A few cards with triggers that interact strangely with it does not make the shortcut faulty or in need of revision because the vast majority of combat steps involving the shortcut will not feature one of these cards. Shortcuts are designed for the majority of situations that occur naturally, not for the few odd cases where players should be communicating more to indicate how their actions differ from the established shortcuts.

Originally posted by Preston May:

Instead I should be more clear and pass priority so that we naturally move to beginning of combat and I can assign a target for the surrak trigger. This keeps it clear for both players where in the turn we are and allows me to use my triggers.

This is always the right answer.

Well put, Riki!

Right now, there's really three very good examples where the shortcut isn't a perfect fit - and yet, in all three cases, it's very easy to adapt. (And, in my opinion, it should be fairly obvious to most players that it's a necessary adaptation.)

1) Raid, esp. Wingmate Roc; it's usually best for a defender to wait for attackers to be declared before using a kill spell on one; however, with the possibility of Wingmate Roc in 2nd main phase, NAP may want to act before attacks. If AP just says “attack” and turns one/more dudes sideways, NAP needs to be clear “before you attack, kill ~that~”. Easy.

2) Goblin Rabblemaster. Again, it's normal for AP to move to Combat (via the standard shortcut), and for NAP to act during the beginning of that step - however, if there's a Rabblemaster on the battlefield, NAP may need to respond to “Combat?” or “Attack?” with “before combat, kill your Rabble dude”. Again - easy.

3) Surrak, the Problem Maker. Here, NAP only has to disrupt that intervening-if trigger. Even easier.

Just because it's easy doesn't mean players get it right - but we aren't rewriting policy just because players get it wrong…

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Well put, Riki!

1) Raid, esp. Wingmate Roc; it's usually best for a defender to wait for attackers to be declared before using a kill spell on one; however, with the possibility of Wingmate Roc in 2nd main phase, NAP may want to act before attacks. If AP just says “attack” and turns one/more dudes sideways, NAP needs to be clear “before you attack, kill ~that~”. Easy.

Just two days ago, I had to rule on the following situation:

AP controls Arcbound Ravager, Signal Pest and Ornithopter. He just says “attack” and turns Signal Pest and Ornithopter sideways.
NAP casts Darkblast on Ravager.
AP responds by sacrificing Signal Pest, in order to save Ravager.

AP claims Ornithopter deals 1 damage (because of Battle Cry).
NAP claims he intended to play Darkblast before attackers were declared, so no damage.

What would you rule?

I'd rule that AP gets his 1 damage dealt.

Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:

NAP claims he intended to play Darkblast before attackers were declared, so no damage.

Key question is, did the player do anything more than “intend” in this situation? We can't expect anyone to be mindreader. To me it look like AP proposed a shortcut (go to declare attackers) and NAP did nothing to interrupt it, thus acting in a first moment after the shortcut. Communication is key in this game. Let's hope the player learned something and will be more clear on his actions next time.

Edited Piotr Łopaciuk (May 19, 2015 08:14:50 AM)

Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:

NAP claims he intended to play Darkblast before attackers were declared, so no damage.

It's very simple to actually state your intentions, in situations like this: “Before attacks, Darkblast ~that~” … but NAP didn't do that. Seems more likely that he simply forgot about Battle Cry until AP reminded him.

As Piotr says, Communication is key.

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Francesco Scialpi
NAP claims he intended to play Darkblast before attackers were declared, so no damage.

It's very simple to actually state your intentions, in situations like this: “Before attacks, Darkblast ~that~” … but NAP didn't do that. Seems more likely that he simply forgot about Battle Cry until AP reminded him.

As Piotr says, Communication is key.

d:^D

Just to be clear, does that mean that these answers are outdated? http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/14839/?page=1#post-95745 and http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/11677/?page=1#post-74349

Edited Toby Hazes (May 19, 2015 11:28:39 AM)

Toby, the first of those answers is quite similar, and implies a different outcome - but there's a subtle difference in the scenarios (Raid - not a trigger - vs. Battle Cry, which is), and a key similarity to the answer: players have a burden to confirm assumptions, if they think it matters. I will note that a number of the L4+ disagreed with my general stance (putting the burden on AP, not NAP).

The second of those answers deals with a very different problem (that still overlaps in some less significant ways): AP is rushing through a series of priority passes, so I'm less inclined to reward that - but the conclusion does, in fact, seem to contradict what I've said in this thread. That 2nd quote is nine months old, and hasn't stood the test of time.

I will reiterate a lasting truth: Communication is key. As I noted in that first linked thread, but further along: “when players fail to communicate, the judges' effect is often disappointing to at least one, and sometimes both, of those players”.

d:^D

Originally posted by Piotr Łopaciuk:

I'd rule that AP gets his 1 damage dealt.

Francesco Scialpi
NAP claims he intended to play Darkblast before attackers were declared, so no damage.

Key question is, did the player do anything more than “intend” in this situation? We can't expect anyone to be mindreader. To me it look like AP proposed a shortcut (go to declare attackers) and NAP did nothing to interrupt it, thus acting in a first moment after the shortcut. Communication is key in this game. Let's hope the player learned something and will be more clear on his actions next time.

Makes sense, I agree in large part.
But, to be honest, I also have a concern.
We are encouraging attacking player to skip the “combat?” declaration, and simply turn creatures sideways. The burden of declaring “I want to do this before attack” is all on NAP shoulders.
I would be happier to have a ruling that instead would encourage players to go “Combat?” “Ok” “attack with these”.

One could say, attacking player is not at a big advantage, since playing this way, he is telling his opponent “I will attack with this and this”.

Imagine one last scenario:
AP: “attack with these”
NAP: “before attack, tap this”
AP: “ok, so I will attack with this and this instead”
NAP: “juuudge”

No infractions, but I don't like where this is going…

Edited Francesco Scialpi (May 19, 2015 01:45:38 PM)

Sorry, Francesco, but I'm not seeing the problem with your proposed scenario. AP proposed a shortcut to attackers and in fact gave away information about what she intended to attack with. NAP was clear about when he wanted to interrupt, which is what we want to see players do, and then AP is no longer held to the decision she previously gave away due to the interrupted shortcut, much as with the classic Persecute scenario. Furthermore, if they had gone through this completely perfectly, AP still gets to decide what to attack with after NAP taps one of her creatures. Where exactly is your problem with either player's actions?

Sent from my iPad

Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:

We are encouraging attacking player to skip the “combat?” declaration, and simply turn creatures sideways. The burden of declaring “I want to do this before attack” is all on NAP shoulders.
I would be happier to have a ruling that instead would encourage players to go “Combat?” “Ok” “attack with these”.

One could say, attacking player is not at a big advantage, since playing this way, he is telling his opponent “I will attack with this and this”.

Imagine one last scenario:
AP: “attack with these”
NAP: “before attack, tap this”
AP: “ok, so I will attack with this and this instead”
NAP: “juuudge”

We want games to be smoothly and as fast as possible. It would be really time consuming if AP had to ask “Combat?” every time.
As for your scenario - I don't see problem there. If AP “rushed” (or proposed shortcut) straight to declaration of attackers step and NAP want to interrupt this by doing something in beginning of combat step, I see no reason why AP should be obligated to keep those attackers unchanged.

Originally posted by Justin Miyashiro:

Sorry, Francesco, but I'm not seeing the problem with your proposed scenario. AP proposed a shortcut to attackers and in fact gave away information about what she intended to attack with. NAP was clear about when he wanted to interrupt, which is what we want to see players do, and then AP is no longer held to the decision she previously gave away due to the interrupted shortcut, much as with the classic Persecute scenario. Furthermore, if they had gone through this completely perfectly, AP still gets to decide what to attack with after NAP taps one of her creatures. Where exactly is your problem with either player's actions?

Sent from my iPad

Weel, of course, I would rule that there are no infractions of any kind, and that AP *can* change his attackers declaration. Only, it seems clunky, I am worried it will happen every time, and we will get lots of pointless calls and disappointed players.

Again, I would be happier with players asking “Combat?” “ok” “attack with these” , and I think policies should encourage that rather than the opposite.

Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:

Only, it seems clunky, I am worried it will happen every time, and we will get lots of pointless calls and disappointed players.

But that's how it works now, and we don't have judge calls about it

Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:

Again, I would be happier with players asking “Combat?” “ok” “attack with these” , and I think policies should encourage that rather than the opposite.

I don't like that, because it would make all games slower and the communication more unclear(edit: meant to write“ complicate”) for only a few games were it really matters. A lot of players become more specific themselve if they know it could matter.

Edited Markus Dietrich (May 20, 2015 03:53:00 AM)

I hope I've not misunderstood or misinterpreted things that others have said, but here is my take on things.

If a player wants to shortcut straight to declaring attackers by turning cards sideways, that's fine. If the NAP chooses to interrupt by tapping one of them during the beginning of combat, then the AP should never be forced to continue their attack as shortcut because things have changed.

AP controls their turn. It's always up to NAP to interrupt any shortcuts to do what they want when they want. The burden should always be on NAP to interrupt shortcuts if they want to do something before the end point of the shortcut.

There is no encouragement to skip the “combat” shortcut. There should be no encouragement to force players saying “combat” before declaring their attackers. Players will play as they see fit. Sometimes it's beneficial towards them sometimes it's not. When a player shortcuts from main phase to declaring attackers, they are providing more information to their opponent than if they just said “go to combat”. They are negating the need for the NAP to try and work out what their attacks will be and to do something prior to that.

There is skill in Magic, part of that skill is remembering your triggers and remembering or noticing your opponent's triggers. Trying to mould policy to make it easier for 1 player to remember another player's triggers or help one player avoid a trigger seems a little problematic to me.