Originally posted by Jacopo Strati:

Is it ok saying “combat” even if AP's intent is not to attack immediately?

No, this is not okay. If AP wants to do something after Toolcraft Exemplar's trigger resolves, they need to say, “Combat. Trigger Exemplar.” (If they don't mention the trigger, it is still not missed until the appropriate Combat Damage Step.)

To clarify, this is not okay unless the player then explicitly resolves the trigger. So you can do something like:

A: “Combat?”
N: “Yup.”
A: “Exemplar trigger resolves. Tap it to crew a thing.”

Remember that the shortcut takes us the first time in Beginning of Combat where NAP has priority.

So, in this scenario, AP can't “bluff” on his trigger in order to gain an advantage.
It's his duty (hot his opponent) to demonstrate awareness of this ability, even if normally it shouldn't be requiried at this time for these kind of triggers.
Actually we could say that, considering the situation, this is the very first time this trigger has a “visible” impact on the game state.
Good, thanks for your answer Joshua. :)

Edited Jacopo Strati (Sept. 28, 2016 05:43:39 PM)

Originally posted by Milan Majerčík:

What should the player do? Say something like “I want to go to beginning of combat and keep priority”.

They should just say “In my first main phase, I crew my Vehicle. Go to combat.”

The number of cases where it is relevant to animate a permanent in the beginning of combat step is likely way smaller than the number of times the question of how to do it has been discussed in these forums.

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

To clarify, this is not okay unless the player then explicitly resolves the trigger. So you can do something like:

A: “Combat?”
N: “Yup.”
A: “Exemplar trigger resolves. Tap it to crew a thing.”

Remember that the shortcut takes us the first time in Beginning of Combat where NAP has priority.

I think that you are correct in the sense that we're at beginning of combat step, with NAP holding priority, as per MTR:

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.

However, it must be noted that NAP can have priority with the trigger on the stack, and as long as AP doesn't allow to it become missed, it might be remembered at time. Yes, that means that NAP can't make it missed, and if NAP acts thinking that it's missed, well, that's his problem.

We've ruled that before, and I see no reason to do otherwise in this situation.

Edited Joaquín Pérez (Sept. 29, 2016 04:24:59 AM)

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

To clarify, this is not okay unless the player then explicitly resolves the trigger. So you can do something like:

A: “Combat?”
N: “Yup.”
A: “Exemplar trigger resolves. Tap it to crew a thing.”

Remember that the shortcut takes us the first time in Beginning of Combat where NAP has priority.

Why would AP have to be explicit about the trigger? While your scenario is preferable, I would say the original one is still okay.

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

Joshua Feingold
To clarify, this is not okay unless the player then explicitly resolves the trigger. So you can do something like:

A: “Combat?”
N: “Yup.”
A: “Exemplar trigger resolves. Tap it to crew a thing.”

Remember that the shortcut takes us the first time in Beginning of Combat where NAP has priority.

Why would AP have to be explicit about the trigger? While your scenario is preferable, I would say the original one is still okay.

I think that the difference comes down to the original scenario not giving any reason to expect that AP will re-gain priority in the Beginning of Combat step after NAP passes. By omitting any mention of the Exemplar trigger, there is no reason to expect that the original sequence would be allowed by the rules. AP seems as if they are trying to live in the ambiguity of whether their trigger has been remembered or not, while still gaining a benefit they would only be entitled to if the trigger were remembered. In the second scenario, AP is being aggressive about communicating what is going on, pointing out at a pertinent time exactly why their sequence will deviate from the expected pre-combat shortcut. In the second scenario, ruling against this sequence seems tantamount to ruling that the Exemplar trigger has been missed, when it clearly hasn't.

Originally posted by Andrew Keeler:

I think that the difference comes down to the original scenario not giving any reason to expect that AP will re-gain priority in the Beginning of Combat step after NAP passes. By omitting any mention of the Exemplar trigger, there is no reason to expect that the original sequence would be allowed by the rules. AP seems as if they are trying to live in the ambiguity of whether their trigger has been remembered or not, while still gaining a benefit they would only be entitled to if the trigger were remembered.

That's how triggers work, isn't it? Ok, “invisible” triggers, to be fair … but there are lots of them.
If AP casts a sorcery, and enters combat with a prowess creature, NAP must block without knowing if the attacking creature has +1/+1 or not.

Edited Francesco Scialpi (Sept. 29, 2016 10:44:05 AM)

Sure. But AP has to acknowledge it when it is relevant. Knowing that the
Exemplar has 3 power in order to crew seems like the definition of
“relevant” to me.


—
Rob McKenzie
Magic Judge Level III
Judge Regional Coordinator USA-North
Minnesota

So by saying “Tap it to crew a thing.” he has acknowledged it when it is relevant right? He does not need to say the earlier ”Exemplar trigger resolves".

To which the opponent will respond “it has only 1 power”, and AP will have
to point out the trigger anyways. It actually saves them time, effort,
headache, and arguments to point out that trigger up front - it is better
in literally every sense of the word. Leaning on “but they don't HAVE to”
when they will in nearly every circumstance then have a dialogue about the
exact trigger they just avoided pointing out is kind of silly, in my
opinion.

They are going to end up having to be explicit one way or another.


—
Rob McKenzie
Magic Judge Level III
Judge Regional Coordinator USA-North
Minnesota

Well in the original scenario it wasn't the Toolcrafter that did the crewing ^^;
The potential confusion was not about Toolcrafter's power, but AP doing something after asking “combat?” because he had a silent unrelated Toolcrafter trigger.

I'd think that by acknowleging the toolcrafter trigger, AP unmistakenly shows why he
a) followed the standard shortcut (“combat” -> NAP has priority in the BoC step)
and
b) AP still gets priority before Declare Attackers step,
regardless of which of AP's creatures does the actual crewing.

Edited Christian Harms (Sept. 29, 2016 04:34:08 PM)

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

I can't think of a reason why you would need to Crew in combat rather than Main Phase. Even if there was a beginning of combat trigger, you could just resolve it and Crew afterwards.

The philosophy behind this official shortcut is to ensure that the game has moved into the combat phase and out of the main phase so that the AP cannot play word game shenanigans on the NAP to force the NAP to do something in main phase. The part of the shortcut that moves the NAP's priority does nothing that impacts that philosophy, it appears to just be a tacked on addendum that causes massive confusion among the players.

“I can't think of a reason” or “its very rare” is an internal judge bias and is the reason this shortcut is so confusing to players. If the shortcut simply took them to AP having priority in beginning of combat the shortcut would be fine. It would accomplish all of the philosophy behind the shortcut and it would not confuse the tar out of everyone as to why “Combat” doesn't refer to just moving into the phase.

This shortcut is bad because it is the only time in Magic that the player passes priority not just in the current phase/step but in following phases/steps as well. Worse, the reason for making them pass that priority is simply because some of the judge community “can't think of a reason why you would need to <action> in combat rather than Main Phase”. Who really cares why? Can't they just do it because they want to?

Originally posted by Mark Randol:

This shortcut is bad because it is the only time in Magic that the player passes priority not just in the current phase/step but in following phases/steps as well.i

The “go” shortcut begs to differ