This situation came up at a Sealed Deck PPTQ I was judging this weekend.

Arthur controls Deceiver of Form.
Arthur: “Go to combat?”
Nissa: “Sure”
Arthur: “Reveal for Deceiver of Form?”
Nissa: “Nope. You used the default shortcut that offers to pass priority until I have priority in the beginning of combat step, and then I passed. We're now in the declare attackers step, and you've missed your trigger.”

The players debated this for a bit, and I intervened. I ruled in Arthur's favor, putting the game at the beginning of combat step with the trigger from Deceiver of Form on the stack.

My reasoning for this is that Arthur's intent was absolutely clear to me the entire time - he had a specific sequence of actions planned, and when he tried to execute that plan, his opponent attempted a “gotcha” because he used the wrong words when attempting to communicate his actions. This feels like a case of trying to play “Magic the Wordening”, which is not where we want to be.

Another tidbit that might be worth mentioning is that this occurred between Swedish players at a Swedish event, so the language is not quoted verbatim, but translated, which can matter in observing what was being communicated.

Do you agree with this ruling?

The combat shortcut does offer to pass priority until the opponent the first time the opponent would have it in the Beginning of Combat, in this situation this would mean that Deceiver of Form's trigger is currently on the stack and what Arthur did is fine a legal, no need to rule by intent (which we don't do)

Somehow both are correct. The shortcut says exactly what he says. It doesn't say anything about an empty stack though and since the Deceiver's trigger doesn't need targetting or anything that needs to be done when it's put on the stack it's a perfectly legal outcome of the shortcut to have the trigger on the stack and start resolving it now that the opponent passed priority.

Edited Christian Genz (March 14, 2016 03:22:25 AM)

Compare with the trigger of Surrak, the Hunt Caller, please.

Surrak, the Hunt Caller does require a target so, strictly speaking, you have to announce the target when you pass priority. There was also a lengthy discussion about this here (if this is the intent of Milan's post).

Thank you René. I couldn't find that one :-)

I think the appropriate comparison card was Goblin Rabblemaster, as
described in this article:
http://blogs.magicjudges.org/articles/2015/03/06/shortcut-it-out/ The AP
must take the required physical action (in Rabble's case, putting the token
into play, in Deceiver's case revealing the top card of the library), and
if they fail to do so before attacking then they have missed their trigger,
but not before.

We might prefer if Arthur was a little more clear here with his “go to
combat” shortcut by indicating the trigger as he did so (“Go to combat,
trigger Deceiver?”) but we don't require that. His shortcut achieves what
he wants. As in other missed trigger cases, if Nissa wished to respond to
the trigger, she had the opportunity. Doing so might have required
reminding Arthur of the trigger, but that is the price Nissa must sometimes
pay.

I'm just gonna +1 Justin's post - well said!

Is it worth an additional clarification in the MTR here around this?
Here is the current MTR on this shortcut.
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.

Would this be a small change that could clarify this?
A statement such as “I'm ready for combat” or “Declare attackers?” offers to keep passing priority
until the first time an opponent has priority in the beginning of combat step. Opponents are assumed to be acting
then unless they specify otherwise.

Originally posted by Kevin Moore:

Is it worth an additional clarification in the MTR here around this?
Here is the current MTR on this shortcut.
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.

Would this be a small change that could clarify this?
A statement such as “I'm ready for combat” or “Declare attackers?” offers to keep passing priority
until the first time an opponent has priority in the beginning of combat step. Opponents are assumed to be acting
then unless they specify otherwise.

Kevin:

Where does the AP want to be, almost all the time? In the main phase, so he or she can cast sorceries and hasty creatures or play lands.

Where does the NAP want to be, almost all the time? In the beginning of combat step, so he or she can act without the AP doing those things.

There are a few corner-cases (most of them in corner-case formats like Legacy and Vintage), but this is almost always the case. And if you want to do something in an unusual time, you can do so, just by being explicit - “Go to combat, make a goblin” or “Go to combat?”“Still in your main phase, I'll kill your Rabblemaster.”

Shortcuts are there because they're the default almost all the time - it's better to put some burden on players who want to do unusual things than it is to blow people out because they didn't understand the exact codewords.

For much, much more on this topic, scroll through the forum archives - this thread is a pretty good explanation for why the shortcut shouldn't change.

Originally posted by John Brian McCarthy:

Kevin Moore
Is it worth an additional clarification in the MTR here around this?
Here is the current MTR on this shortcut.
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.

Would this be a small change that could clarify this?
A statement such as “I'm ready for combat” or “Declare attackers?” offers to keep passing priority
until the first time an opponent has priority in the beginning of combat step. Opponents are assumed to be acting
then unless they specify otherwise.

Kevin:

Where does the AP want to be, almost all the time? In the main phase, so he or she can cast sorceries and hasty creatures or play lands.

Where does the NAP want to be, almost all the time? In the beginning of combat step, so he or she can act without the AP doing those things.

There are a few corner-cases (most of them in corner-case formats like Legacy and Vintage), but this is almost always the case. And if you want to do something in an unusual time, you can do so, just by being explicit - “Go to combat, make a goblin” or “Go to combat?”“Still in your main phase, I'll kill your Rabblemaster.”

Shortcuts are there because they're the default almost all the time - it's better to put some burden on players who want to do unusual things than it is to blow people out because they didn't understand the exact codewords.

For much, much more on this topic, scroll through the forum archives - this thread is a pretty good explanation for why the shortcut shouldn't change.

John, I think you'll find that Kevin was not proposing a substantive change to the shortcut. He was merely suggesting a tweak in wording to reflect the way the shortcut is already applied in practice–that is, when we apply the shortcut we rule that NAP has priority in Beginning of Combat at the first available opportunity, which may not always be with an empty stack. This is the case here: NAP is unsuccessful in depriving AP of his trigger because applying the shortcut means that NAP has priority with AP's trigger on the stack. When NAP passes, the trigger resolves.

Originally posted by John Brian McCarthy:

it's better to put some burden on players who want to do unusual things than it is to blow people out because they didn't understand the exact codewords.

I absolutely agree with this sentiment, but I disagree that the case in point represents something unusual. It's a standard-legal card with an “at the beginning of combat” trigger.

I like the proposed change of wording for the default shortcut. It's minor, but still makes a relevant difference.

The default shortcut is a little dense by necessity. However, there are lovely resources like the annotated MTR to flesh things out a bit better!