Deleted by request.

Edited Mats Törnros (Sept. 27, 2016 04:34:55 AM)

I suppose I should have elaborated more - this is explicitly stated in the “O”fficial blog post that I linked.

Even the most thorough statement like: “I pass priority to you in Main Phase one” or “I want to enter in the beginning of combat step” falls under that shortcut.

Edited Bryan Li (Sept. 27, 2016 12:29:21 AM)

Bryan,

you're reading that paragraph without taking into account the context.
Please check the paragraphs before and after what you quoted.

If you say “Move to the Beginning of Combat step, I have priority”, you
have been evidently explicit about your actions, so you will be in the
Beginning
of Combat step, and you will have priority.

//DLI

I'm not sure I agree; I read the blog post several times. The intent of this shortcut (as far as I understand it) is to ensure that NAP does not act unknowingly in AP's main phase.

Allowing the phrase “Move to the Beginning of Combat, I have priority” to not fall under the combat shortcut would allow tricks such as the Icy Manipulator trick discussed in the blog post, where NAP responds to the above phrase by saying something like "Before that, kill your " and therefore acting in the first main phase, which is the exact interaction that the combat shortcut is intended to stop.

There is no possible reason to move to the Beginning of Combat step without having an action already in mind except to perform that specific wording trick (assuming nothing weird like mana floating); there are less options for AP during the Beginning of Combat than in the first main (no sorcery speed actions), while NAP has the exact same options available to them, as they could only perform instant speed actions anyway. The only result of moving to the Beginning of Combat would be a reduction in options for AP; the only way information could actually be gained by moving to the Beginning of Combat (or, the only reason AP would use that phrase) is if NAP takes an action during first main, which they would have no possible reason to - once again, this is the exact trick that the combat shortcut is intended to stop.

This topic was discussed extensively in this thread:

http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/27443/?page=4#post-176957

In particular that link is to Uncle Scott's final answer, that should be
considered official.

If AP wants to move to Beggining of Combat and retain priority to take an
action, he has to be very explicit.


//DLI

Originally posted by Lars Harald Nordli:

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.

The MTR makes distinctions between RELs for several rules, like opponent shuffling, cross-pod pairing, looking at your picks during a draft.

But it does not make a distinction between RELs for the purpose of shortcuts.

My assumption is that you're arguing for a rewind here because of the “feel-bad” created for the player who said “go to combat” without understanding the implications. But by rewinding, you can create a “feel-bad” for the player who knew the shortcut and acted with the knowledge that the game was in the beginning of combat step, so when he or she passed priority, he or she was safe from being run over by a train.

I wouldn't interpret shortcuts differently than the MTR provides - they're designed so they work the same way in every event, and a player can avoid that by by learning how the shortcut works. Or, more likely, by just activating his or her vehicles during his or her main phase, when he or she has incentive to do so anyway.

Originally posted by David de la Iglesia:

This topic was discussed extensively in this thread:

http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/27443/?page=4#post-176957

In particular that link is to Uncle Scott's final answer, that should be
considered official.

I missed that thread, thanks!

I do also agree with John about not rewinding; the shortcut is just as valid at Regular REL, and allowing rewinds like that at Regular but not at Competitive creates the possibility of an even larger “feel-bad” for the player who now believes that a misused shortcut is something that can be “fixed”.

On the other hand, what has probably happened is that a player has tried to Crew a Vehicle while declaring attackers, which is illegal. Under the JAR you have a lot more scope in how to fix the error, and in my view the short rewind fits the goal of Regular, so long as (a) you're sure there were no shenanigans; and (b) you take a moment to properly explain about shortcuts and how they work. With proper explanations you'll avoid potential feelbads. And I struggle to picture the type of person who knows their shortcut rules so well, yet gets worked up at the more flexible fixes afforded to Regular REL events. I feel like they may be missing the point.

That being said, there are definitely situations where I'll not rewind. But I'm not taking it off the table either.

No, I'll still rewind at Regular REL if it was a misunderstanding. The one who yells “Judge!” at a FNM takes the fun out of that event for our players. Maybe something else works for your place, but at our venue with Regular REL we'll focus on education of the game AND fun for all parties.

At Competitive REL we will not rewind as players are expected to know both the MTR, Comprehensive rules and IPG.

Others have already linked my previous ‘O’fficial answers on this topic, so I'll just confirm that the appearance of Vehicles in Magic has not changed policy re: this shortcut.

d:^D

Originally posted by Lars Harald Nordli:

No, I'll still rewind at Regular REL if it was a misunderstanding. The one who yells “Judge!” at a FNM takes the fun out of that event for our players. Maybe something else works for your place, but at our venue with Regular REL we'll focus on education of the game AND fun for all parties.

If you believe that the MTR should be changed, you should contact the folks who write it and recommend a change, instead of “legislating from the bench” and re-writing it yourself. Regular REL tournaments are still tournaments, and if the shortcuts were meant to apply differently there, the MTR would say so.

I think the experience for players is going to be a lot worse in general if you're throwing out parts of policy because you want to determine who should have how much fun. Players will wonder which other rules aren't going to apply at inopportune times, and they'll wonder if those cases will only occur when it benefits your friends. Having different rules apply based on which judge answers your call means that players can't make informed decisions during a game - should I make a play assuming that we're in the beginning of combat step, as the rules say, or will I get blown out by the judge making up their own rules because they think it would “take the fun out of the event”?

I also suspect that you won't actually be educating players if you're rewinding here - what you're teaching them is that while the shortcut sometimes means what it says, if you get surprised by it, the judge will rewind for you. That's not really educating them on the policy. Instead, missing the opportunity to animate is going to stick with you a lot better in terms of the correct way to do things in the future.

Hi John Brian,

while I understand your view, I would also not dismiss the opinion of Lars Harald. Bear in mind that judging at Regular REL tournaments is guided by JAR and this document also contains these sentences:

You should intervene if you see something illegal happen in a match, but beyond this you can exercise your discretion. For example, whether you step in when you see a player miss a trigger should be determined by the tone you want to strike for your event – it may be appropriate to provide this extra help in a more causal environment, but less so if your play group is more competitive.

I know stores where I would go for the semi-competitive rulings consistency approach (you suggest) and I also know playgroups where I would be super educative and casual, using the opportunity to teach the players how it works.

It's rare for there to be an actual reason to crew your vehicles in the Beginning of Combat Step. The few scenarios in which you will in KLD-limited are mostly related to NAP floating mana (in response to a kill spell) or Toolcraft Exemplar. Those are all on-board. So, I propose we shift the discussion from “How do we explain the combat shortcut to players” to “Convince them to just crew main-phase and/or illustrate some philosophy behind the shortcut”.

I think there are roughly 4 types of players:

1) Always-plays-instants-as-sorceries-players
They're just going to crew+attack (without saying “combat”) anyway. All good!

2) Relatively novice players who say “combat”, but probably couldn't name any of the steps of combat, and then want to crew after NAP says “sure”.
Ask: “Why did you ask ‘combat’”?
They will likely say
A: “To see if NAP was going to tap one of my creatures.” Response: “Because you've gotten the information that NAP doesn't want to, it's too late. Since it's your turn, you have to commit before asking that question to your opponent”
B: “I don't know, other players say it, so I do”. Response: “You don't need to say ‘Combat’. When you're ready to attack, just tell your opponent what you're crewing and what you're attacking with”.
C: “My last opponent was mad that I didn't”. Response: “Your last opponent was wrong, next time call me over and I'll tell your opponent that it's okay”

3) Fairly competitive players who think there's some advantage to be gained by crewing in the Beginning of Combat Step
Ask: “Why don't you just crew main-phase before declaring Combat?”
A: “<some explanation that doesn't really make sense>”. Response “<Describe why, tell them to crew in main-phase>”
B: “I wanted to see if NAP would respond in my main phase” (This is really “I was trying to trick NAP”). Response: “NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO” (or “Explain why you think NAP would want to respond main phase”)

4) Players with a deep grasp of rules/policy/strategy
They're just going to main-phase crew anyway. All good!



If anyone wants to argue with me over 2C: please don't. If anyone wants to argue with me over 2B: if you really want to you can go into more details about what there is to gain by saying “Combat” (disguising potential attacks and forcing opponent to decide whether/what to tap, or whether to cast something before Cultivator of Blades attacks), and then say that if there is no reason to ask that question of the opponent (no mana, cards in hand, no Cultivator of Blades on board or any potential tap effects (on board or 1W for Pressure Point)) then no reason to say “Combat”. The depth of the explanation is, of course, based upon (j)udgement. I am fine with “you're basically asking if the opponent wants to tap a creature before knowing what you plan on attacking with” during a game.

Edited Aaron Henner (Sept. 27, 2016 07:06:53 AM)

I agree with Milan that the JAR actually gives us both options if a player try to do something illegal, like trying to crew a vehicle during the declare attackers step, and how far you'll rewind (before the crew ability activation, or before the pass of priority during the beginning of combat step) will depend of the circumstances. As usual, the JAR allows you to use your judgment and tailor your decisions on your own community and events.

So we should shy away from being definitive on the topic, and more constructive discussion would be on when we think it's appropriate to rewind to a certain point, and when it isn't, in order to provide guidance to less experienced judges.

- Emilien

I have a side-question to add to this scenario:
AP controls a Toolcraft Exemplar, a 2/2 creature and a Vehicle with Crew 2.
AP says to his/her opponent: “Combat?”.
NAP says: “Ok”.
Then AP responds: “Ok, so I crew my Vehicle with my 2/2 and I attack”.

How can we handle this communication with a trigger on the stack?
Is it ok saying “combat” even if AP's intent is not to attack immediately? Or it could be somehow misleading for his/her opponent?
Is it AP's duty to mention his/her trigger or it's his/her opponent's duty to ask about it? :)

Edited Jacopo Strati (Sept. 29, 2016 05:56:11 AM)