Originally posted by Thomas Ralph:

I'd like to know how you think an active player can more clearly indicate that he wishes to pass priority such that the game will advance to the beginning of combat step with the active player having priority there. This is a legal play.

In the specific case presented, this has nothing to do with wanting to advance to beginning of combat while retaining priority. It's just trying to trick the opponent into taking an action at the inappropriate time by using verbal trickery. It has nothing to do with superior rules knowledge as well, as I believe a good deal of players who know well the rules would fall for this trap, as they'd understand that the opponent wants to proceed to declare attackers, which I think is a more than reasonable assumption.

Being focused on the exact words that your opponents are using every single time they speak to avoid being sucked into an unpleasant situation is not a skill we want to test. People grow tired during the day, people don't understand other languages well, so let's not make it easy for rules lawyers to take advantage of this.

I would like to propose a different viewpoint to the situation:

a) Are we allowing the active player to do something in the beginning of combat? Yes, even it's unusual.
b) When the non active player acts “in response” around the phase change to combat/declare attackers, unless they state explictly otherwise they are acting in beginning of combat.

I don't see a real contradiction. If the active player does a) he can do it to do something in beginning of combat. He just can't use it to negate b). So the only problem arises, when the active player wants to do something in beginning of combat and the non active player also wants (and most likely has already) to do something. But then, it's just a matter of order of the abilities/spell on the stack and helping the players out sorting the order of their abilities. In this case it's even an advantage for the active player because now he knows that the NAP wants to do something and can use this information for his action he intended to do in the beginning of combat.

Regarding to the scenario as posted in the OP: I would rule that NAP, by not explicitly mentioning that he is acting in the main phase, invokes the shortcut from the MTR and is acting in the combat phase. If AP doesn't accept that shortcut because he wants to play spells or activate abilities during the beginning of combat step but before NAP tapped the creature, AP is free to do so. If he doesn't want to play an ability during the beginning of combat, he would get a stern education that the shortcut rules exist precisely to stop this rules lawyering.

If AP really insist on trying to trick his opponent, he should ask for explicit confirmation that NAP is in fact tapping his creature during the main phase, and then get a judge to confirm this is the case before playing his haste creature.

It seems that the AP is being very precise in their communication. It doesn't create any amount of ambiguity. The statement “I want to leave my main phase” also does not fall under any of listed shortcuts under section 4.2 of the comprehensive rules.

It seems to me that enforcing an un-established shortcut under 4.2 would be in deviation of the documents. Should I as a judge enforce other unlisted shortcuts as I see fit if I think in my opinion it will provide a more feel good moment for one player? Certainty not.

It is my understanding that judges are to follow policy and enforce nothing more, and nothing less. Doing so would be ruling under our opinion, and not under what is written in policy. If it is believed that not allowing the AP to be able to do what they are setting up within the rules should not be allowed, then the rules should be changed to reflect that.

Am I missing something in the documents that would justify not allowing the AP to cast their spell? Please show me.

This discussion seems to follow very closely to the recent Knowledge Pool question in regards to unintentional/incorrect application of shortcuts. Once we have a full ruling on that, it should give better context to answer this question.

Originally posted by Michel Degenhardt:

NAP, by not explicitly mentioning that he is acting in the main phase, invokes the shortcut from the MTR and is acting in the combat phase

This is close; the NAP can assume that shortcut applies, and act with the knowledge that, by default, he's acting in the Combat Phase and not in the Main Phase.

That's how that shortcut helps players maintain clear communication, and helps judges sort out misunderstandings.

The shortcuts also - esp. this one! - are designed to eliminate certain types of misleading communication - like the original example.

For all those who haven't read the entire post, I'm going to - at the risk of sounding snarky - sum it up:
OP: “I want a way to trick my opponent into tapping my guy during my main phase, so I can play my Haste creature and attack with it.”
Judge: “No.”

It really is that simple - so, please, stop trying to find a clever wording that will work, or arguing that we should allow some variation of clever wording.

Also, I'm going to ask that people stop posting in this thread, unless they can contribute something new to the discussion? (Or, perhaps, it may be time to close the thread?)

I will rule in accordance with what you have posted, Scott, even though I don't agree that that is what the rules say. I suggest that consideration be given to changing the rules to align with how you would like it to be applied, and that's me done posting on the topic.

Originally posted by Thomas Ralph:

I will rule in accordance with what you have posted, Scott, even though I don't agree that that is what the rules say. I suggest that consideration be given to changing the rules to align with how you would like it to be applied, and that's me done posting on the topic.

Question: Why does it matter precisely what the rules say, when the intent (certainly as has been communicated by both Toby and Scott) is pretty clear? The entire point of the policy is to not get hung up on specific wording. Why should anyone be so insistent in applying the policy in the most mechanical way possible (edit: and focusing on the most specific wording), when it is contrary to its intent?

Edited Brian Schenck (June 11, 2013 03:41:46 PM)

Brian I think you ask a very good question that could make for a very good discussion and is probably worthy of its own thread.

Perhaps the because intent might not be clear enough in the rules?


2013/6/11 Adam Zakreski <forum-4557-9d46@apps.magicjudges.org>

I would like to get a better understanding of Scott's ruling here, because I'm not sure it makes sense. So please let me try to get this straight: We are stating that the action sequence:

AP: “I would like to exit my main phase”
NAP: *Takes instant-speed game action*
AP: *Takes sorcery-speed game action*

Should be assumed to be illegal, because we assume NAP's game action is in the beginning of combat step. I've intentionally blanked out the precise actions taken, because we as judges should not assume anything about the game state, the strategic decisions involved, etc, when making rulings (or so I've been told by docs I've read and higher-ups I've spoken to). Is this the suggestion? Or is the suggestion, rather, that we as judges should in fact make judgment calls about the precise actions or decisions involved when making rulings? Please tell me in which of the following situation's I'm being stupid, because I don't really get it.

Assuming the former case (that we should assume the above play sequence to be illegal):

Say AP activates a Wasteland, targetting NAP's land. NAP floats mana. When AP says “I would like to exit my main phase”, NAP's instant-speed game action is to activate his Sensei's Divining Top. He looks at his top 3 cards without tapping mana (since he had mana floating). A judge is called. Since NAP's top spin is in the beginning of combat step (after his mana pool emptied), NAP gets a game loss for LEC.

Assuming the latter case (that we should consider the game state before making a ruling):

It's turn 30 of game 3 of a win-and-in for both players in a Limited format RTR-block GP. It's the Simic mirror match, and both players have a bunch of Crocanuras, Towering Indriks, and so on on the table. Neither player has removal, because both players are Simic, and the game has devolved into a giant board stall. A judge is called to watch for slow play. 10 seconds ticks. Then 20. Then 30. Then 40. Then a minute goes by, and AP is still thinking about his play. Perhaps there are 10 creatures on the table on each side, and it's the beginning of declare attackers. The judge does not give a warning, or even a caution, for slow play, because there is a giant board stall, so it's understandable that the decision takes a very long time.

Now, I'm very clearly wrong here, since both of these situations are quite ridiculous. However, I fail to see why these suggestions are any different from the suggestion made here that we should call AP out on being a dirtbag by asking to end his main phase rather than suggesting a pass to begining of combat. AP made a very clear statement: “I would like to exit my main phase”. NAP should reply “Alright, in the beginning of combat I would like to tap your Gutter Skulk”. If NAP fails to do this, he is showing either a lack of rules knowledge (we are not there to make sure that the rules are known, simply that the rules are followed) or a lack of strategic knowledge (we are not there to make sure the players play perfectly, only that the players play within the rules).

Personally, now that a ruling has been made by Scott, I will enforce that ruling, but the ruling made by Scott seems wildly counterintuitive to me, and I'm sure other judges will agree that, had they not read this forum, they would have made the same ruling as I would have: “Sorry, NAP, you didn't communicate properly, you misplayed, good job AP”.

Edited Lyle Waldman (June 11, 2013 11:39:22 PM)

On Wed Jun 12 04:40, Lyle Waldman wrote:
> Personally, now that a ruling has been made by Scott, I will enforce that ruling, but the ruling made by Scott seems wildly counterintuitive to me, and I'm sure other judges will agree that, had they not read this forum, they would have made the same ruling as I would have: “Sorry, NAP, you didn't communicate properly, you misplayed, good job AP”.

I think the key point here is “you didn't communicate properly” vs “you intended to act at a strategically bad time for you”. Ask the player when he thought he was acting. If he thought he was acting in declare attackers, then he was invoking a shortcut and we ask AP if he wants to interrupt the shortcut. If he intended to act in the main phase (say, because he had floating mana to spend), he will say this and that's ok.

While we do want to discourage poor communication, in this case we're not punishing players for it by forcing them to do something they weren't intending to do.

tl;dr - talk to the players, you might find out something useful

Matt

Personally, now that a ruling has been made by Scott, I will enforce that ruling, but the ruling made by Scott seems wildly counterintuitive to me, and I'm sure other judges will agree that, had they not read this forum, they would have made the same ruling as I would have: “Sorry, NAP, you didn't communicate properly, you misplayed, good job AP”.

Lyle, I agree with you that the NAP can avoid problems bei communicating clearly where he wants to act. I personaly think, that players should do this, as this makes the game more clear.

But, as pointed out in this thread, using language to trick your opponent is a bad thing that in such cases is not allowed for multiple reasons:
- Language barriers as we can not expect the other player to fully understand the things the player is saying as they often don't share a mother language. I think most of us got at least one question in a judge test wrong that we normaly would get right. We where tricked by the multiple choice answers because they all sound the same, but only one was technical correct. And that happened when we know the technical details, were prepared and had time and it was written down. Do we really want that for almost every thing a player says the opponent has to be fully aware what he was saying regarding a technical rules understanding?
- It will render the shortcut useless. Allowing this behaviour, what would stop “competitive” players from always using these words to trick their opponents? Nothing in my opinion so players can no longer rely on the shortcut.

Say AP activates a Wasteland, targetting NAP's land. NAP floats mana. When AP says “I would like to exit my main phase”, NAP's instant-speed game action is to activate his Sensei's Divining Top. He looks at his top 3 cards without tapping mana (since he had mana floating). A judge is called. Since NAP's top spin is in the beginning of combat step (after his mana pool emptied), NAP gets a game loss for LEC.

First, looking at extra cards is a warning not a game loss.
Second, in this case the NAP is clearly acting in the main phase.

The important thing is: The AP cann't trick the NAP to act in the main phase when the NAP not intended to act there. In this case, the NAP clearly intended to act in the main phase is allowed to. It's a good thing to remind him to be more clearly the he was using the floating mana, but for me it is clear he intended to act in the main phase.

If NAP doesn't know turn structure properly, why are we preventing AP to take advantage of his superior rules knowledge?

It is clear that shortcut policy should not be used to trick NAP, but what terms are considered “appropriate” to pass priority in your first main phase?

Or is passing priority in the first main phase now impossible because players with inadequate rules knowledge could be “confused” and assume that “I want to move to Declare Attackers Step” shortcut applies?

If NAP doesn't know turn structure properly, why are we preventing AP to take advantage of his superior rules knowledge?

Well, the NAP has called a judge because he has the opinion, that was AP was doing was not allowed/should not happening. So he knows the turn structure well enough to know that he wanted to act not in the main phase. If the AP and NAP both agrees they are still in the main phase because the NAP thinks he made the mistake, I will not intervene in the match.

It is clear that shortcut policy should not be used to trick NAP, but what terms are considered “appropriate” to pass priority in your first main phase?

Or is passing priority in the first main phase now impossible because players with inadequate rules knowledge could be “confused” and assume that “I want to move to Declare Attackers Step” shortcut applies?

There are in my opinion no real terms that are generaly appropiate. If the AP wants to do something in the beginning of combat he can do so and express this with whatever words he wants. It's just that if the NAP does something, the NAP is also acting in the beginning of combat.

And honestly, almost every scenario I have seen regarding moving to the beginning of combat falls in either of these categories:
- The AP trying to trick the NAP to act in the main phase
- Made up Corner Case Scenarios during the discussion