A discussion is currently taking place on a local judge Forum which has raised a question for my personal views and I would like to get a wider set of opinions.

If a player move to attackers by simply tapping his creatures, if the opponent acts now with no further comments when are they acting? I know that the established tournament shortcuts mention statements is it wrong to apply them to actions that are similar?

I would say that it is reasonable to infer from the existing shortcuts that the non-active player acts during the beginning of combat step in the situation described.

If nothing more is said, I would assume that the non-active player acts during the declare attackers step: if they wanted to act in the beginning of combat step, they should have said something to this effect. In particular, the active player should be informed that they can change their choice of attackers.

Of course, there are situations where I would accept that the action was clearly taken in the beginning of combat step, for example "tap all your creatures with Cryptic Command".

We've got that handy shortcut about declaring attackers in place to avoid the AP gaining advantage of being vague.

But we also have the expectation that if you're going to do something out of the expected order, that you should say so. And since NAP didn't say anything, they've taken some responsibility for the predicament.

There may be other cues present, and questions to the players that might help clarify where the game is. So there's room for going either way depending on those.

But absent anything else, we have a clearly defined shortcut in one place, and a general expectation in the other, I think clearly defined shortcut wins, and we're defaulting to being in Beginning of Combat step.

Either way, there's going to be a chat about clear communication. =)

I don't think there's any communications failure here. In the vast majority of scenarios the specific timing is going to be irrelevant, making this a bit of a Schrodinger's game state. The game isn't actually in a specific step until someone asks the question.

If the specific step becomes relevant it's up to the player who has priority to clarify what step they are in.

e.g.
“Swing with these guys.”
“Okay before attacks/in beginning of combat step/before blockers, I do X”

“Swing with Rabblemaster.”
“Doomblade him”
“Uhhh… did you do that before combat, before blockers, etc…”

That's now where you are. If it means the shortcut has been interrupted, back up to that point and carry on.

One extra complication here might be with raid cards, I've had the scenario where AP cast Wingmate Roc in his second main and only then they found out they disagreed about when NAP's removal spell was cast.

If it matters, just ask NAP “when are you doing that?” - either you, the Judge, or AP can ask; the AP is more likely to realize that it might make a difference. Raid is a good example; I turn something sideways, you Bolt it, then I need to know when, if I want the Raid effect later.

Players who assume, and then act on their assumptions, aren't likely to be happy after they have to have a Judge sort things out. In that Raid example, if I don't ask, just play a Wingmate Roc and reach for a token - even if you didn't realize before then, you now tell the Judge you bolted before I attacked, and I've really got no basis to claim otherwise.

To the original question - no default. Sort it out as best you can…

d:^D

So if neither player says anything, NAP is assumed to have acted when he says he meant to act? I thought the philosophy was that AP is generally the one that controls the flow of the turn, and NAP has to stop him if he wants to act before the game movea tp the next phase/step.

As a player, if I tap my creature to attack and my opponent kills it without saying anything, I'd be assuming it had already attacked.

Edited Mitja Bosnic (Dec. 22, 2014 10:14:08 PM)

“NAP is assumed to have acted…” <- There are no assumptions.

If it matters to AP when the action took place, then AP should clarify. If
it matters to NAP, then NAP should clarify. If it doesn't matter to either
player, then there is no need to clarify. If a player doesn't clarify,
then realizes later that they actually care, then they, as Scott said, aren't
likely to be happy after they have to have a Judge sort things out.

Originally posted by Shawn Doherty:

“NAP is assumed to have acted…” <- There are no assumptions.

If it matters to AP when the action took place, then AP should clarify. If
it matters to NAP, then NAP should clarify. If it doesn't matter to either
player, then there is no need to clarify. If a player doesn't clarify,
then realizes later that they actually care, then they, as Scott said, aren't
likely to be happy after they have to have a Judge sort things out.

Does that mean we generally rule against the person who cares about it now? Sounds a little bit weird to me.

I think the often talked about (well it's come up here a couple of times recently at least) “when did you play that haste must attack creature” situation and fix might help shed a bit of understanding in that situation we go with what the player casting the spell says because the 100% technical by the book fix for when the game state is unclear like this we should back up to the last point both players agree on it being clear, namely the first main phase about to move into the combat step, and continue the game from there ultimately the results will be the same as the current game state with the play in question happening when it is said to be.

Originally posted by Markus Dietrich:

Does that mean we generally rule against the person who cares about it now? Sounds a little bit weird to me.

No, we don't “generally rule” against any person or player.

What we do is put the onus of clear communication on the players. If a player chooses not to be clear, for whatever reason, and then a judge is called to sort things out, the judge may rule in a way that doesn't offer the player an undue advantage from the unclear communication. That is the unfortunate consequence of unclear communication, but our role is not to advantage a player here. Our role is to arbitrate the situation, which generally means applying agreed-upon rules and policy (communicated in various official documents) in as a reasonable and neutral manner possible. Sometimes that decision might have to consider other factors, perhaps seeking to understand the “why” to a player's actions, but it should avoid considering the strategic ramifications of the action from the player's perspective. We shouldn't substitute our knowledge to correct for potential misplays.

tl; dr We put the onus on the player here. They are the ones that need to understand and consider the ramifications of their actions. We certainly shouldn't as a neutral party. Both Scott and Shawn are simply pointing out a potential consequence to the player if the player were to leave it to a judge.

Edited Brian Schenck (Dec. 23, 2014 01:27:25 AM)

Thanks for the clarification Brian, this is what I can agree with. I guess the phrase ‘aren’t
likely to be happy' sounded to me like we the possibility for them to be unhappy is greater.
To understand this further, is it wrong to ask the NAP here ‘Why didn’t you ask your opponent to untap his creature or clarify the phase you play your spell verbally?' and rule depending on his answer? This would be my approach because in my opinion each player is responsible for his own spells, especially in this case were the physical game state suggests that we're already in the Declare Attacker step.

Sorry about the unintended implication I tossed in there!

I was just sharing an observation from many (many, many) years of experience - when players fail to communicate, the judges' effect is often disappointing to at least one, and sometimes both, of those players. It's not our goal, much less any sort of mandate - it's just a very likely outcome.

One of the opening announcements (that players probably ignore) at each event where I'm Head Judge deals with clear communication = happier players. I do what I can… ;)

d:^D

Edited Scott Marshall (Dec. 23, 2014 01:20:40 AM)

Originally posted by Markus Dietrich:

To understand this further, is it wrong to ask the NAP here 'Why didn't you ask your opponent to untap his creature or clarify the phase you play your spell verbally?' and rule depending on his answer? This would be my approach because in my opinion each player is responsible for his own spells, especially in this case were the physical game state suggests that we're already in the Declare Attacker step.

I personally feel that approach can have value, though it might be an approach I use in some circumstances versus others. But this is an area where I feel that you will have to be fluid and ask open-ended questions. Let the players tell you what they were doing and gather context from that, clarifying only as necessary. Otherwise, you might accidentally lead them into the “proper line of play” based on how you ask your questions.