP to cast his spell when he intended.

Isn't this just as simple as asking NAP “When did you cast Bile Blight?”.

If he responds “When my opponent passed in priority during his main phase.” Then no Goblin.
If he responds “Before he can attack me.” or “At the beginning of combat.” Then yes Goblin.

To me NAP's intent is pretty clear, his communication is a little more vague but shouldn't prevent him from doing what he wants. Our job as a judge is to step in and clear up the confusion. We can best do this by asking NAP when he was acting.

Marc: I think it is slightly more complex, for me to accept the first
scenario I'd need him to indicate how he indicated to his opponent
that he was rejecting the short cut.

Originally posted by Marc DeArmond:

Isn't this just as simple as asking NAP “When did you cast Bile Blight?”.

If he responds “When my opponent passed in priority during his main phase.” Then no Goblin.
If he responds “Before he can attack me.” or “At the beginning of combat.” Then yes Goblin.

MTR4.2 is quite clear about it.
Unless stated otherwise, the opponent is using his priority on the Beginning of Combat step.

The opponent has the right to have policy applied consistently.

While it is tempting to judge by the player's intent, we should bear in mind that this is Competitive REL, and we expect players to be familiar with tournament policy.