Cheers Folks

So I have some input from a player's point of view.

When I first was playing vehicles in MTGO, I was upset because I either was crewing my vehicles inefficiently or missing the crewing all together.

Once I passed priority on my Main 1, it took me straight to Declare Attackers (no longer allowing me to crew vehicles). Alternatively I was crewing a Cultivator's Caravan in main 1 using a 1/1 Toolcraft & 2/3 Apprentice.

I then discovered that I needed to change the default setting in MTGO to add “Stop on my turn” in the BoC stage. So now I'm able to crew the Caravan just using the 3/2 Toolcraft in the BoC. (which I'm sure is how it is intended to work)

In my opinion saying “I'd like to move to combat” should imply that I may wish to crew vehicles and have the BoC triggers resolve. By using this statement and being forced to Declare Attackers is crazy. Now if I said “I'd like to move to attacks” then yes crewing has passed.

I think that ANY “shortcut” that prevents or blocks a player from using a card or an ability is negative to the playing experience. I thought the idea of a “shortcut” was to help enhance the game play not penalize or trap players.

Final Thought
“Move to Combat” & “Move to Attacks” are 2 completely different statements and should be treated as such.

Cheers

Originally posted by Anniek Van der Peijl:

How is this thread not about changing the current rules? It's got ‘MTR Revision’ in the title and the OP asks whether a revision should be considered and what the alternatives could be.

Apparently I read a different title and OP as everyone else posting in this thread (except maybe Denis).

The title of the thread is “MTR revision ***for combat shortcut ***clarity******”, not “MTR revision to combat shortcut.”

ALL of OP (a hefty 3 paragraphs!) except for the last sentence calls for *clarifying* the shortcut in the MTR, not *changing* the shortcut in the MTR. I find it odd that all of this thread is doing th'opposite when there are multiple other threads with that discussion.

That being said, since we're living in a 30-reply alternate universe where OP asked for shortcut changes, here is a unique solution I've heard:

1. Adding an extra phase before the BoC so that responses end up there instead of Main Phase by default.

I certainly don't want to take away from the discussion here, and I think the shortcut is necessary and needs revised. I did write up my thoughts on why it needs to be revised, which in short is: “I as a player should not have to help my opponent play their game.”

http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/33491

As Dominik has mentioned, my main point is that as long as we are sticking with the current philosophy the MTR needs more examples of the combat shortcut. As I understand it, if AP controls a Weldfast Engineer and asks “I would like to end my main phase, do you have any effects?”, NAP can say no and now AP has missed their trigger because they have used the combat shortcut. The same thing happens if AP says “I pass priority” when wanting to end their main phase, they are actually making two priority passes. These unfortunate scenarios are tradeoffs for the disadvantages that would come with commonly proposed methods of overhauling the shortcut.

I believe it is currently not at all clear from the MTR that we consider the above examples as uses of the shortcut, we have only decided they are based on discussion of philosophy which players aren't expected to know. Unless we can agree on a satisfactory overhaul to the shortcut (which I think is appropriate to also discuss in this thread), the MTR section needs more examples that clear up the more unintuitive cases of its use.

Edited Louis Habberfield-Short (Feb. 14, 2017 07:09:05 AM)

OH dear, this took way longer than it should have:

Contents:
A. What does this thread try to achieve (I hope that is also OPs opinion)
B. Constructive Proposal how to clarify the Tournament Shortcut “Combat?”
C. Final Words

A.
Normally this thread should be “charging through open doors”.

Asking for Clarity can NEVER be answered with “No”. Lamenting over “this has been an issue” or “beating a dead horse” do not help. in fact not everyone asking to “clarify” a disputed or unclear situation is just dumb or ignorant of the rules. Some just want clear, written rules to refer to and refuse anything that has even the scent of arbitrariness which an “unclear” rule has.

The point raised by OP should be taken seriously and something should be done. Instead of complaining “having this discussion every 2 months” just end it by rewriting 4.2 so a normal person with average IQ, basically a 13 year old could understand it without further research. And yes it is mainly Level 1s asking for clarification. I do understand both sides and I still think a revised MTR sextion 4.2 would benefit everyone. In fact how long can it take to open a Project “Rewrite 4.2” until it's done? A day, a week? It would end the discussions and everyone could be happy.

Also this is not about anyone wanting to “let things slide” or deviate from MTR or official rulings. I suppose everyone in this thread will rule according to the MTR and the official rulings but why can't you just understand our “Plea for Clarity”.

We are talking about these sentences:
“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”.

B. My suggestion:
The active player is expected to play spells and activate abilities in his Pre-Combat Main Phase. Any passing of priority no matter if it is accompanied by the words “combat” or “attack” is considered to pass priority until an opponent has priority in the beginning of combat step. This is to avoid unclear situations or getting useful information from the non-active-player who might misinterpret the word “combat” or “beginning of combat”.

The active player has the possibility to deviate from this assumed passing of priority until an opponent has priority in the beginning of combat step by clearly stating that he/she wants to move to a certain step in the turn structure by announcing and thereby acknowledging a trigger that happens at the beginning of combat step, thereby asking to retain priority in the Beginning of Combat step.

Example:
Some cards have a triggered ability at the beginning of combat. If such a trigger is represented on the board visually such as counters or tokens or is targeted, the active player has to acknowledge the trigger at the beginning of combat. If he already passed priority beyond this point like explained above the trigger is missed (for further details see “missed triggers”).

The active player can do so by saying “I want to move to combat which triggers this ability, I chose this target for it” or “I want to attack but this card triggers upon beginning of combat, so I get a token/counter”. The non active player has the possibility to step in and act before or after that trigger occcurs.

If the nonactive player decides to act before the announced trigger he can take his action as part of his priority during the pre-combat main phase. The game continues with the active player having priority in his pre-combat main phase since not both players yielded priority while the stack is empty (for further details see turn structure).

C.
Yes this somewhat repeats sections of the missed triggers and turn structure but I think it is only fair to mention it because the “tournament shortcut” might cause confusion otherwise.

Anticipated counter-argmuments:
1. If we start here the MTR will get inflated by “clarifying” everything and we will end up with a Compendium rather than Rules !!
No. this is by far the most frequent point of discussion and it is due to a non-intuitive deviation from the CR that is not reflected by the meaning of the words “combat” or “attack” or “pass priority”. A judge may skip sections that have no additional beneficial content for them. However a person cannot “add information” to a section he does not clearly understand.

2. Judges have to know that, no need to mention it in the MTR
True, however the MTR is aimed at every player playing tournaments. By reading it the player should be put into the situation to fully understand his actions and make the correct decisions or at least be aware of the problem so he can ask a judge for advice or openly communicate with his opponent on how to handle the situation.

3. We do not need to “justify” our MTR by saying “why” we introduce the shortcut
True. However I think this might help players and judges alike to understand the decision to speed up the game and have clear communication. This will avoid rules-lawyering, a behavior that leads to an unwanted decline in players satisfaction and happiness. This is to protect the player accused of rule-lawyering just as much as the person who faces an unwanted/unclear decision against him.

____________
EDIT: replaces braccket O bracket by official rules because it was interpreted as HTML-Code I guess

Edited Denis Leber (Feb. 14, 2017 07:59:36 AM)

Yes the current shortcut should be reworded, but we have the Annotated MTR for a lot you want to achieve. Here's the page that has the shortcut: http://blogs.magicjudges.org/rules/mtr4-2/
The Annotated version can be more verbose and give background information, philosophy and examples. It wouldn't be ideal for the normal MTR if 39 words are turned into 319.

Originally posted by Brad Brown:

I certainly don't want to take away from the discussion here, and I think the shortcut is necessary and needs revised. I did write up my thoughts on why it needs to be revised, which in short is: “I as a player should not have to help my opponent play their game.”

http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/33491

You should take away from here! This thread should be about clarifying the shortcut, your thread could be about changing it.

Edited Toby Hazes (Feb. 14, 2017 03:19:05 PM)

Annotated MTR is no official document. Instead of having more and more sources judges and players should be aware of, it should be less and more precise sources.

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

Also, beginning of combat triggers like Weldfast Engineer are increasingly a reason why NAP would want to do something in main, and thus a reason why AP would want to be polite and give NAP that opportunity.

While I think this deserves a call-out in the current MTR, because we don't want the shortcut to imply an extra standard to acknowledging a trigger above what is in the MIPG, rewording the shortcut in the MTR should not be about creating extra priority passes or “wording tricks” between the active player and non-active player.

Simply put, the shortcut in the MTR is about functional play that applies to the majority of situations. It is not about creating “edges” via technical precision that either has no real functional impact or is largely misunderstood by players. Yes, we as judges need to understand the technical nature of passing priority (a “do nothing” where the player(s) take no actions), but that is a higher bar than is generally expected of players.

EDIT: We want to encourage clear communication between the players, not incentivize communication that creates ambiguity or even different understandings of the game state (even if it seems to pass as “clear”). And certainly, we want the active player to actually be active in their own turn.

Edited Brian Schenck (Feb. 14, 2017 07:10:00 PM)

I still haven't heard anything that overcomes the points Mark McGovern has made upthread, nor indeed any clear and cogent reasoning why an active player might, in general, want to move to the Beginning of Combat step with nothing on the stack, other than 1) to try and angle shoot; 2) to confuse NAP into acting in the Main Phase when it would be better to act in the BoC step; or 3) to be “super mysterious” because it is “strategically best” to do everything at the latest possible moment.

And exactly why shouldn't AP have the right to move to the step? I think it is the person altering the rules who has to give an explanation and not the player respecting the CR.

The whole thread shows that this “shortcut” causes as many problems as it is trying to solve, limits design space and pushes a “judges point of view” onto a player. It raises the bar for players (!) to follow an non-intuitive understanding of the CR.

The main phase can be seen as a phase to play a land, play haste creatures, play other permanents - as described in pre-combat main phase section of the CR. Nowhere in this section of the CR you find anything about the necessity to activate lands or acknowledge triggers that will happen in a later stages of the game. Even now we are discussing on how to phrase your “moving on” to not miss the trigger BoC.

And Thomas Ralph you are again trying to change the subject from “clarifying” to “deleting”.
counter question I: which player ever fell for this “baiting” or playing a spell too early? Maybe once, because he was oblivious that a BoC existed. Kind of “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”. The answer to this question is necessary to justify the shortcut in the first place.

Counter question II: who's child is this shortcut anyway and why is it protected with teeth and nails even against the clear statement to “clarify” it?

_________________________________
Mark McGoverns points:
1. attack and combat meaning the same thing
I agree that attack and combat is not the same and attack should not lead to the beginning of combat phase. But just as much as I agree to attack not being combat I say combat does not mean attack.
Argument runs both ways.

2. The “evidence” has to be brought up, that people don't know the shortcut:
I will refer to Limited Resources where LSV clearly stated that this rule was not known to him. In FACT up to that “o”-rule change, everyone in my community used the “beginning of combat step” and I have a hard time explaining them, that they shouldn't do that, because this will automatically move to the declare attackers step. What more do you need? Names, DCI-numbers, signatures? Where is your proof that people fall for that baiting trick?
Argument runs both ways.

3. There is no harm in Clarifying things: BINGO !! we should all agree on that.

4. Best educate them: TRUE, runs both ways. Educate them that there is a Beginning of Combat step.

5. Creating new shortcuts: The player base (vast majority) does not know how the stack, shortcuts or dependencies work, they just play until someone points it out or they have a trustworthy judge in their community they can ask. They are not even aware of the problem this shortcut should prevent.

6. Why don't they (the judges) like it: I don't like it because it deviates from the CR without a good reason. All arguments run both ways and it's better to leave things as they are in the CR than to decide that “attack” and “combat” and “pass priority” all mean the same thing. The last one not even mentioned in the MTR. If however you deviate from the CR CLARIFY it and all its consequences.

Last point he raises: i hear people argue how it “COULD be bad”. Well that is exactly what the shortcut people do. They say it “could be bad” because AP could bait something. NAP COULD react too early.

7. A few delinquents who always argue: Total generalization. I argue about nothing BUT this point. They introduced HCE, fine, they changed how missed triggers are handled, fine, they decide pile shuffling is no way to randomize the deck, fine…

(oh to be fair, there is one more point I do not agree with: Bob being a beneficial trigger… but that is for another day and time).

What you do here is “isolating” the judges who raise this issue by declaring them as “grumblers” who do not want change to happen. Just to remind you: The shortcut existed BEFORE i even became a judge and never since I became judge have I ever “grumbled” against other things wizards changed or raised issues what “COULD go wrong”.

So basically Mark McGovern is asking for evidence while not providing it himself, calls out judges who argue as “grumblers”, says people who do not welcome change are “always the same” but refuses to acknowledge that the shortcut IS a CHANGE and even agrees that a clarification won't hurt but than goes on to generalize and thereby isolate judges who argue about this “arguable” point.

why is the majority silent? Well we could go into a sociology-economic discussion about how certain individuals behave in a group and for what reason some people rather follow than raise questions, why it could be beneficial to be a “follower” rather than a “grumbler”. We could even discuss how people flock behind higher authority without even understanding the problem or the solution or how many “just don't care”. If however “most are silent” is a valid argument then well… most people didn't say that they don't like the approach to clarify the shortcut, so I guess they are on our side. Silence is not agreement.

_________________________________

Now that I went through every single point Mark McGovern has raised, would you Thomas Ralph please tell me why you are against a clarification of this shortcut? Even Mark Mc Govern isn't against it.

By the way: going through every point was mostly unnecessary because most of his statements didn't have anything to do with “Clarifying the Shortcut Rule”. Regarding that he was in agreement that it wouldn't hurt.

Originally posted by Denis Leber:

And exactly why shouldn't AP have the right to move to the step? I think it is the person altering the rules who has to give an explanation and not the player respecting the CR.

We're not about to create a “Gotcha!” in policy. It runs anti-thetical to MTR 4.2 in general, and creates bigger communication problems than it would solve.

Furthermore, the current wording respects the CR quite well, by requiring the active player to take actions in accordance with CR 116. The active player already controls the pace of their turn, and this shortcut is in keeping with that principle.

Originally posted by Denis Leber:

The whole thread shows that this “shortcut” causes as many problems as it is trying to solve, limits design space and pushes a “judges point of view” onto a player. It raises the bar for players (!) to follow an non-intuitive understanding of the CR.

That is absolutely not the case. The shortcut arose out of the concerns of players in relaying problems. The shortcut did not come from a vacuum just because judges wanted to engage in policy crafting.

Edit: As for the “design space” issue… From an Organized Play point of view, the Judge Program will work as directed by WotC. As with the update to MIPG 2.1 for fabricate, we'll acknowledge and respond to how R&D does the things it needs. We respond to and facilitate them. Especially since the MTR is WPN's document and driven by them, with input as appropriate.

Edited Brian Schenck (Feb. 14, 2017 10:31:53 PM)

Originally posted by Denis Leber:

And exactly why shouldn't AP have the right to move to the step?

They do have the right. What they don't have is the ‘need’ to do that. There is no benefit to rewriting things so that players can do needless things. There is only downside.

Originally posted by Denis Leber:

which player ever fell for this “baiting” or playing a spell too early? Maybe once, because he was oblivious that a BoC existed. Kind of “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”. The answer to this question is necessary to justify the shortcut in the first place.

It was a regular occurrence before the shortcut rules. I specifically remember screwing over an opponent at Nationals because they didn't say the magic words when they comboed off. Everyone knew the combo, and how it worked, but they didn't say the words, so the rules backed me up. I still feel crap about it. Besides that, it was a regular occurrence that AP would say “Combat?”, NAP would do something, assuming it was the Beginning of Combat step, and then get screwed because they didn't actually say “At the beginning of combat…”. It happened to most players several times. It didn't help that you could play a few games where nobody would play word tricks on you, and then you'd get comfortable until suddenly it mattered, and you got “gotcha'd”. Very unfun.

Originally posted by Denis Leber:

who's child is this shortcut anyway and why is it protected with teeth and nails even against the clear statement to “clarify” it?

I don't think it's anyone's child. It's just a fact. The issue though is most proposals so far just make things worse (i.e. allowing someone to pass to BoC for no reason).

Originally posted by Denis Leber:

1. attack and combat meaning the same thing
I agree that attack and combat is not the same and attack should not lead to the beginning of combat phase. But just as much as I agree to attack not being combat I say combat does not mean attack.
Argument runs both ways.

This sounds self contradictory. The statement is “attack = combat”. And you lead off with “I agree that attack does not equal combat”.

Originally posted by Denis Leber:

2. The “evidence” has to be brought up, that people don't know the shortcut:
I will refer to Limited Resources where LSV clearly stated that this rule was not known to him. In FACT up to that “o”-rule change, everyone in my community used the “beginning of combat step” and I have a hard time explaining them, that they shouldn't do that, because this will automatically move to the declare attackers step. What more do you need? Names, DCI-numbers, signatures? Where is your proof that people fall for that baiting trick?
Argument runs both ways.

If this one person doesn't know the shortcut rule, yet has managed to play so many games of Magic, that leads me to believe the rules are actually working very well. Games are running smoothly, and there haven't been any issues.
I don't know your community, so I can't really comment on the use of the phrase “beginning of combat step”. It is very unusual in my experience. I don't have proof that people fall for the baiting trick because the rules prevent people from trying it.

Originally posted by Denis Leber:

4. Best educate them: TRUE, runs both ways. Educate them that there is a Beginning of Combat step.

Yes, do that. I don't understand what you mean by running both ways though.

Originally posted by Denis Leber:

5. Creating new shortcuts: The player base (vast majority) does not know how the stack, shortcuts or dependencies work, they just play until someone points it out or they have a trustworthy judge in their community they can ask. They are not even aware of the problem this shortcut should prevent.

This is great - it shows the shortcuts are working. Good to hear.

Originally posted by Denis Leber:

6. Why don't they (the judges) like it: I don't like it because it deviates from the CR without a good reason. All arguments run both ways and it's better to leave things as they are in the CR than to decide that “attack” and “combat” and “pass priority” all mean the same thing. The last one not even mentioned in the MTR. If however you deviate from the CR CLARIFY it and all its consequences.

It doesn't deviate from the CR. It condenses some useless priority passes into a single phrase so people can have fun and play Magic. That last one is in the MTR (second bullet point). Remember that the philosophy behind these documents is just as important as written words. The actual words someone uses are less important than the intent. There are no magic words which get you around the shortcut (otherwise it defeats the purpose of the shortcut).

Originally posted by Denis Leber:

What you do here is “isolating” the judges who raise this issue by declaring them as “grumblers”

Me? I didn't call anyone names. Definitely not judges. I did however discuss how there are a small number of people (players) in online groups I interact with who seem to have a beef with Wizards/Judges/Anyone. They tend to be loud, and lead off aggressively. So when they claim that the shortcut rules suck, and everything should be changed, and everything is terrible, I take that feedback with a large pinch of salt.

Originally posted by Denis Leber:

So basically Mark McGovern is asking for evidence while not providing it himself

The phrase “We're gathering more and more evidence of how the current shortcut, in spite of its sufficiency as policy, is not working as well as we'd like” was used. Asking for said evidence seems perfectly fair. I don't understand why I'm expected to supply evidence - usually that's only needed when making a claim or a statement. I just asked a question.

Originally posted by Denis Leber:

most people didn't say that they don't like the approach to clarify the shortcut, so I guess they are on our side.

huh?


Basically, if there's a sensible reason to clarify the shortcut, there is a sensible way to do so, and the benefits outweigh the costs, then I don't see a problem. But so far I don't see a sensible reason, which means coming up with a wording is tricky, and the potential costs are large, so we'd really want to be sure before committing anything to policy.

Due to the major backlash my last (or previous) comment caused I will follow the advice I received and withdraw myself from the ongoing discussion and try to come up with a better way to make my point clear. I do not disregard the Judges who replied to my last comment and even quoted it, if you wish we can discuss it via E-Mail but I was told that “many judges” were complaining about this thread and especially my part in it.

I want to apologize to individual judges who were deeply impacted or felt insulted by my statements and would like to encourage them to contact me personally to sort things out.

I stay with my opinion that a clarification is needed and besides my useless and polemic sections I hope I provided some help to further encourage the process of making this shortcut more accessible and easier to understand for players and judges.

Sincerely

Denis… (over and out)…

Edited Denis Leber (Feb. 15, 2017 05:58:53 AM)

I hate to bump this thread since it is starting to take a sour turn, but of all the Combat Shortcut threads this seems to be the most active and I just wanted to add a specific point.

Originally posted by Thomas Ralph:

I still haven't heard anything that overcomes the points Mark McGovern has made upthread, nor indeed any clear and cogent reasoning why an active player might, in general, want to move to the Beginning of Combat step with nothing on the stack, other than 1) to try and angle shoot; 2) to confuse NAP into acting in the Main Phase when it would be better to act in the BoC step; or 3) to be “super mysterious” because it is “strategically best” to do everything at the latest possible moment.

I've heard many judges I greatly respect express this exact same sentiment, variations of “this is an edge case” or “there are no good reasons to do this”; so this is not directed to Thomas directly. He just happened to be the closest to the end of this thread that caught my eye.

If you haven't been following competitive standard, since GP:Pittsburgh there has been a 4-color Saheeli “value” deck that has been blowing up in popularity. One sample decklist is “Satgr11's” here.

When this deck plays vs. a vehicle deck, board states such as the following come up fairly often:


In this case, if the active player has a shock, it would be correct to shock the Servant, where the opponent will generally add mana to their pool. Then move to beginning of combat before crewing, in order to limit themselves to 1cc removal spells instead of 2cc spells; such as the Harnessed Lightning in hand.

Variations of this specific board state are fairly common in this specific matchup; so it's very likely that some people will have to navigate the beginning of combat state with some frequency very shortly.

Edited Charles Milutinovic (Feb. 17, 2017 02:55:54 PM)

'Floating mana' has been mentioned before (somewhere). If your opponent has mana floating, then all you need to do is ask them if they're going to spend it or not before leaving the main phase. If they don't, then you just crew at the beginning of combat.