I don't think that's the spirit of that section of the MTR. A player
cannot steal priority in her own turn. That section is to prevent the NAP
from forcing the turn to progress by asking for priority and then yielding
to end the phase. The AP is specifically asking to end her main phase and
go to a specific step.

Furthermore, if we are following that shortcut to the letter, then we are
DEFINITELY in the main phase, as the rest of the section states that “if a
player decides he or she does not wish to do anything, the request is
nullified and priority is returned to the player that originally had it.”
Nullifying the request for priority in the Beginning of Combat step would
by necessity return priority to the NAP in the Main Phase since that is
where we originally were.

OK, so Alex wants to go to Beginning of Combat; fine with everyone. And in that Beginning of Combat - since no one objected to that shortcut - Nick casts Cryptic Command, and it's too late for Alex to cast Goblin Guide.

Alex can't assume Nick screwed up because of his clever wording; Nick is quite clear about when he cast his spell. More than likely, what Nick heard was “mumble mumble Combat?”, and he definitely has a response before Alex gets to Declare Attackers.

Really, folks, it's not as difficult as you're making it seem…

d:^D

Originally posted by Justin Miyashiro:

If upon investigation it is clear that the AP has made the
effort to be clear and the NAP has not, why are we opting not to reward
clarity? Possibly the NAP does not know when he should be casting his
Cryptic Command, but does that not fall under the superior rules knowledge
clause?

But if you believe that should be true then aren't you against the shortcut in it's entirety? After all, saying “Combat?”, baiting the Cryptic Command, then playing your haste dude is using your superior rules knowledge, no?

Edited Toby Hazes (Jan. 2, 2015 08:34:13 AM)

Magic the Gathering is a game where players use their superior rules knowledge to make strategic decisions that create advantages in the game and eventually lead to victory.

Strategic decisions include playing the right card(s) at the right time, assigning attackers/blockers, taping the right mana sources, etc. etc.

“Baiting” players into making decisions because they were led to believe they're in a particular step of the turn is not superior rules knowledge.

To be clear, I am in full agreement with the general shortcut, and I am
willing to admit that this situation may fall under it. I simply agree
with Eric Shukan that there is some room for this situation to be different.

Toby, the difference to me is that the general shortcut resolves a lack of
clarity. “Go to Combat?” or “Go to Attacks?” either leaves ambiguity about
what step of the turn we're ending up in, or leaves multiple windows in
which the NAP might be acting, so the general shortcut gives us a default.

To me, when the AP is in her main phase and says “Go to Beginning of
Combat?” that's as clear as can be that she is passing priority in order to
have priority in her Beginning of Combat step, and is fulfilling her
responsibility to be clear about where in the turn she is proposing they go
to. Perhaps my interpretation of that statement is not the way that policy
would like that statement to be interpreted, in which case I will revise my
own, but on the surface it seems as clear as “Go to Draw?” during a
player's own upkeep, or “Go to Discard?” when a player has 8+ cards in hand
on her own turn.

Speaking of that last one, is this situation different than that? Suppose
the AP asks “Go to Discard?” and the NAP replies “Ok.” The AP then
discards a card and the NAP tries to play an instant. Are we going to
allow that? I would not, as the AP has been clear about where they are
going in the turn and the NAP has hung himself by not knowing that he
cannot play spells during the cleanup step. I am curious, how, if at all,
do we see this situation as different than the OP?

So, to clarify my earlier post let me explain a bit.

The most common ruling by far should be that NAP can cast Cryptic Command in the BOC step. AP has proposed a shortcut to move to BOC, and if he wants priority there I'd hold him to being explicit about having priority there - that eliminates all ambiguity. That's important because if he does not hold priority, then NAP can cast Cryptic in BOC using AP's shortcut, which is what NAP is doing here. The fact that NAP immediately speaks out is clear evidence of it. AP cannot remove NAP's ability to cast in BOC using only wordplay - that's the purpose behind the Combat shortcut.

However, I personally know TWO players (whose names I would provide in private) in my region who used to and still may establish two interesting communications standards at the beginning of the match. One was very formal to get to attackers, such that he would say, “I'd like to enter the beginning of combat” When he was challenged by NAP, AP allowed NAP to cast whatever was desired whenever it was desired, and then he asked to have that statement mean that he was going to get priority in his own BOC step. Both players understood the timing perfectly, and NAP agreed to the meaning of the statement. A judge that took a later call had to first understand this agreement to identify the correct ruling. But both players agreed and were comfortable with the statement because of a prior agreement.

The second player I knew to do this did it at the end phase. He said “I'm ready to go to my end step”, and when the opponent wanted to do something he told the opponent that he was wanting this statement to retain priority for AP in the end step. The opponent clarified that he'd still get to do some EOT stuff after AP would pass again, and AP agreed. Thereafter, AP would go to end step, then pass again, at which point NAP could act at EOT.

Luckily, both NAP's here knew the timing perfectly, so they were not confused and so they agreed on the definitions of the statements. There was actually a third player who did this, but he tried to scumbag the NAP later by playing on words. He and I had a big talk about that.

This happens maybe 0.1% of the time, though - I've seen it ONLY with those two players. So, that's why I said I'd investigate: to see if they had any prior agreement. You just never know unless you ask. Maybe you'd call these two players “corner cases”. I would, too, but I always ask about previous communications anyway. Never know what you might find.

So, by far the most common ruling here would be in NAP's favor. Probably like 99%. You guys know me, though… I like to ask a question before I rule. It's my nature.

Anyway, thought I'd clarify my position.

Eric S.

AP has priority in main 1. He says “I wish to enter in my ‘Beginning of Combat Step’”. I can see no way to interpret this other than AP wanting to have priority in BOC, which means that the only time NAP can cast Cryptic is during main 1.

I'm having a really hard time understanding most of these responses. The player is being explicitly and exactly clear on what he wants to do - pass priority until the beginning of combat step. It is not on the active player to ensure the non-active player plays in an optimal way, nor is it up to the judges. The active player is attempting a legal game action, why in the world would that be overridden?

I have to agree with DJ Hirko here. While magic is not a game of ‘gotcha’, it is a game involving a high caliber of skill. This situation at REG to me is as most others have said - rule in favor of NA player. However, AP is being technically correct: (as AP)
I am in main phase. Stack is empty.
“I would like to go to beginning of combat” (has not ended main phase yet)
This isn't really a shortcut. It is being very formal. If the NAP is not understanding of this, then it is his duty to ask for clarification. If he is unaware of that this is still pre-combat main phase, then he needs to become more aware of the rules.

Phrasing the above sentence as “I would like to move to end of main phase”. This one is very clearly telling your opponent that you are in main phase and passing priority. If something is cast by NAP, then we are still in pre-combat main phase. If not, proceed to directly to beginning of combat phase.

Consider this very similar phrasing:
I am in main phase, stack is empty.
“Stack is empty, pass priority.” (still in main phase)
(NAP)“No actions” (move to end main/beginning of combat)
(AP)“Alright. Stack is empty, pass priority.” (beginning of combat)
(NAP)“No actions”(end of beginning of combat, proceed to declare attackers step)

This is a very formal and direct way of stating your intentions. If your opponent gets confused, then it is upon them to ask for clarification. Otherwise, it should be understood what phase we are in.

At a Competitive level event, after investigation, if I found nothing that warrants an infraction, game continues. I do not see one person being correct in their plays (which could gain an advantage) being penalized for it.
Additionally, the ‘shortcut’ rule is very grey and loose. I personally don't care for it, as it is very easy to manipulate in a multitude of ways.

Edited Cyril Ford (Jan. 2, 2015 09:05:31 PM)

Originally posted by DJ Hirko:

I'm having a really hard time understanding most of these responses. The player is being explicitly and exactly clear on what he wants to do - pass priority until the beginning of combat step. It is not on the active player to ensure the non-active player plays in an optimal way, nor is it up to the judges. The active player is attempting a legal game action, why in the world would that be overridden?

By using the phrase “I wish to enter in my ‘Beginning of Combat Step’” AP tries to trick his opponent into thinking they are in combat. NAP falls for the trick, except NAP actually knows to and means to cast Cryptic in combat and not in the main phase. AP cannot deny this by simple wordplay.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Really, folks, it's not as difficult as you're making it seem…

And yet the discussion continues… please, listen to Uncle Scott, it's a simple ruling where we don't let a player win because of superior English skills, but where we let players agree on game actions.

cyril ford
Additionally, the ‘shortcut’ rule is very grey and loose. I personally don't care for it, as it is very easy to manipulate in a multitude of ways.

This is a very dangerous precedent… “I personally don't care for D/DL problems, so I never hand out Game Losses for it” would be equally unacceptable. The shortcuts in the MTR are there for a very good reason, please don't ignore them.

For simplicity's sake, imagine that this whole scenario took place at GP Milan, where a native English speaker tries to pull this trick on his barely English speaking Italian opponent. Would you still rule that the English speaker has a better understanding of the rules? The Italian NAP just heard combat and knows how he wants to act… please let him.

I feel the important thing to do hear is find out whether AP had something to do in the Beginning of Combat Step. If there was a card that needed to be cast there, or an ability to be activated there, then I can 100% believe that they meant their statement to be “pass priority in main phase, keep it in BOC”.
You can't claim that they should say “cast this in BOC”, because this gives NAP information in the Main Phase that they're not entitled to, which may cause them to force a rewind to Main Phase to let them take an action that they shouldn't have had the information to take.

I personally have cast spells in my own BOC step before, sometimes it's advantageous to.

Okay so what it comes down to is that there are 2 philosophies here that guide how you want the game to be played depending on how you value them:

1. Play the game in a natural way
2. Play the game in a technically correct way

Forcing the second too much is ABSOLUTELY MISERABLE. Remember the “all triggers have to be explicitly announced” time from a while back? (If you're new, ask somebody who remembers)

So sometimes the technical correct way just takes a back seat. This may seem very weird in isolation, but in cases like this you have to take a step back and understand the philosophy behind it.

So there is not a right and wrong answer. It's about what you value the most (or in this case, what the people who make the rules value the most)

Originally posted by DJ Hirko:

I'm having a really hard time understanding most of these responses. The player is being explicitly and exactly clear on what he wants to do - pass priority until the beginning of combat step. It is not on the active player to ensure the non-active player plays in an optimal way, nor is it up to the judges. The active player is attempting a legal game action, why in the world would that be overridden?

Basically it depends on which philosophy from above you value the most.

From the “technically correct” perspective, yes it is weird/stupid that something perfectly legal is not allowed. But it is not a big loss. Because there is not really a practical need for this to be allowed, we don't lose much by disallowing it.

From the “natural way” perspective, it's much better to not have to worry about the exact phrasing your opponent uses. He wants something with “combat”? All of that means the same. So we have much to gain by disallowing it.

cyril ford
Additionally, the 'shortcut' rule is very grey and loose. I personally don't care for it, as it is very easy to manipulate in a multitude of ways.

I do agree that it is not optimally worded, but the whole idea behind it is that it is not manipulatable. Could you give some examples how you think it can be manipulated?

Also, you can disagree with certain rules (every judge disagrees with something) but please do not disregard it. (Edit: Ninja'd here. Although it didn't have to take ninja-level skills to ninja the time it took to post this post XD)

Dan Milavitz
AP has priority in main 1. He says “I wish to enter in my ‘Beginning of Combat Step’”. I can see no way to interpret this other than AP wanting to have priority in BOC, which means that the only time NAP can cast Cryptic is during main 1.

So the way to interpretet this is by understanding the philosophy behind the rules. I agree that this is tough at first (and again, that some things could be worded differently) but that's where things like this forum are for =D

Eric Shukan
This happens maybe 0.1% of the time, though - I've seen it ONLY with those two players. So, that's why I said I'd investigate: to see if they had any prior agreement. You just never know unless you ask. Maybe you'd call these two players “corner cases”. I would, too, but I always ask about previous communications anyway. Never know what you might find.

But if there was a prior agreement, NAP would probably have added “in your BoC” to his play so there wouldn't be a judge call in the first place. What was that later call in the first scenario about?

James Dowling
I feel the important thing to do hear is find out whether AP had something to do in the Beginning of Combat Step. If there was a card that needed to be cast there, or an ability to be activated there, then I can 100% believe that they meant their statement to be “pass priority in main phase, keep it in BOC”.
You can't claim that they should say “cast this in BOC”, because this gives NAP information in the Main Phase that they're not entitled to, which may cause them to force a rewind to Main Phase to let them take an action that they shouldn't have had the information to take.

Just like with a silent Exalted trigger so you don't know how big your opponent's attacker is before you ask. Yes that's an unfortunate side effect of the way the rules are set up, but it's better than the alternative.

The same is true here. Yes if you want to cast something in your BoC the current way to do it is giving your opponent information they aren't entitled to, but that is an unfortunate side effect that's worth it.

Dustin De Leeuw

Scott Marshall
Really, folks, it's not as difficult as you're making it seem…

And yet the discussion continues… please, listen to Uncle Scott, it's a simple ruling where we don't let a player win because of superior English skills, but where we let players agree on game actions.

If a discussion continues I see that as a sign that some things (which could be simple things) are not fully understood by everyone and so there is still desire to learn more =)

Edited Toby Hazes (Jan. 2, 2015 11:48:00 PM)

The original purpose of that specific shortcut, and many of the others, was to PREVENT exactly the kind of verbal trickery that some people seem to want us to allow. No.

Just like with a silent Exalted trigger so you don't know how big your opponent's attacker is before you ask. Yes that's an unfortunate side effect of the way the rules are set up, but it's better than the alternative.

The same is true here. Yes if you want to cast something in your BoC the current way to do it is giving your opponent information they aren't entitled to, but that is an unfortunate side effect that's worth it.

I feel I disagree here. AP has been clear in his intentions here (especially assuming he can tell you what he wants to do in BOC), and taking the opportunity to make the optimal play away from him EVEN WHEN he has made all the correct moves to do what he would like to do, because of a tournament shortcut that he is trying to avoid, seems really silly.
The statement he has made, by the book, does what he wants it to do. Why do we take that away from him?