I'm sorry but I just don't see the difference with this and the more general interpretation. Both lead to a situation where magic words and superior rules knowledge create unwanted situations for either AP or NAP. Furthermore I don't really understand the logic of on one hand requiring players to know rules knowledge (both comprehensive and MTR) but argumenting that a clear phrase like “I'd like to move to beginning of combat” which ostensibly means that once NAP has passed priority we are in beginning of combat with AP having priority (since AP always gets priority first) requires too much rules knowledge.
It is this second point that raises my concern. You can't argue for one position and against another with an argument that covers both.

Originally posted by Lasse Kulmala:

I'm sorry but I just don't see the difference with this and the more general interpretation. Both lead to a situation where magic words and superior rules knowledge create unwanted situations for either AP or NAP.

Any player can learn “activate your creature-lands before combat.” It invoves an action using your own cards; you can resolve it by pointing.

Not any player can learn “say beginning of combat, don't say just combat.” That requires language skills not related to the skill of magic. I'm an L2, I certainly understand the difference between those two things from a rules perspective–but I have no idea how to make that distinction in, say, Japanese.

And how would you adjudicate “Begin Combat?” How about “I'd like to begin
combat?” “Start of combat?” Are we limiting the non-shortcut to
explicitly using the words “beginning of combat”? I don't think it's much
of a stretch to see that ruling these, and the nearly infinite variety of
other possible phrases, to mean something different than the phrase that
you and others have argued is “clear” would leave a bad impression.

The language barrier argument is the one that really seals it for me. Are
you really going to expect players in all languages to know that “beginning
of combat” means something meaningfully different than “combat”? What if
neither player speaks English and you have to deal with a disagreement
about what exactly was said?

Additionally, the default shortcut (any combat-related phrase short of
explicitly asking if the opponent wants to act in the main phase = NAP has
priority in beginning of combat) reflects how the flow of a typical game of
Magic progresses. While it might happen occasionally in formats like
Modern (and the frequency is definitely debatable), it seems clear that the
situation being argued is the deviation from the norm. After all, it can't
ever happen in a lot of Limited formats, including the current one. The
onus is on the AP to clarify if they wish to do something unusual, which is
exactly what the default shortcut should do.

But arguing that players should know the rules (which obviously includes phases and steps) but constructing a completely unintuitive shortcut where following the rules gets you to a place where it shouldn't is not an argument that holds water. I understand the language barrier as a problem but this trips people who do understand the language and know the difference between combat and beginning of combat. You can't simultaneously require people to understand the rules of magic but then dictate that those rules are not followed in a tournament setting (well obviously you can but it doesn't make sense).
In any case the article needs to be clarified at least with the magic words that get AP to their priority in beginning of combat and I'd suggest clarifying the MTR as well since it in no way matches with the article and that is the place where people go looking for these rules. This article will disappear to internet wasteland in a week or two and then when people look at MTR they're back to the old interpretation that many if not the most judges have had before this.

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

Edward Bell:
And I feel like “I'd like to do something in the Beginning of Combat” is getting close to word play. Even if it is clear (it is probably as clear as the two examples quoted).

Why?

Because it's no more or less clear than examples given in the article.

For reference:

Even the most thorough statement like: “I pass priority to you in Main Phase 1” or “I want to enter in the beginning of combat step” falls under that shortcut.

Originally posted by Lasse Kulmala:

But arguing that players should know the rules (which obviously includes phases and steps) but constructing a completely unintuitive shortcut where following the rules gets you to a place where it shouldn't is not an argument that holds water.

Well let's correct a few things here. First, players are required to know the tournament rules as well, which this shortcut is one. We like to construct this mythical super savvy competitive rules guru in these scenarios that understands the minute details of combat and strategic implications, but never read the MTR. Those exist less frequently in the real world than in judge scenarios. Second, the shortcut is intuitive, it works without thought a vast majority of the time, as it reflects the way people play. Now, here's a bit of personal experience, I played a good amount before this shortcut was codified. It was miserible. People were constantly trying trying to trick you with some combination of words to get you to cast a spell or activate a fast effect at the wrong time. They were relying on ambiguous communication as a *strategy*. People at the super high level might be aware of what's going on, but for the lower level tournament player, it can feel like cheating to get trapped by words that sound the same but mean something completely different. So the benefit of this shortcut is huge, massive. Second only to the auto-priority pass when you cast a spell. The cost? The attacker can't be a jerk, and rarely (yes rarely) will have to make a relevant decision slightly earlier than is optimal. I'll pay that cost all day every day for the benefit it provides

Originally posted by Lasse Kulmala:

In any case the article needs to be clarified at least with the magic words that get AP to their priority in beginning of combat

There are none. That's the point.

In those rare corner cases where a player has legitimate reason to believe an opponent might wish to do something in the first main phase and wants to give their opponent a chance to do that thing without revealing what they plan on doing in the beginning of combat step, they can do that. But not by reciting a few magic words and pretending that's good enough; they have to make absolutely certain that their opponent understands what's going on and why. They need to communicate and ensure mutual understanding, and to that end, it's recommended that they call a judge to facilitate that communication.

And that's where I feel there is a problem. Every other phase, a player can hold priority, so it makes it very counterintuitive for players to not be able to hold priority in their beginning of combat step. So why isn't the phrase “enter beginning of combat phase, hold priority” valid? Even the other steps where it's generally the opponents who acts (draw step, discard step), a player has the chance to hold priority there. It completely contradicts how the priority system works and turn structure works. So to me it feels like an inconsistency with the game rules, all because of this shortcut.

Slightly less relevant is that it creates a huge gap between turn structures in online and paper magic.

Edited Michael He (May 29, 2016 03:02:41 PM)

Originally posted by Callum Milne:

Lasse Kulmala
In any case the article needs to be clarified at least with the magic words that get AP to their priority in beginning of combat

There are none. That's the point.

In those rare corner cases where a player has legitimate reason to believe an opponent might wish to do something in the first main phase and wants to give their opponent a chance to do that thing without revealing what they plan on doing in the beginning of combat step, they can do that. But not by reciting a few magic words and pretending that's good enough; they have to make absolutely certain that their opponent understands what's going on and why. They need to communicate and ensure mutual understanding, and to that end, it's recommended that they call a judge to facilitate that communication.

If even the most through statement doesn't get AP to their beginning of combat priority but it still is somehow possible to get there then that is by definition a magic sentence, especially since we still don't have an official example that fits the article but leads to the desired situation. Examples in the article only include situations where AP tells beforehand what they are doing in beginning of combat and nowhere is it said that you can get to that situation without revealing your plans.

Also if you can not get from Main Phase 1 to Beginning of Combat without a Judge facilitating the conversation then there's something wrong with the rules, although I haven't personally ever seen this problem that is tried to be addressed. The problem in my experience is much more often that Gotcha moment from NAP where AP is trying to do something but NAP calls a Judge because AP said something that can be seen as a combat shortcut and that situation is just going to get more prevalent after this article. Furthermore in those situations that I have seen NAP has definitely known and understood what AP wanted to do but uses this shortcut to basically rules lawyer AP out of that opportunity. I don't know what the situation has been a decade ago but in resent years I have never seen AP trying to trick NAP to doing something at the wrong time.

Originally posted by Bryan Prillaman:

Second, the shortcut is intuitive, it works without thought a vast majority of the time, as it reflects the way people play.

Most people I see play at even FNMs know the turn structure and knows what beginning of combat means. I've played since 2003 and I've always seen people enter combat, then do tricks, animate lands etc. Since you say it's the player's responsibility to know the MTR, why can't you say that it's the player's responsibliity to understand turn structure enough that they know what beginning of combat phase is? Instead, you now change the game rules on how priority and turn structure works by not allowing AP enter beginning of combat step with prioirty, and I feel this creates more confusion among players. Also, they seem more accepting toward the fact that they don't understand turn structure and get screwed versus they get screwed because of intricacies that aren't even listed in the MTR (Nothing in the MTR explicitly states that AP can't enter their Beginning of combat with priority).

On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 11:03 PM, Lasse Kulmala <
forum-27443-d366@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

> I don't know what the situation has been a decade ago but in resent years
> I have never seen AP trying to trick NAP to doing something at the wrong
> time.


​Perhaps that's because this shortcut is in place.

In any case, if someone wants to act for whatever reason -obscure or not-
on the Beginning of Combat they just have to say so:

“I move to Beginning of Combat and do X”

And if they want to go there without explicitly stating what they're doing
they should be specific that they're interrupting the shortcut:

“I move to Beginning of Combat retaining priority”

Not too complicated, right? As Bryan rightly pointed out this shortcut has
a fair price for the benefit it provides.


//DLI

Originally posted by David de la Iglesia:

And if they want to go there without explicitly stating what they're doing
they should be specific that they're interrupting the shortcut:

“I move to Beginning of Combat retaining priority”

Not too complicated, right? As Bryan rightly pointed out this shortcut has
a fair price for the benefit it provides.

I like this wording, I think it accomplishes what some of the people here are looking for. But it sounds like other people here disagree that any wording (including this example) can get AP to the beginning of combat while retaining priority?

Originally posted by Jason Malott:

David de la Iglesia
And if they want to go there without explicitly stating what they're doing
they should be specific that they're interrupting the shortcut:

“I move to Beginning of Combat retaining priority”

Not too complicated, right? As Bryan rightly pointed out this shortcut has
a fair price for the benefit it provides.

I like this wording, I think it accomplishes what some of the people here are looking for. But it sounds like other people here disagree that any wording (including this example) can get AP to the beginning of combat while retaining priority?

I think that point is that if you are going to be doing something in beginning of combat, you don't really need to inform your opponent that they get priority during your main phase. If they intend to do something at that point, they will tell you (Bolt your Rabblemaster, for example). If they do not, they can respond to what you do. The key point is that YOU as the active player are going to be announcing what you're doing right then as you're going from a point where you have priority (main phase 1) to another point where you have priority (beginning of combat), and your opponent's only point of priority comes in the middle and is almost never relevant (it's a corner case, though less of a corner case than needing to do something specifically in your own beginning of combat).

Basically if I say “I want to do something in beginning of combat”, then my opponent says “ok”, then I actually do it; I don't really see how this is better than me just saying “I do x during beginning of combat” (and I use “x” here because I literally cannot think of a valid reason to be doing something at that time specifically, though I'm sure some have existed) as the active player at this point is in control of the pacing of the turn.

This also seems like a really hard concept to convey over the internet….

Originally posted by David de la Iglesia:

“I move to Beginning of Combat retaining priority”

I like this wording as well, but from what I understood from this article and the responses from Scott and other L3s in this post, this will also trigger the shortcut and skip your beginning of combat step. And that's what I disagree most with. It's fine for the shortcut to trigger on vague statements, but for something as specific as this it should allow you to.

Edited Michael He (May 30, 2016 03:59:46 AM)

Originally posted by Michael He:

David de la Iglesia
“I move to Beginning of Combat retaining priority”

I like this wording as well, but from what I understood from this article and the responses from Scott and other L3s in this post, this will also trigger the shortcut and skip your beginning of combat step. And that's what I disagree most with. It's fine for the shortcut to trigger on vague statements, but for something as specific as this it should allow you to.

If that is what you believe, then something is being lost in the discussion.

First, the shortcut in MTR 4.2 doesn't ever skip the beginning of combat step. All it does, in most cases, is move the turn to the beginning of combat step with the NAP having priority. Since it is AP's turn and they have the most options to do things (e.g., enchant/equip a creature, play a land, etc.) and generally control the pace of the turn, the shortcut moves AP past the point where they might do that stuff before combat, to the combat phase, giving the opponent one last opportunity to act before the declare attackers step. We're not moved directly to declaring attackers. (Though, in practice, some players will simply go “Enter combat, swing with these creatures.”)

Second, both the AP and NAP can always deviate from shortcuts. They need to be clear about it, though not overly technical. “Move to combat and retain priority.” is one way to do it if you need to animate Mutavault to attack. “Move to combat, triggering Rabblemaster.” is another way to do it, if you need to be clear about a Goblin Rabblemaster trigger. This is all about clarity when it comes to the game state and communication. Not trying to be clever about wording to hide something technical.

Third, while I realize the article makes a pretty blanket statement, let's be clear about what that statement says…

This shortcut covers every kind of combat related sentences

This shortcut is true for any statement that would imply that you want to leave your first Main Phase, no matter how carefully it has been worded.

Even the most thorough statement like: “I pass priority to you in Main Phase 1” or “I want to enter in the beginning of combat step” falls under that shortcut.

In other words, there is absolutely no way a player can force their opponent into acting in Main Phase one unless they clearly indicated it. No assumptions can be made. Either the opponent wants to act in Main Phase 1, or they acted in Beginning of combat step.

…and while it says “covers every kind of combat related sentences”, look at what the point this drives at…

In other words, there is absolutely no way a player can force their opponent into acting in Main Phase one unless they clearly indicate it.

…as the AP can't force the NAP to act before the beginning of combat step, unless the NAP is saying they are. Nothing about this statement says that AP can't do something different or unusual (e.g., animate that Mutavault, put the Rabblemaster trigger on the stack), just that whatever AP does won't cause NAP to act in AP's main phase unless NAP indicates it. Something like “Before combat, bolt your Rabblemaster.” would do it, since it is a very clear statement of NAP acting at a different point in time.

Fourth, I don't believe that Scott and other L3s disagree with what the article is saying… Only that many of us realize that it created a lot of misunderstanding via that broad statement. Which is a downside to a written article where the audience can't ask questions. As many of us have witnessed with the MIPG updates over the years, there has been a tendency to get caught up in exact wording.

I think the point that often gets lost in this discussion is the complexity of communication and the spectrum of understanding that arises between AP and NAP as to when things are happening. That many times AP is trying to hide information and intent so that NAP is not operating in a fully informed fashion. We're generally okay with that. What we're not okay with is when AP tries to push so far as to get NAP to act at a different point in time by being a little too clever with that communication.

Again, AP can act and do what they want… Just that AP can't force NAP to act at a different point in time. AP doesn't “control” NAP's participation in the turn to that extent. NAP gets to choose when they act, and absent an indication otherwise, we generally presume that NAP acts in the beginning of combat step. (EDIT: This is where our investigation comes into play, and making sure we understand what has been said and why it has been said. The existence of this shortcut does not mean we go into robot mode.)

Keep in mind that 99% of situations will resolve themselves easily. The 1% of situations where AP and NAP will disagree is going to be a communication issue, some of which may be a result of AP being a bit too clever. As judges, we just need to be aware of those situations where AP is being a bit too clever, and nip it in the bud. Otherwise, we help the players to clearly understand where they are at in the turn.

Edited Brian Schenck (May 30, 2016 06:02:23 AM)