Originally posted by Nathan Long:

Since I don't think the shortcut from the Magic Tournament Rules has been posted yet, let's do that:

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.

So unless the opponent says otherwise, they are assumed to be casting the Stance during the beginning of combat step, not the opponent's main phase.

Nathan Long

right, MTR state it that way… and that seems rather odd to me. at least counterintuitive. to me “combat?” sounds just like short for “i pass priority to proceed to beginning of combat, do you want to do smthg beforehand?” and so if NAP answers that question by taking action, isn't that clearly a "wait, i'll do this before proceeding to combat“. why is it that that wish has to be explicitly stated and silently taking action is considered a ”yes, i pass priority too, go a step further and then i take action“?
i think my and Johannes Wagner's slightly different interpretation might come from the fact that (here in germany?) you can often hear experienced players ask both ”combat?“ and shortly after ”attack?“.
of course it's a little different if AP goes directly to ”attack?“, which is also often heard.
i see that MTR turn it that way round but i think i'm going to have a hard time explaining that to ”my" players

edit: filled in the quote

Edited Bertil Angermann (May 12, 2015 04:34:09 AM)

What about when two players don't speak the same language to the same proficiency? What if one doesn't understand the different meanings between the two words?

Edited Gareth Tanner (May 12, 2015 04:37:23 AM)

yes, i see, you are concerned about players using word play, but that's not my point. i'm just a bit puzzled by the default value for the interpretation of the shortcut “combat?” being set to before declare attackers instead of to before beginning of combat. until this thread i always thought it was the other way round, and i suppose i'm not the only one

Originally posted by Bertil Angermann:

yes, i see, you are concerned about players using word play, but that's not my point. i'm just a bit puzzled by the default value for the interpretation of the shortcut “combat?” being set to before declare attackers instead of to before beginning of combat. until this thread i always thought it was the other way round, and i suppose i'm not the only one

AP rarely uses his priority in beginning of combat, therefore there's not much value to have a shortcut that brings the players to that point. It's more natural to skip to declare attackers for AP.
On the other hand beginning of combat is usually the time NAP wants to use disruption. The shortcut exists so that AP can't trick NAP into doing things in his main phase:

AP: “combat?”
NAP: “tap your creature”
AP: plays a bigger creature with haste and attacks with it

The problem is that Wizards is making a lot of cards lately that use beginning of combat triggers (and to a lesser extent, end step triggers) such as Desecration Demon, Goblin Rabblemaster and Surrak, the Hunt Caller that try their hardest to make things awkward.

Edited Toby Hazes (May 12, 2015 06:16:07 AM)

So, at a GP: AC side, a player cast Surrak, then tapped Surrak and the rest of his board and said “Attacks.” The other player called me over and asked if Surrak's controller had missed Surrak's trigger. I ruled that because the final outcome was legal and the actions were a single block, no trigger had been missed (at the time, I said it was Out of Order Sequencing; in retrospect, I think it was probably a shortcut to Surrak having haste and attacking. Either way, the ruling is the same: no missed trigger).

I would prefer that players not rush plays like that. I think I get called over a lot less often when players give each other a chance to respond. So although I understand the policy that says Surrak's trigger would be missed in the original situation, I don't like the outcome in which my player was “rewarded” for rushing and the player in the original post is “punished” for giving his opponent a chance to respond.

I have to agree, with all the triggers at beginning of combat, the current definition of the shortcut is kind of clunky. A default shortcut that can't be used with a fair number of cards is a bad shortcut. I'd generally put the onus on NAP knowing when they want to cast their spell, and making the correct decision deliberately, rather than have a way for the AP to be accidentally caught missing triggers because the only other option is to sit there enunciating each individual pass of priority.

As far as player experience goes, that's pretty much backwards.

Thanks for the quote, Nathan. But I know that one ;)

My Problem with that one still stands: Why is that shortcut autoaccepted, if he reacts to the question instead of saying, no/etc/whatever?

I don't think it's as awkward as people are making it out to be. A line like “Combat, Surrak trigger” is reasonable, as is “Beginning of combat” or “Combat, I have effects before attackers”. All of them still allow NAP to respond at a time of their choosing, and do not leave AP feeling like they are divulging information ahead of time with regards to targeting Surrak's trigger.

Player experience is frequently at odds with policy, and part of our role as judges is to educate players on what policy expects of them, particularly as they enter larger/more competitive tournaments; I don't think this is any different. The default shortcut for combat puts the onus on the player who has effects to be clear about when those effects occur, which is fairly consistent with how all of our policies work - the player is individually responsible for their actions and knowing how their cards work.

Loose play or communication will often have the unfortunate side effect of a sequence of events being interpreted “by the book” as a suboptimal play; that isn't unique to this circumstance, it's just coming up a little more often because of how available these effects are now.

Originally posted by Nathaniel Lawrence:

I don't think it's as awkward as people are making it out to be. A line like “Combat, Surrak trigger” is reasonable, as is “Beginning of combat” or “Combat, I have effects before attackers”.

The first and last sound somewhat awkward because AP seems to acknowledge he has a trigger on the stack but he hasn't announced a target for it.

The middle one is awkward because if it's accepted we're in Declare Attackers with a missed trigger.

The burden on both AP and NAP is, really, equal - if you need to be more clear than normal, do so. And yes, you are expected to understand a few things beyond basic rules, to play in Competitive REL events. Or if not quite “expected”, you're often rewarded for superior rules knowledge.

I'm aware that some people - players and/or judges - won't like some or even all of the default shortcuts as stated in policy - but they remain policy, and I am sure that everyone will enforce that policy, consistently! :)

d:^D

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

Nathaniel Lawrence
I don't think it's as awkward as people are making it out to be. A line like “Combat, Surrak trigger” is reasonable, as is “Beginning of combat” or “Combat, I have effects before attackers”.

The first and last sound somewhat awkward because AP seems to acknowledge he has a trigger on the stack but he hasn't announced a target for it.

The middle one is awkward because if it's accepted we're in Declare Attackers with a missed trigger.

AP is acknowledging that they have a trigger that will be placed on the stack. NAP needs to accept the shortcut to move to that point first.

The middle one is almost certainly not Declare Attackers with a missed trigger - AP is being quite explicit about which step they are proposing to move to.

Originally posted by Nathaniel Lawrence:

AP is acknowledging that they have a trigger that will be placed on the stack. NAP needs to accept the shortcut to move to that point first.

But it's a faulty shortcut that can't be accepted because accepting the shortcut ‘combat’ would mean accepting the trigger is already on the stack… without any targets announced. If you're asking NAP to accept the ‘combat’ shortcut that would mean NAP passes priority in Beginning of Combat which means the trigger should start to resolve.
But it's pretty clear what AP is getting at here, that's why I said it's only somewhat awkward. I'd advice him to drop the ‘combat’ part of either phrase. “Surrak trigger?” seems just as clear without a potentially confusing shortcut added to it.

Originally posted by Nathaniel Lawrence:

The middle one is almost certainly not Declare Attackers with a missed trigger - AP is being quite explicit about which step they are proposing to move to.

If you have some time to spare: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/15122/
If you don't have time to spare, stay tuned for the List of Official Rulings that will catalog such rulings bite-sized for everyone's convenience =D

Edited Toby Hazes (May 12, 2015 02:26:58 PM)

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

And yes, you are expected to understand a few things beyond basic rules, to play in Competitive REL events. Or if not quite “expected”, you're often rewarded for superior rules knowledge.

So from the point of view of the player that has a beginning of combat trigger they want to use I think it's on them to not offer a shortcut that passes when they need to take action. Surrak is a great example. If I have surrak on board and his ability active then I shouldn't propose to move to combat as that skips when I get his trigger. Instead I should be more clear and pass priority so that we naturally move to beginning of combat and I can assign a target for the surrak trigger. This keeps it clear for both players where in the turn we are and allows me to use my triggers. The same can be said for end of turn triggers. Rather than saying “end turn, but first triggers” you would take an extra 2 seconds and move to the end step naturally. I think that the shortcut policy works fine even in these situations and players are rewarded for knowing when to use a shortcut and when to move through phases normally.

So in short: it's my trigger and therefore my responsibility to make sure I hit it at the correct time. Moving to combat skips my surrak trigger unless I state otherwise as an alternate shortcut.

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

Nathaniel Lawrence
The middle one is almost certainly not Declare Attackers with a missed trigger - AP is being quite explicit about which step they are proposing to move to.

If you have some time to spare: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/15122/
If you don't have time to spare, stay tuned for the List of Official Rulings that will catalog such rulings bite-sized for everyone's convenience =D

I think it's highly dangerous to point to a similar-but-clearly-different circumstance and say that the answers are equivalent. Context matters a lot and we are tasked with taking that context into consideration when it comes to how we interpret what happened and thus how to apply policy to a given sequence of events.

Edited Rebecca Lawrence (May 12, 2015 04:06:01 PM)

Originally posted by Nathaniel Lawrence:

I don't think it's as awkward as people are making it out to be. A line like “Combat, Surrak trigger” is reasonable, as is “Beginning of combat” or “Combat, I have effects before attackers”. All of them still allow NAP to respond at a time of their choosing, and do not leave AP feeling like they are divulging information ahead of time with regards to targeting Surrak's trigger.

Except, according to previous discussions, “Beginning of Combat” is still considered a shortcut to NAP's priority.