Exactly what Mark said. You have priority, why are you asking if you can have priority? Just do whatever it is you want to do. If for some reason you need to do it in the beginning of combat step (e.g. you have a Toolcraft Exemplar you need to be bigger so it can crew something), say so! “Beginning of combat, Exemplar triggers, crew Irontread Crusher” is a perfectly valid thing.

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

This sentiment is raised regularly in discussions about the shortcut. The obvious questions is: Why? Why do you want to do this? What's the game action? Because as stated the phrase does nothing to move the game forward. It only serves to slow it down and/or lead to confusion.

Originally posted by Thomas Ralph:

Exactly what Mark said. You have priority, why are you asking if you can have priority? Just do whatever it is you want to do. If for some reason you need to do it in the beginning of combat step (e.g. you have a Toolcraft Exemplar you need to be bigger so it can crew something), say so! “Beginning of combat, Exemplar triggers, crew Irontread Crusher” is a perfectly valid thing.

The same argument could be applied to the “attacks?” shortcut. Why do you ask whether you can attack? It's your turn. Just do whatever it is you want to do. Just turn your creatures sideways.
Oh, maybe you expect your opponent to do something in your BoC and you don't want to give away which creatures attack before that.
AP achieves this by asking permission to go to his own step, DC. Do we allow this? Yes, throughout the history of the game this has made sense to do.
So the “attacks?” question is a valid question to ask when NAP has a real reason to do something in BoC.

Taking those steps backwards, why would AP ask for permission to go to his BoC? When has NAP ever a real reason to do something in main 1? Historically, never-ish. But beginning of combat triggers like Weldfast Engineer and Goblin Rabblemaster change that. With cards like those NAP can be expected to do something main, so AP wants to know about that before doing his thing. Hence the intent of the “beginning of combat?” question.

The more beginning of combat triggers are printed, the more a permission to enter BoC makes sense to have.
Not saying we're there already, not saying it's worth it right now or ever. Just saying that BoC triggers are a step in that direction.

Edited Toby Hazes (Feb. 14, 2017 06:39:23 AM)

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

The same argument could be applied to the “attacks?” shortcut. Why do you ask whether you can attack? It's your turn. Just do whatever it is you want to do. Just turn your creatures sideways.

That's very different. Turning your creatures sideways denies NAP the opportunity to act. Hence the need to ask first (or you end up needing a judge to rewind the game so that NAP can do what they want to do).

If AP has things that trigger at the beginning of combat, then all they need to do is ask if it's ok to trigger these cards. It allows NAP to act main phase (if they want to) while also not revealing the target of things like Weldfast Engineer (in case it's relevant). The current rules handle these oddball cards just fine.

Originally posted by Brad Brown:

Players should not have to remind their opponents of triggers that have not yet gone on the stack.

I don't disagree with anything you are saying in your post, but, if the only reason we are going to ask for priority in the BoC is controlling a BoC trigger, aren't you basically signalling to your opponent that you have a BoC trigger by asking this question?

I don't think you're wrong with the idea of your post, but I feel like this is an acceptable consequence of paper Magic.

Originally posted by Brad Brown:

Magic at competitive levels has a bunch of shortcuts,

Since you were thinking about posting your article to more public forums I thought it was worthwhile to highlight this phrase. The shortcuts are part of the MTR which applies at all levels of competition. That means it applies at regular as well as competitive events. That message reinforces that it matters for everyone that reads your article. Coincidentally, it also helps highlight that people have been playing countless games using the shortcut without it ever being a problem, though I suppose that doesn't fit your narrative here.

Edited Quinten van de Vrie (Feb. 14, 2017 06:29:10 AM)

Originally posted by Andrea Mondani:

I believe the flaw is not in the shortcut, but in the Missed Trigger policy.

While the current form is far more permissive than before, it is really complicated and confuses a lot of players (“he didn't announce that one!”).

I feel the “solution” to this supposed “problem” is a stricter MT policy, as in “announce it when you put it on the stack or it's missed”.

I for one agree with this.

Combat Shortcuts are part of the MTR which applies to all levels of REL. However the MT policy is from the IPG which caters to Competitive play. By only changing the Miss Trigger policy back to its stricter form would imho solve this problem. Isn't the philosophy behind the change to the Combat Shortcut recently to discourage “rule sharking” by the AP so that NAP cannot respond? Why not bring it a step further to force AP to remember his triggers back to the previous Missed Trigger policy while not changing anything to the Combat Shortcut. This way we will not affect the players in REG REL as the IPG does not affect them?

I think focusing on MT is straying too far from the point. For reference, the major driver behind the change to how triggers are handled wasn't to do with “rule sharking”, but more to do with how bad it felt to have to remind your opponent about their trigger that would then kill you.

Wouldn't everything be easy if we made NAP first receive priority at the beginning of combat instead of AP?
That sure would be exceptionnal, but it would seem to solve most issues we have today.


Not sure that is very realistic though.

Originally posted by Mike Combs:

Originally posted by Brad Brown:

Players should not have to remind their opponents of triggers that have not yet gone on the stack.

I don't disagree with anything you are saying in your post, but, if the only reason we are going to ask for priority in the BoC is controlling a BoC trigger, aren't you basically signalling to your opponent that you have a BoC trigger by asking this question?

I really really like this answer. Kudos to you, Mike!

Originally posted by Thomas Ralph:

Exactly what Mark said. You have priority, why are you asking if you can have priority? Just do whatever it is you want to do. If for some reason you need to do it in the beginning of combat step (e.g. you have a Toolcraft Exemplar you need to be bigger so it can crew something), say so! “Beginning of combat, Exemplar triggers, crew Irontread Crusher” is a perfectly valid thing.

While I agree with your point entirely, from these discussions (and others in various threads), the argument seems to be as follows (I'm not advocating this, just clarifying what I understand to be the argument):

I would like a shortcut which allows me to signal that I have a trigger, without mentioning the trigger to my opponent explicitly so that he remembers I have it, which allows me to use said trigger, but does not tip off my opponent that he might want to take some actions to deny me my trigger in my main phase.

In a more concrete example (the canonical one which seems to be used by now): AP controls Weldfast Engineer and a Servo token, NAP is at 2 life, no creatures, and a removal spell in hand. If AP remembers his trigger and NAP doesn't kill the Weldfast Engineer in precombat main, AP gets to pump the Servo token and now he has 2 lethal attackers to NAP's one removal spell, so he dies. Conversely, if NAP uses his removal spell in precombat main on the Weldfast Engineer, then the trigger never happens and NAP lives. Additionally, if AP moves to combat but misses his trigger, then the Servo token stays 1/1 and AP only has 1 lethal attacker as well.

What we are trying to do (“we” not including myself, because I think the status quo is fine personally) is to figure out a way whereby AP can move to combat and get his trigger, but not tip off NAP before the trigger is ready to hit the stack whether or not AP is going to remember his trigger, so NAP doesn't know whether or not to use or save his removal spell.

My personal opinion is that NAP should play as though AP is going to remember his trigger, and trying to play gotcha with the MT rules in this case is not the purpose, and if NAP wants to gamble on AP missing his trigger, then NAP can lose the game if he loses the gamble, but others disagree.

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

Originally posted by Brad Brown:

Basically, right now even if I use the phrase “I'd like to pass priority in my main phase so that I can move to the beginning of combat step”, you're still using the shortcut, even though you're explicitly saying what you want to do. I think there just needs to be an update so exceptions can be applied if stated explicitly.

This sentiment is raised regularly in discussions about the shortcut. The obvious questions is: Why? Why do you want to do this? What's the game action? Because as stated the phrase does nothing to move the game forward. It only serves to slow it down and/or lead to confusion.

So I can trigger my Weldfast Engineer without telling my opponent I'm about to trigger my Weldfast Engineer.

Allow me to put on my Editor's hat for a second:

Originally posted by Brad Brown:

According to MTR Section 4.2, which of the following is true?

–I would strike the “Section 4.2” part. Little too specific for a Judge test, at least in my experience. “According to the MTR” would suffice. Highlighting the section later on in the article is perfect, but in the parameters of a test question, I'd cut it.

Originally posted by Brad Brown:

Magic at competitive levels has a bunch of shortcuts

–Be careful with this wording. We have something called Competitive REL, and do tournament shortcuts not work at an FNM or Prerelease?

And a couple points about content:

Originally posted by Brad Brown:

Magic is a game of bluffing and hidden information

–I agree with this, but only to a certain degree. Support here could strengthen the position you are trying to create: Bluffing is an integral part of Competitive Magic. I tend to believe, perhaps innocently, that MTG is more about tactical decision making than bluffing. Both make use of Hidden Information as well, so the distinction can seem blurred. For comparison, there is a difference in poker when I make a bet intended to bluff you out of the pot going all-in on my 7-2 off-suit on the turn (which may or may not work, lol), versus when I have a made hand on the turn card and want to bet $25 into the $50 pot thereby giving my opponent 3:1 pot odds (25%) for the flush draw that's on the table (which has around a 19% chance of hitting). One of bluffing, one is tactical.

–The article does a good job in what it says. You outline the problem well, highlight with examples and state your positions clearly. However, it's only half finished. We're missing a solution to the problem you've pointed out! The first thought in my mind after finishing the article was “Well, how can we fix it?” Fortunately, you've stirred quite the discussion on the matter, and several Judges have offered thoughts and solutions you can parse through. I like the current shortcut as it's worded, because it does exactly what it should: Allow the opponent to act when they want to. I feel this is key to any proposed shortcut and any fix or revision should take this to heart.

Keep writing! And a wonderful topic as well.

Ghost_Stache

A few random thoughts. First off, I want to clear up a misconception from the OP:

Originally posted by Brad Brown:

Triggers that go on the stack that affect the visual game state or require targets, must be acknowledged at the time of the trigger.

This isn't quite right. A trigger such as Goblin Rabblemaster, that affects the visual game state when it resolves, is not missed if the active player declares “combat”. The combat shortcut offers to move to NAP's priority in the beginning of combat step, but it doesn't say anything about triggers- a Goblin Rabblemaster trigger would still be on the stack at NAP's first priority during BoC. The issue with Weldfast Engineer is that it requires a choice at the time it triggers, which is skipped over by the combat shortcut.

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

The same argument could be applied to the “attacks?” shortcut. Why do you ask whether you can attack? It's your turn. Just do whatever it is you want to do. Just turn your creatures sideways.

That's very different. Turning your creatures sideways denies NAP the Opportunity to act. Hence the need to ask first (or you end up needing a judge to rewind the game so that NAP can do what they want to do).

I disagree with this assessment. Turning your creatures sideways is a proposed shortcut to declare attackers, just as saying “combat” is a proposed shortcut to NAP's priority in BoC. In both cases, if NAP wants to do something in the middle of the shortcut, they can.










Personally, I'm fairly happy with the current combat shortcut. Wanting to crew a creature in the BoC step or have your opponent's mana empty are both corner cases that are already handled perfectly well- just state what you want to do. However, I do agree that having to remind your opponent about your triggers before they happen is suboptimal. My proposed solution would be as follows: Modify the general shortcut rules so that triggers that require acknowledgement at some point during the proposed shortcut can instead be acknowledged after the shortcut has been accepted.

Applying this to the combat example, AP could say “combat”, NAP says “ok”, and it's at this point that AP declares a target for his Weldfast Engineer. NAP still has the opportunity to respond to the trigger (or cast something after it resolves), but he no longer has the chance to act in the main phase.



I think this change would actually be good for several reasons, as it reflects how shortcuts normally work with regards to things that aren't triggers. If AP says “pass turn” and NAP immediately untaps while AP has 8 cards in hand, AP can just say “wait, I have to discard a card”. Neither player has committed a GRV, nor does NAP get to go back and do something in AP's end step with the new knowledge that AP will have to discard- we simply perform the necessary actions that happened during the shortcut and move on. (To be clear, AP saying “pass turn” was proposing a shortcut to NAP's priority during the end step- NAP untapping was accepting that shortcut and proposing a new one to move directly to NAP's untap step.)

Edited Isaac King (Feb. 14, 2017 04:02:47 PM)

Originally posted by Brad Brown:

So I can trigger my Weldfast Engineer without telling my opponent I'm about to trigger my Weldfast Engineer.

Brad, do you not think that by asking for this you, in fact, are signalling to your opponent that you have a BoC trigger?

Originally posted by Brad Brown:

So I can trigger my Weldfast Engineer without telling my opponent I'm about to trigger my Weldfast Engineer.

If your plan to win involves either your opponent missing that the Engineer is in play, or that they just fail to read the card, then you're going to struggle at tournaments ;)

Seriously though - the only, the only edge that's available is when you have two or more potential targets for the trigger and don't want your opponent to know which one until you're putting it on the stack. In that particular case, you just ask if you can trigger the Engineer. If they say yes, choose your target. If they say no, because they want to kill the Engineer, then c'est la vie as they say.

A good player knows the trigger is coming, so you're not going to be able to avoid that no matter what you say.

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

A good player knows the trigger is coming, so you're not going to be able to avoid that no matter what you say.

If you are playing Chess, and you have your opponent dead on board in a few turns, do you gonna tell him?

I mean, with your argument, he should be a good player, knows the rules, and knows what piece does what, right?