Originally posted by Mark Randol:

I have never seen the problem that it is intended to solve.

Meaning the shortcut is super effective at accomplishing its goal.

I do agree that there's a lot of feel-bad the other way and I also agree the MTR should spend more words on this. It's not ideal but the shortcut is doing work that needs to be done.

Gamers gonna game. How often have you gotten judge calls about an opponent that was techically to late with their trigger?

Edited Toby Hazes (Nov. 2, 2016 06:06:11 AM)

Originally posted by Mark Randol:

Rob Marti
Mark,
What's wrong with the following?

AP: Move to combat, activate Mutavault
NAP: OK
AP: Declare attackers
NAP: Go ahead (or “I tap that dude”)
AP: These guys attack

NAP gains no information he wouldn't have already and you've activated your manland in BoC like you want.

What's wrong with it is by the MTR and by the explanatory blog article AP cannot activate Mutavault at that time. As soon as he said the word “Combat” it is now the NAP's priority in beginning of combat. When NAP says “Ok” both players have now passed priority in beginning of combat and AP never get's opportunity to activate mutivault. If I were NAP that interaction would look like this:

AP: Move to combat, activate Mutavault
NAP: JUDGE!!

608.2c The controller of the spell or ability follows its instructions in the order written. However, replacement effects may modify these actions. In some cases, later text on the card may modify the meaning of earlier text (for example, “Destroy target creature. It can’t be regenerated” or “Counter target spell. If that spell is countered this way, put it on top of its owner’s library instead of into its owner’s graveyard.”) Don’t just apply effects step by step without thinking in these cases—read the whole text and apply the rules of English to the text.

;)

Originally posted by Mark Randol:

by the explanatory blog article AP cannot activate Mutavault at that time. As soon as he said the word “Combat” it is now the NAP's priority in beginning of combat. When NAP says “Ok” both players have now passed priority in beginning of combat and AP never get's opportunity to activate mutivault. If I were NAP that interaction would look like this:

AP: Move to combat, activate Mutavault
NAP: JUDGE!!

I recommend reading the most recent article on Toby's blog - this seems pretty clearly to be fine, because the player is indicating what he wants to do in the Beginning of Combat step.

If a player wants to be clear that they’re doing something in their beginning of combat, all they need to do is say so! “Beginning of combat, activate my Wandering Fumarole” is not merely allowed, but encouraged. The active player has made it clear what is happening while acknowledging their need to act first.

Originally posted by Mark Randol:

Originally posted by Jeff Morrow:

AP: Combat?
NAP: OK.
AP: I attack with these guys.
NAP: Before you attack (and now that I know who you plan to attack with), I tap your most important attacker with my Deadlock Trap.

That example is exactly how things work today.

That example is exactly *not* how things work now. That's exactly what the combat shortcut prevents.

Originally posted by Bryan Spellman:

What you are wanting is a shortcut that allows both players to act in beginning of combat after the phrase “combat”. However, with the way priory works, this can't happen if we want to make sure AP acts first in the phase.

Can you come up with a new shortcut that does that? When you start walking through priority, there's not a better way to do it than I can come up with. In reality, AP just has to say “beginning of combat, crew”

The shortcut I would propose is when a player says “Combat?”, “Move to combat”, “Beginning of combat”, etc. that it passes priority until the AP has priority in the beginning of combat step. If they say “Attacks?”, “Declare attackers” then it uses the current shortcut to the NAP having priority in the beginning of combat. This would be intuitively obvious.

Yes, I know, passing priority in main 1 just to pass priority again in boc makes some judges cringe, but really how does that harm the game at all? It would work the way players expect and the way the english language would have you believe. The key to avoiding the the wordsmithing shenanigans is to get into the combat phase, it doesn't matter who has priority there. Getting away from the feel-bads of not being able to activate man-lands or crew vehicles does matter who has priority.

There are quite a few ways it's harmful to the game/experience. The most harmful way is turning magic into such a pedantic experience that no one is really going to want to play.

That being said, the annotated MTR (shameless Prillaman style plug) dedicates lots of words to fleshing out shortcuts!

Sent from my iPhone

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

Federico, could you provide an example of how or where this has happened? Because I'm having trouble grasping what you mean.

The situation that has been discussed in the thread so far seems relatively straight forward (albeit with its own wrinkles), so I don't see anything like what you seem to be describing.

Sure. Limited PPTQ to be precise. Player A says “I pass priority in my first main phase”, has a vehicle but wants to wait and see what his opponent does when he receives priority in the main. I know, “With very few exceptions, the non-active player doesn't want to act in active player's main phase” and “Asking the non-active player for permission to go from a game state where you have priority to a game state where you have priority is a waste of time”
But the CR allows it, and there's no written policy against it. We have a specific shortcut, but if players don't want to use it, we are enforcing them to do it anway:

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.

So, the player was quite upset. And when he asked why he couldn't pass priority on main without using the shortcut, all I could tell him was that this policy came from the interpretation of the MTR made in an article.

Originally posted by Federico Verdini:

Brian Schenck
Federico, could you provide an example of how or where this has happened? Because I'm having trouble grasping what you mean.

The situation that has been discussed in the thread so far seems relatively straight forward (albeit with its own wrinkles), so I don't see anything like what you seem to be describing.

Sure. Limited PPTQ to be precise. Player A says “I pass priority in my first main phase”, has a vehicle but wants to wait and see what his opponent does when he receives priority in the main. I know, “With very few exceptions, the non-active player doesn't want to act in active player's main phase” and “Asking the non-active player for permission to go from a game state where you have priority to a game state where you have priority is a waste of time”
But the CR allows it, and there's no written policy against it. We have a specific shortcut, but if players don't want to use it, we are enforcing them to do it anway:

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.

So, the player was quite upset. And when he asked why he couldn't pass priority on main without using the shortcut, all I could tell him was that this policy came from the interpretation of the MTR made in an article.

Ahh, that.

Personally, as often as I reflect on this every time it comes up, I feel people are looking at “pass priority” wrong. Passing priority isn't an action, it's the very definition of inaction. That is, it is passive. See CR 116.1 and CR 116.4.

A pass of priority is just that, a choice to do nothing. You can't choose to do nothing and then reserve the choice to act unless your opponent takes an action. And you can't somehow do it in a way that you get your opponent to act at the wrong time.

Toby's most recent article is far smarter on the subject than most things I could write. But I'll at least say that this situation is easy to solve without resorting to technical language if you want to act in your beginning of combat step… Just indicate that you want to take an action in your beginning of combat step.

Seriously, don't just “pass priority to end my main phase”. Indicate when you next want to take an action. Be active in your turn. Say “I want to do something in my beginning of combat step… Do you have anything before I end my precombat main?”

The active player has that right as the player in control of the turn. The nonactive player has the right to react as necessary, which is something the active player can't prohibit. No matter the choice of words. It's one thing if the nonactive player doesn't understand… It's quite another to interfere.

Originally posted by Mark Randol:

I have two real questions for the judge community as affects this particular shortcut:
1. When was the last time you had to explain to a player that their attempt to word-smith a main phase reaction out of another player failed because they used a phrase that indicated movement to combat?
2. When was the last time you had to explain to a player that no they cannot activate their man-land or no they cannot crew their vehicle because they said the word “Combat”?

1. Your question is really what this whole thing is about. The policy is in place specifically to prevent players from being able to word-play-trick their opponents into acting in the main phase. It isn't some unfortunate side effect. Trick your opponents by bluffing a 2/2 past a 3/3. Don't try to trick them by using unclear English (and even technically accurate English can be unclear).

2. Last Friday I had to. The player gave a bad excuse that “maybe my opponent wanted to act in main phase”. No. All this talk about MTR / Policy / judge articles / English / phases… it misses 2 critical points. The next time you have this discussion with your players, don't sympathize with them about the mean judge program. Ask them 2 questions: “Why are you trying to crew/animate in your Beginning of Combat Step anyway?”. and “Why do you think your opponent might have wanted to act in your main phase?”. The most common answers are from a misunderstanding of rules/strategy, or are attempts at coyly lying about their real intention (to, as you said, “word-smith”). Correct them.

Originally posted by Aaron Henner:

All this talk about MTR / Policy / judge articles / English / phases… it misses 2 critical points

This is precisely the point from the player's perspective. You are approaching it from a judge point of view. You read judge articles, study annotated MTR, etc. Players don't, nor should they be expected to.

I've had three answers here in the judge forums of “go read <insert thing that is not CR or MTR>”. That's the point, if even among judges the answer is to go read something that is neither the MTR nor the Comprehensive Rules then how can we ever expect players to understand this? The only way that players learn about it is by getting screwed by it and that is not good game play. That is not “organic”. That is not “the way people play the game”. And it most certainly does not avoid “getting bogged down in the minutia of the rules”.

I've actually never discussed this with my players because I don't want them to know how much I think this shortcut sucks for them. I make the ruling, tell them what the MTR says and explain that they are best off doing things in main 1 unless it is essential to do in boc, then move on. Letting them know my opinion of the shortcut would just make a feel-bad situation feel even worse.

Anyway, I've said enough on it. I'll continue to do what I have… enforce the shortcut while privately thinking it is unintuitive and cause of far too many bad feelings moments.

I don’t want you to think judges are being dismissive by telling you to go read “document”. The reason a lot of people are saying that is because this discussion has been had or explained in depth in those places already. A lot of the argument here seems to be “I don’t know why this is bad” or “I’m not sure why we need the shortcut”, when several thousand words answering those questions has already been written in Toby’s blogpost, the AMTR, and more than likely What’s up Docs.

Also, for what it’s worth, we do expect players to have knowledge of the MTR at competitive events. Same with the IPG.

Originally posted by Mark Randol:

Rob Marti
Mark,
What's wrong with the following?

AP: Move to combat, activate Mutavault
NAP: OK
AP: Declare attackers
NAP: Go ahead (or “I tap that dude”)
AP: These guys attack

NAP gains no information he wouldn't have already and you've activated your manland in BoC like you want.

What's wrong with it is by the MTR and by the explanatory blog article AP cannot activate Mutavault at that time. As soon as he said the word “Combat” it is now the NAP's priority in beginning of combat. When NAP says “Ok” both players have now passed priority in beginning of combat and AP never get's opportunity to activate mutivault. If I were NAP that interaction would look like this:

AP: Move to combat, activate Mutavault
NAP: JUDGE!!

That's not the case at all, and a misunderstanding like that might be fueling your dislike of the shortcut.
The explanatory blog article even says that's the proper way to phrase it - unless you'd like to quote otherwise.

You're the Active player. Do things Actively - state your actions, don't try and weasel something in.

If judges are just telling players “that's what it says in the MTR”, that
feels like a missed opportunity.

Judges should be there to educate players, on rules or policy it makes no
difference. We don't expect players to know the CR completely, but are more
than happy to educate and explain if needed. You should never be limited to
saying “here's what (document) says” without being able to add “here is the
reasoning behind that or some context”. Obviously there are times where
Judges may not be aware of the reasoning to pass along, but it's out there.

I wouldn't expect players to read articles/policy documents, but then I
dont expect them to read the Comp Rules either. I expect them to ask a
Judge when they have questions, and for the program to try and help the
Judge be able to answer those.

Edited Travis Coffman (Nov. 2, 2016 09:30:14 AM)

Originally posted by Mark Randol:

and explain that they are best off doing things in main 1

Or you know, just crew without saying anything, and if the opponent asks when you do that you can clarify “boc”.

If you cast a spell do you always announce in which main phase you do it? Do you never just turn creatures sideways without saying “attacks”? Crewing in boc is super easy. You don't even have to say anything, you just do it.


I still agree that “read this blog post” is a sign the MTR is not optimal. Especially since the Whats Up Docs post, the resulting app discussion, and the Policy Perspective posts are all saying different things. (Only the latest one should be linked to.)

Edited Toby Hazes (Nov. 2, 2016 07:30:10 PM)

Originally posted by Pascal Gemis:

Lots of players don't even know that there is a “Beginning of combat” step.
Lots of players know the “combat”-shortcut.
And in the middle, some players know there is a “Beginning of combat” step but don't know the “combat”-shortcut.

There are also some players who are really bad with English and having such a shortcut can help them.

I think it's important to think about this whenever one is considering how widespread a feel-bad situation is. There's always a lot of talk about the disenfranchised players that suffer from this shortcut, but that talk never seems to take into account how small that pool of players is. For someone to suffer feel-bad from this shortcut, a player has to:

a) know that Beginning of Combat is a separate step;
b) not know that “Combat?” shortcuts to NAP having priority;
c) have something they wanted to do in Beginning of Combat that they can't do later; and
d) have something they couldn't announce at the same time as when they said, “Combat?”.

I'm not sure this cross section of players is very large. At least, I'm not sure it's larger than what we would get if the shortcut were different. We should also consider how many people don't distinguish between “combat” and “attacks” (due to language or otherwise).

Finally, for any one player, they should only ever feel bad about this a maximum of one time. That's because judge don't just arbitrate—they educate.