I ran into this situation at a GPT I Head Judged last weekend.

Anthony says “Move to my End-Step”. Nick replies: “Response, Tap out for Sphinx's Revelation.” During the resolution of Sphinx's Revelation, Anthony asserts that we're still in his main phase because of how both players worded their actions. Nick, unfortunately, agrees to this. As a result Anthony casts Kiki-Jiki in his main phase.

Question: If nick hadn't agreed to being in the main phase already, would the way he and his opponent worded their actions lock Nick into casting Sphinx's Revelation during the main phase?

My instinct is no because “Move to my end step” feels a lot like “go”. I can see why it wouldn't be, though. Interested to hear what you think.

The problem is that sometimes “move to my end step” isn't even Gotcha!, but a perfect reasonable play. I did that quite often with Corpse Dance.

So you may find yourself in a situation where you can't even say that Anthony tried to set up a trap.

I'm not very decisive on what I'd rule in the given scenario, but maybe Judges should tell players to be more careful with using the term “in response”, especially when it's the exact opposite of what they meant.

Let me put this another way: If “move to my end-step” is considered playing gotcha-style, than what would be the better way to express that you want to do exactly that?

Hmm as you describe it it seems to me that they are still in the second main. He responds to move to the End-Step.

Tell the Revelation's guy to be very careful with specially this kind of plays and wordings.. If he plays Revelations he has to know how to play it correctly for future tournaments ;)

Your instinct is correct any wording that could be interpreted as moving to the end step invokes the shortcut for the opponent to have priority in the end step

I would say NAP is acting in AP's end step if that is when he wanted to act.

“Move to my end step” sounds basically exactly like “move to combat” to me,
which puts NAP acting in Beginning of Combat.

If AP wanted to get priority at a certain time, they should spell out what
they are doing. “I would like to get priority in my second main phase, can
we pass until then?” or something similar. If they want priority in their
own end step, they can just say that - “I want to get priority in my own
end step, can I do that?”

Yes, this gives away that you want to do a thing at that time…but you
have to give that away, because you want to do a thing at that time.


—
Rob McKenzie
Magic Judge Level III
Judge Regional Coordinator USA-North
Minnesota

Anthony was a hardcore angle-shooter and specifically said he worded it that way to trap his opponent after the match. No one even called for judge, NAP just accepted that they were in the Main Phase which is why I felt I couldn't say anything or interject. Though, I did try to educate NAP afterwords.

Was I wrong to assume I couldn't say anything after NAP accepted that they were in the main phase, even though it was clear he wanted to act during end step?

If the players are in agreement with where the game state is and nothing illegal has happened I'd leave them alone but educate both, active with a “you need to be careful because…” and non active with a “did you know about the tournament shortcuts” talks

I think though that the players are probably not in agreement with where the game is, as I think NAP is going to say “I thought he was passing the turn”.

In general, trying to trick your opponent using clever word play is discouraged. There have been many threads over the years asking “what can I say to trick my opponent into thinking we're in combat”. This is the same thing. In circumstances like these I ask myself “what if NAP only has a basic grasp of English as a second language”.

So if I were watching this unfold, I'd step in when AP attempted to claim the game was in the main phase, and then unless NAP actively wanted to main phase the spell, I'd have the game continue in the end step.

Originally posted by Jon Munck:

No one even called for judge, NAP just accepted that they were in the Main Phase which is why I felt I couldn't say anything or interject.

Sometimes in cases like this NAP will think “that judge isn't stepping in to correct my opponent, therefore the judge must agree with that interpretation”. If NAP looks hesitant at all, and especially if the NAP looks in your direction, then I would recommend interjecting in this case. Generally speaking I can't give precise guidelines on when to step in vs let the players' figure it out for themselves. For me personally, for this case though, I would step in (and, like Rob and Mark said, say that we're in End Step).

I agree that this seems a lot like the default “Go” shortcut; let's look at the exact text of that one:

The statement “Go” (and equivalents such as “Your turn” and “Done”) offers to keep passing priority until an opponent has priority in the end step. Opponents are assumed to be acting then unless they specify otherwise.

I've historically been rather unforgiving on attempted trickery such as this - although it's typically related to Combat. The principle remains the same; we added those shortcuts (Go, and Combat), to protect the NAP, because the AP controls the flow of their own turn.

Intervening in this, however, is kind of tricky.

A judge shouldn’t intervene in a game unless he or she believes a rules violation has occurred, a player with a concern or question requests assistance, or the judge wishes to prevent a situation from escalating.

If NAP so much as glances at me, I'm likely to interpret that as a request for confirmation, and happily step in. However, if NAP simply accepts that AP tricked him, I can't say that a rules violation has occurred, no one's asked me for help, and there's no situation to de-escalate. Yuk…

If I do get to intervene, I'd simply ask NAP “when did you intend to act?”, and he'll say “in his end step”, and there we are. When AP protests that he carefully worded that to trick or trap NAP? “This game is called Magic. Please play Magic, not word games.”

d:^D

Edited Scott Marshall (Feb. 24, 2016 05:27:54 PM)

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

I've historically been rather unforgiving on attempted trickery such as this - although it's typically related to Combat. The principle remains the same; we added those shortcuts (Go, and Combat), to protect the NAP, because the AP controls the flow of their own turn.

I agree with your stance in combat, but End of Turn is very different.

While “Your Turn” and “Done” are clear indicators of the turn being over, when a player asks to go to the end step there are a lot of things that they can legitimately be doing then.

As a Death & Taxes player, Aether Vial - Flickerwisp - target your land is one of many end step ‘tricks’ I can perform. This isn't even a corner case, and this isn't a Gotcha!, it's a very common “I want priority in my end step” because I have “beginning of next end step” effects to play.

EDIT

I agree that this case might be a bit different, but I'm arguing against putting into place a policy that makes moving to the end step with priority something you need to dance through hoops to get to.

Edited Edward Bell (Feb. 25, 2016 01:11:14 AM)

If you want to do something in the end step you need to say that you're going to do something in the End Step. Just like you need to say you want to do something about the start of combat

Originally posted by Edward Bell:

I agree with your stance in combat, but End of Turn is very different.

While “Your Turn” and “Done” are clear indicators of the turn being over, when a player asks to go to the end step there are a lot of things that they can legitimately be doing then.

As a Death & Taxes player, Aether Vial - Flickerwisp - target your land is one of many end step ‘tricks’ I can perform. This isn't even a corner case, and this isn't a Gotcha!, it's a very common “I want priority in my end step” because I have “beginning of next end step” effects to play.

EDIT

I agree that this case might be a bit different, but I'm arguing against putting into place a policy that makes moving to the end step with priority something you need to dance through hoops to get to.

While I can see that there may be situations where it is perhaps relevant that the active player is going to do something in his or her end step, and may prefer it if the opponent does something before the end step, the active player can't use a bit of technical wording to accomplish that. Creating what I think is fair to view as a communication issue to presume the most favorable outcome is not a situation that is desirable behavior. And we, as judges, should be very careful about taking our technical understanding of rules and policy, and applying it in that same fashion; our technical understanding is really better accomplished by making sure to apply it functionally and organically towards how players play. We shouldn't support presumptions by either player, unless they could both draw the same conclusion rather than being more favorable to one party or the other.

As such, I believe it is important to point out that when “in response” and “responding” are discussed in the Basic Rulebook (page 10) and in the Comprehensive Rules (CR 116.7 and the Glossary entry “In Response To”), it typically refers to players responding to spells that were just cast or abilities just put onto the stack. We can sometimes expand that to apply to actual game actions taken by the players, such as the declaration of attackers. But it doesn't make as much sense to apply to simple passes in priorities or situations where player use shortcuts. As such, I would put forth that applying it to this situation subverts the application of that phrase in a way that doesn't quite make sense. I think it is important for judges to make sure we are careful in simply applying it without taking a moment to understand context.

In this situation, if the opponent is uncertain of what is going on and clearly confused, it might be better to simply to do as Scott suggested and ask “When in AP's turn are you acting?” While it may be generally good to understand “In response” to mean “I act at my first opportunity”, I don't think we can always presume it to mean that. Especially when we have a defined shortcut whose specific intent is to get rid of “Gotchas!”

As Gareth said, if AP needs to act in his or her end step, then the AP should be clear about where and when this action is taking place. “In my end step, cast/activate…” If NAP wants to do something before the end step, rather than simply respond to the spell/ability, then it becomes NAP's responsibility to interrupt this proposed shortcut. But aside from some slightly different wording, AP's statement of “Move to my end step” seems all too similar to the normal defined shortcut. In this situation, AP clearly doesn't need to act in his end step (and otherwise can't act in his end step from what I can see). Given that AP is in control of the flow of the turn, if he intended to cast Kiki-Jiki in his postcombat main, he would have said as much. But he didn't.

That is something said over and over again I think.

Angle shooting around shortcuts does not work. This is also not what the MTR means by gaining advantage by superior rules knowledge.

If you are asked to intervene (juste repeating what Scott said) then I believe that what should be done here is asking NAP what was his intent and rule that way. Unless something very specific happens in those situations (like the mighty cauldron dance) there is no acceptable reason why AP would like to do this.

Let's imagine a clean game :
“Draw”
“sure”
“I would like to move to my main phase”
“Sure”
“Land, I would like to enter combat”
“Sure”

“Move to my End-Step”
“In response…”

Well maybe I would think and consider things here since that is essentially the way that player communicates from the beginning
but in another case :

“Draw, Land, attack for 2”
“Sure”
“PLay this card”.
“OK”
“Move to my End-Step”
“In response…”

I find very confusing the change of communication to move through phases if it is not to play Gotcha The gathering.

@Edward Bell : There is essentially no reason the policy should be crafted around things that 3 cards and 2 situations in the whole game would care about.

@Brian Schenck : Also the fact that players use “in response” in all possible situations, so much that at some point I stopped really bothering about those words that are technically used incorrectly 50% of the time.

Edited Théo CHENG (Feb. 25, 2016 07:19:04 AM)

Originally posted by Gareth Tanner:

Your instinct is correct any wording that could be interpreted as moving to the end step invokes the shortcut for the opponent to have priority in the end step

Scott Marshall
I agree that this seems a lot like the default “Go” shortcut; let's look at the exact text of that one:

The statement “Go” (and equivalents such as “Your turn” and “Done”) offers to keep passing priority until an opponent has priority in the end step. Opponents are assumed to be acting then unless they specify otherwise.

I've historically been rather unforgiving on attempted trickery such as this - although it's typically related to Combat. The principle remains the same; we added those shortcuts (Go, and Combat), to protect the NAP, because the AP controls the flow of their own turn.

Now what is the correct way to move to the end step if it's not by saying “move to the end step”?