I've seen this a number of times:

AP is holding removal but fails to take board state into account and makes a bad attack.
NAP attempts to block.
AP suddenly realizes there's a problem and tries to cast the removal “before blocks.”
Judge gets called.
NAP says he/she blocked. AP says NAP jumped the gun.
NAP says there was a pause. AP says there wasn't.
He-said-she-said…

What do?

(Note that the attack declaration is not subject to debate. Both players agree that attackers were declared. They just disagree on whether priority was passed to Declare Blockers. Vague attack declarations are a related but separate issue.)

Personally, I'm inclined to side with NAP. AP in 99% of cases could/should simply have used the removal before attackers were even declared. AP has full control over the pace of his/her turn and has plenty of opportunity to remove problematic blockers before they block. Only rarely is there an actual reason to wait until the Declare Blockers step. Unless there is such a reason for waiting (manlands, open Cryptic Command mana), letting AP test the waters/gauge NAP's reaction (does NAP want to race? have removal? a trick?) unnecessarily opens the door to exploits. Even if it's a bona fide case of “problem suddenly came into view when staring at the tapped attackers”, I don't think AP should be allowed a backsie once NAP has started to make a move. That's just too risky, too messy, and too unfair to NAP.

I get that AP gets to decide when to move to Declare Blockers, but I think a definitive declaration of attackers followed by a slight pause is enough of an “established shortcut” (at least in my mind, I don't know if that's official) of passing priority to Declare Blockers. That's just how people play. I'd have absolutely no problem with the removal if AP went like “attack like this AND ALSO cast this removal” in one fairly fluid sequence, but any kind of pause after definitively declaring attackers implies passing priority. It seems unreasonable to keep NAP in the dark as to whether he/she can block, basically forcing him/her to ask “so… can I block now?” every single time just in case AP wants to reconsider the potential outcome.

Thoughts?

How about CompREL?

Like most “he-said-he-said” disagreements, you have to look at the game state, see what makes sense, and decide what you believe actually has happened. There's never going to be a more precise guideline than that, I'm afraid…

d:^D

Listen to Scott ;-)

Actually, if there was a universal guideline to apply for such situations, players would learn to misuse it pretty fast, I assure you.

So far the only solution has been to hone our investigation skills.

While I agree with Scott, I'd like to draw a parallel.

Currently we aren't allowing players to crew vehicles or activate manlands at beginning of combat before declaring attackers…

I don't see why we couldn't look to possibly making a complete declaration of attackers auto-pass in the same way beginning of combat does, unless the player specifically requests to hold priority or an ability triggers.

Currently we aren't allowing players to crew vehicles or activate manlands at beginning of combat before declaring attackers…

I don't believe this is correct.
You can, you just have to be pro-active in your communication and indicate your intent rather than simply passing priority or “go to beginning of combat”

Under current policy, I don't believe silence is passing priority in this case. The reason the AP is usually considered to be passing priority after they take an action is due to the following:

Originally posted by MTR 4.2:

Whenever a player adds an object to the stack, he or she is assumed to be passing priority unless he or she explicitly announces that he or she intends to retain it.

Declaring attackers is not adding an object to the stack, and I do not see any established shortcut in the MTR that says a pause after a turn based action is considered to be passing priority. My personal habit as a player is to ask “move to blocks?” in the same way I ask “move to attacks?” on my turn.

AP in 99% of cases could/should simply have used the removal before attackers were even declared. AP has full control over the pace of his/her turn and has plenty of opportunity to remove problematic blockers before they block. Only rarely is there an actual reason to wait until the Declare Blockers step.

I would be cautious using logic like this in a ruling. Yes, strategically they can decide to do something before declaring attacks, but it is legal to take actions in the DA step. We don't deny players the ability to do things that are legal just because they could have done something else that was legal earlier.

Originally posted by Milan Majerčík:

Listen to Scott ;-)

With all due respect, “use your judgment” (or any version thereof) is not particularly “actionable” advice to someone who is already trying to do that. ;)

Originally posted by David Rockwood:

it is legal to take actions in the DA step. We don't deny players the ability to do things that are legal just because they could have done something else that was legal earlier.

We're not doing/I'm not proposing that. The option is still there even if we require AP to be explicit about it, just like with explicitly retaining priority. That way AP still has ALL THE OPTIONS but there are fewer situations where NAP feels he/she is being treated unfairly. That's the reason the “explicitly retain priority” policy exists, too, right? To prevent AP from gauging NAP's response with strategic pauses. Like the oldschool example that probably started it all:

NAP has two untapped Islands.
AP: Armageddon!
AP stares at NAP.
A few seconds pass. NAP does not play Counterspell.
AP: Before it resolves, I sac all my lands to Zuran Orb."

AP wanting to do things in Declare Attackers is not that exceptional, any attack triggers like Battle Cry, Exalted, Raid or this block's “becomes tapped” and Copter triggers could be reason for it.

The things I want to know in these scenarios in addition to what is mentioned is where AP was looking during that pause. Was he looking at his hand, NAP's board, or at NAP? This is more important than the length of the pause for me.
I'd also like to know about any earlier combat communication from the match. Has AP done things in DA before? Has NAP asked whether he could block before?

Edited Toby Hazes (Jan. 31, 2017 04:17:16 PM)

That's the reason the “explicitly retain priority” policy exists, too, right?

My point was that that policy doesn't apply to turn based actions. The AP needs to pass priority or the NAP needs to ask for it. Ill even agree that it's possible that priority can be passed non-verbally, but silence isn't automatically passing priority due to any established shortcut.

Originally posted by Sean Crain:

I don't believe this is correct.
You can, you just have to be pro-active in your communication and indicate your intent rather than simply passing priority or “go to beginning of combat”

It is and it isn't. I was explaining in shorthand. I have been told numerous times that it is frowned upon/not acceptable to crew vehicles in beginning of combat even if you attempt to maintain priority. It's something I don't like the policy on as it currently is. (I think I argued with a few judges on reddit about this).

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/whatsupdocs/2016/05/26/attacking-blocking-and-shortcuts/

We are assumed to pass unless we retain or triggers hit the stack.

I'm suggesting that if there are no triggers or no proclamation of retention of priority that we skip directly to opponent's priority.

I am suggesting an analogous treatment of the situation.

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume priority is passed if the person says “these are my attackers” and ends their sentence clearly.

If “go to beginning of combat” is considered too late to crew vehicles, then “these are my attackers” is a reasonable place for NAP to get priority. “These are my attackers but wait!” is only two more words

Edited Matt D. Parker (Feb. 1, 2017 09:21:07 PM)

Originally posted by Matt D. Parker:

Originally posted by Sean Crain:

I don't believe this is correct.
You can, you just have to be pro-active in your communication and indicate your intent rather than simply passing priority or “go to beginning of combat”

It is and it isn't. I was explaining in shorthand. I have been told numerous times that it is frowned upon/not acceptable to crew vehicles in beginning of combat even if you attempt to maintain priority. It's something I don't like the policy on as it currently is. (I think I argued with a few judges on reddit about this).

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/whatsupdocs/2016/05/26/attacking-blocking-and-shortcuts/

We are assumed to pass unless we retain or triggers hit the stack.

I'm suggesting that if there are no triggers or no proclamation of retention of priority that we skip directly to opponent's priority.

I am suggesting an analogous treatment of the situation.

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume priority is passed if the person says “these are my attackers” and ends their sentence clearly.

If “go to beginning of combat” is considered too late to crew vehicles, then “these are my attackers” is a reasonable place for NAP to get priority. “These are my attackers but wait!” is only two more words

The philosophy behind disallowing “go to combat?”, “okay”, “Then I'll crew and attack you” is that it protects NAPs from APs who are a) trying to fish for information about NAP's interaction without committing to a line of play and b) trying to play games where AP tricks NAP into interacting in a place where NAP doesn't intend to.

Reason a) is the only one of these two that applies to the “wait, before blocks…” scenario. However, unlike the “go to combat” scenario, it is questionable what information AP would be fishing for that would substantially affect their line of play, since their attacks are already declared. AP may realize that they made a mistake by not killing a creature earlier, but judges have long recognized that a pause (or even an “okay”) does not always indicate a passing of priority.

Since the potential for abuse in this situation is fairly low compared to the “go to combat” shortcut, I'm okay with ruling in AP's favor in a scenario like this depending on what I find during my investigation. I do want to leave room for AP to make a mistake by not casting the removal in time, but I wouldn't rule as such unless I'm convinced that AP has actually made that mistake by allowing the game to move to blocks.

Originally posted by Andrew Keeler:

unlike the “go to combat” scenario, it is questionable what information AP would be fishing for that would substantially affect their line of play, since their attacks are already declared.

The information gained is the block being attempted. AP either learns that NAP actually has a good block that AP completely missed (which is the most common scenario at Regular) or AP learns fact that NAP is willing to make a certain block (from which various conclusions can be drawn depending on the situation.)

(Note that the scenario that I provided is not “AP attacks, then casts removal” but “AP attacks, NAP attempts to block, then AP tries to cast removal before blockers.” That's concrete information gained about the block NAP intends to make.)

In any situation like this it is going to come down to what both players say, what they agree upon and what you judge is the most likely thing that has happened.

If you believe the attacking player had implicitly passed priority and the defending player was correctly declaring blockers, then make that ruling. If you believe there was some ambiguity and the defending player “jumped the gun” without confirming then make that ruling.

I will always encourage players to confirm if their opponent is done declaring attackers. I will also encourage players to warn their opponent if they are still thinking about the declaration of attackers so their opponent doesn't assume because they are thinking that they have finished.

Regarding making the judgement, for me it comes down to asking questions about how they declared attackers, asking how they have done so previously that game/match, getting confirmation from the opponent that they agree with how the attackers were declared and how it had been done previously.

If it was tapping one or more creatures and then pausing, with no other information I'm probably going to err on the side of defending player acted too quickly without confirming it was ok.

If it was simultaneously tapping one or more creatures while pushing them forward to indicate attacking, it seems more likely that this is the player saying “this is my attack, over to you” in which case I'm going to more likely rule that the attacking player didn't make it clear they wanted to do something and more likely only realised when the defending player was thinking how to block. Note that this is still a generalisation and still could change if there were other bits of information that I discovered when asking the questions.

To be fair, “Go to combat”, “Ok”, “I crew”, “Ok”, “I attack with crewed vehicle” is completely fair.

bounding krasis is a card that completely changed how I look at combat.

If you go to attackers and tap creatures, skipping priority passes in the combat step before I can cast that creature, I'd call a judge. Magic is a game of rules and steps. A slight pause is not “pass priority” or “go to blocks?”.

Policy on communication, the combat shortcut, and priority, changed dramatically in April.
https://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2017/04/24/policy-changes-for-amonkhet/

As this forum discussion was from January 30, 2017 to February 6, 2017, you should read it with that change in mind.

This is just one reason to not resurrect old threads. If you want to start a new discussion, please start a new thread.