Originally posted by Théo CHENG:

Lyle. I agree that mistakes happen in a game of Magic.

However why would NAP ever play a revelation during his opponent's main phase?

Totally reasonable game sequence: NAP controls Desolate Lighthouse and has mana up for it.

AP: “During my 2nd main, I will play this Ghost Quarter and blow up your Loothouse”.

NAP: “Response, tap it for mana, let it blow up, get this Plains”.

AP: “Ok, move to my end step”.

NAP: “Response, cast Sphinx Rev for 5” (implicitly using the Loothouse mana, plus tapping an additional 7 lands).

AP: “Ok then, still in 2nd main, cast Kikijiki”.

Happens literally all the time. Not that I'm saying that is what happened in this situation, but it is a totally reasonable example of when something like this might come up.

if you ask the intend of the player, I do not believe you would have much other answers than “I wanted to do it at the end step.”

But AP did that. Quote from OP:

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.

Why would Nick agree to being in 2nd main if he intended to be in the end step?

This seems uncomfortably close to “attempting to adjust the game to optimal play”, which is not one of our responsibilities as judges.

It seems way closer to a player that does not know about shortcuts agrees on what has been said.
“Did your opponent said move to my end step”
"Yes, and i said in response, which has no meaning really, but I guess that means we are still in main phase right? *sigh*


I guess that if you are using 3 other cards and add extra context that totally make sense.
Seriously when we are debating about policy, can people stop invoking very specific contexts that do not really serve the general purpose of the question?
If you prefer, let me phrase like this -
Would you ever play your sphinx revelation during your opponent's main phase while he does nothing? Does it make any sense and would anyone think of that play?
Really no.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Why would Nick agree to being in 2nd main if he intended to be in the end step?

Any number of human behavioural reasons:
- NAP is inexperienced enough at Magic that they believe that tricking people via wordplay is acceptable.
- NAP is a very old school player who hasn't played in years, so as far as they know the old school word tricks are still legal.
- AP is some kind of authority figure in NAPs eyes (older adult, perceived best player in the shop), or AP has a reputation for being an unpleasant person outside of games, so NAP doesn't want to risk creating an unpleasant situation at some future time.
- NAP is a non confrontational type of person. So rather than appear to create a fuss they'll quietly accept the situation, go home feeling like they didn't enjoy their experience today, and not come back.

It's that last category that would most concern me. But as you can see there are plenty of reasons for one person to agree when they don't actually agree.

But this is all tangential to the original question. We don't actually care why NAP would agree to being in a main phase instead of the end step.

You mentioned that AP was very clear - I guess this is true in a very literal sense given the words they chose to use. But let's not forget that Magic is a global game. The actual words you choose are less important than how accurately you express your intent so that both players are clear. For example, I'm not going to GRV anyone for casting casting Infinite Obliteration and saying “Target Nantuko Husk”. That's an illegal target, but it's abundantly clear what's happening and no risk of confusion. Also, if we're going to argue that language should be exact and clear, we should rewind the Revelation, as you can only respond to a spell or ability. You can't respond to a statement like that.

Also also, don't forget we already have this statement in the thread:

Scott Marshall

Rob McKenzie
We have a specific shortcut so that this kind of thing does not happen, and the question is “how do I say something that sounds like it is using that shortcut so my opponent thinks I am, but so that I am not actually using it”.

That's the best way ever to explain what's fundamentally wrong with these questions - thanks, Rob!!!

d:^D

We're just repeating earlier parts of the thread now which isn't really helping.

Lyle, even if we're talking about Competitive REL, the game is not played by some kind of analytical reasoning machines. I've seen a few threads in here where you support very sketchy “technically legal” lines of communication, disregarding the effects of social dynamic and language barriers.

Situations like the one in this thread usually come up between established, confident, sometimes scummy players and their less entrenched, nervous, sometimes naive opponents. Mark named a number of ways in which this difference can influence their interaction, and the last two basically come down to intimidation. I have also witnessed players overwhelming their opponents with a quick stream of select rules citations, to the same effect.

There should be an advantage by superior understanding of the game, but not by demoralising/intimidating your opponents, leveraging social status, or banking on their language deficiencies.

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

You mentioned that AP was very clear - I guess this is true in a very literal sense given the words they chose to use. But let's not forget that Magic is a global game. The actual words you choose are less important than how accurately you express your intent so that both players are clear. For example, I'm not going to GRV anyone for casting casting Infinite Obliteration and saying “Target Nantuko Husk”. That's an illegal target, but it's abundantly clear what's happening and no risk of confusion. Also, if we're going to argue that language should be exact and clear, we should rewind the Revelation, as you can only respond to a spell or ability. You can't respond to a statement like that.

Sure. However, I disagree that that argument is applicable here. You may disagree with me if you want (and it seems you do), but based on what I read in the OP (I didn't read the full thread of discussion, so if something else came up that I'm unaware of then perhaps I missed some details), I am comfortable saying that what AP said was easily understandable by a Magic player with a solid rules and policy understanding, and a player who understood the meanings of words should be easily able to respond to that statement clearly. Therefore, since Magic is a game which tests knowledge of the rules and policy, and this is a goal of organized play, I am comfortable saying this falls within that purview and hence I wouldn't say anything at all. In short, there exists a line between “I think the player said what they wanted to say and the other player made an honest mistake”, and “I think the player said something tricky to try to make their opponent do something that was incorrect”, and I believe that this falls on the former side of that line. It's close to the line, I admit, but I think it's solidly on the OK side. You are free to disagree with me if you like, though :D

As for your point about Magic being an international game and interlingual communication being important, that is true and that is an issue. However, as far as I'm aware, that is not part of the purview of this question; I am assuming that both players are native English (or whatever language they were communicating in) speakers and thus language barrier is not an issue. If language was an issue in this case, I would revise my answer.

Lyle, even if we're talking about Competitive REL, the game is not played by some kind of analytical reasoning machines. I've seen a few threads in here where you support very sketchy “technically legal” lines of communication, disregarding the effects of social dynamic and language barriers.

Situations like the one in this thread usually come up between established, confident, sometimes scummy players and their less entrenched, nervous, sometimes naive opponents. Mark named a number of ways in which this difference can influence their interaction, and the last two basically come down to intimidation. I have also witnessed players overwhelming their opponents with a quick stream of select rules citations, to the same effect.

There should be an advantage by superior understanding of the game, but not by demoralising/intimidating your opponents, leveraging social status, or banking on their language deficiencies.

And again, I'm pretty sure none of those things fall under the purview of this question. If I saw the player obviously intimidating their opponent or leveraging a language deficiency, then obviously I would step in and say something. However, “Move to my end step?” is not intimidation, and if both players are native English (or other language) speakers, then there is no language barrier to exploit. Were this the case, then certainly I would revise my answer, but assuming both players are English speakers and neither player is engaging in obviously aggressive behaviour, I would leave that aside and rule on the situation as presented to me.

Edited Lyle Waldman (Feb. 29, 2016 03:21:23 PM)

I believe Scott Marshall already provided an official answer here.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

There's nothing wrong with saying “move to end step” or “in my end step?” or similar. Just like there's nothing wrong with “before Attackers, I animate Mutavault” or similar.

What's wrong about the original scenario is the AP trying to trick the NAP into staying in their 2nd Main Phase, when they made it clear they're ready to move to their end step.

I'm going to risk being rather blunt here: this makes perfect sense, and really shouldn't require these repeated and drawn-out debates … unless you're trying to find clever phrasing to trick your opponent. As I said above - play Magic; Word Games is held on Wednesday afternoons at the senior center. :p

Can we please stop going around in circles with the same arguments, trying to make this OK, when it is not?

Originally posted by Carlos Ho:

I believe Scott Marshall already provided an official answer here.

Scott Marshall
There's nothing wrong with saying “move to end step” or “in my end step?” or similar. Just like there's nothing wrong with “before Attackers, I animate Mutavault” or similar.

What's wrong about the original scenario is the AP trying to trick the NAP into staying in their 2nd Main Phase, when they made it clear they're ready to move to their end step.

I'm going to risk being rather blunt here: this makes perfect sense, and really shouldn't require these repeated and drawn-out debates … unless you're trying to find clever phrasing to trick your opponent. As I said above - play Magic; Word Games is held on Wednesday afternoons at the senior center. :p

Can we please stop going around in circles with the same arguments, trying to make this OK, when it is not?

After reading the text of that post, and the context of the posts around it, I continue to be confused by this question, which others have asked, but as far as I'm concerned a satisfactory answer has yet to be given:

If there is nothing wrong with saying “move to my end step?”, how do we differentiate “move to my end step?” with the intention of actually moving to the end step versus “move to my end step?” with the intention of tricking the opponent into acting in 2nd main? Or do we only step in when NAP makes a play that is “clearly” (in quotes because, as an old professor of mine in University once said, the only time the word “clearly” is ever used is when you actually have no really good explanation for why, therefore you use “clearly” so people don't ask questions) intended to be made in the end step?

I'm also a bit concerned about being overzealous on this, from Page 1 of this thread, near the bottom:

Scott Marshall
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…

I kind of feel the same way…

Edited Lyle Waldman (Feb. 29, 2016 03:36:29 PM)

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

If there is nothing wrong with saying “move to my end step?”, how do we differentiate “move to my end step?” with the intention of actually moving to the end step versus “move to my end step?” with the intention of tricking the opponent into acting in 2nd main?

It's easy to differentiate. Ask the player why he or she wanted to go to the end step.

I do feel with Lyle here.

I do know that the scenario is answered, so i do know if that comes up how to handle it, but i do know 100% know why.

This feels for me that sometimes we go 100% strict after the rules but then we don't.

The player said “Move to my end Step”. Should be clear, he is moving to the End step. right?
So the opponent said “Respond, i do this.”. Should be clear aswell, he is saying “Can you please wait in the phase we are in now (second main.) because i want to do something.”. right?

I do get that noone ever gets to cast Sphynx Rev in the second main in that scenario, but then i remember a while ago the Pithing Needle accident with “Borborygmos Enraged”. Noone would ever name “Borborygmos” in that Scenario too but the rules clearly say that he did. (http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/the-mtg-ethicist-pithing-needle-and-concession-expectation/).

Yes i know naming a card is defined by a rule, but so is “Moving to my end Step.”.

Originally posted by Sandro Carlucci:

This feels for me that sometimes we go 100% strict after the rules but then we don't.

This is because there are times where players play functionally by the rules, rather than playing technically by the rules. This is where our policies come into effect, supporting the functional application of the rules that allow for things to be technically done out-of-order or skip over unnecessary steps, so as to accomplish what is largely the same outcome.

That is why, we as judges, need to make sure we are taking our technical knowledge of the rules (which is still necessary to ensure players play correctly) and apply that knowledge so that the players can simply play the game without getting caught up in the details. It's why we can explain shortcuts and their goal of avoiding “Gotchas!” when the intent of the player, or even the understanding the player, deviates from those technicalities. Or as I believe, phrases like “In response…” being adhered to incorrectly.

That is why judges need to exercise a bit of skepticism when encountering these kinds of technical situations involving word play. This is not where one person is attempting to use better knowledge of the rules, but rather use technical wording to their advantage. Which would otherwise get us away from the functional approach to play.

It is a muddy and grey area, but one where judges need to supportive of the functional approach rather than the overly technical one.

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

This is because there are times where players play functionally by the rules, rather than playing technically by the rules.

Yes, but why is it this time?

“I want to go to my End Step.” is technically very correct.
“i want to name Borborygmos”. also very correct.

Both scenarios played with more knowledge of the game, more experiance..
why do we allow the one and not the other?

Because we have a shortcut that says the game moves to the end step with the opponent having priority. If we allow the exact phrasing to be the critical factor it becomes a game of trying to analyse the meaning of the phrasing, we then open up middle ground for a player to use a slightly unclear phrase or two slightly similar phrases with a word difference, and have them mean what they want. By having an over riding rule that says “they all mean this” removes any possible word games and allows players to have an expectation of the exact meaning when things are being said.

Originally posted by Gareth Tanner:

Because we have a shortcut that says the game moves to the end step with the opponent having priority. If we allow the exact phrasing to be the critical factor it becomes a game of trying to analyse the meaning of the phrasing, we then open up middle ground for a player to use a slightly unclear phrase or two slightly similar phrases with a word difference, and have them mean what they want. By having an over riding rule that says “they all mean this” removes any possible word games and allows players to have an expectation of the exact meaning when things are being said.

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

Does “Moving to my End Step” count as shortcut for “GO”? or is it just what happens next?

I do like that we can say we want this to be magic and not some kind of wordgame-terror.

What i don't get my head around is that moving to a step of the game, cleary as in this scenario, is taken as a shortcut to pass the turn.

I do understand that there are scenarios where you can say he wanted to trick something or it was shady communicated… but “moving to my end step”. i mean its as clear as it gets…?

If my opponent names “Borborygmos” then he names “Borborygmos”.
If my opponent wants to go to the End Step, then he wants to go to the End Step.

What happens if i say “Move to my End Step” and my Opponents goes “Ok, draw.” ? and i wanted to do something in my End Step?

What your saying is that my Opponent is right and we are in his Draw phase? Even thou i just wanted to go to my End Step and do something?

While technically, yes, saying “move to my end step” is clear, the reason
behind asking the question this way is the sticking point. If you had
something to do in your end step…why didn't you just say that? It's your
turn, you have the prerogative to take an action in your end step if you
wish, and if your opponent has something they want to do before you get
there, they can simply say so as well.

I think you're going to find, as has been stated repeatedly here and
elsewhere, that the most common reason, by quite a bit, to say “move to my
end step” is not going to be so that you can take an action in your own end
step, but you wanted to give your opponent the courtesy of priority in your
main phase first. It's going to be to try to get your opponent to mess up
and act in the wrong phase by being overly technical. Again, if you
weren't trying to trick them, why did you use such a technical term when
you could have simply done whatever action you were aiming for?

Gareth really hammers home the point about shortcuts. If we allow specific
wording to circumvent the default shortcut, then there is no reason for the
default shortcut to even exist. Players would just use the specific
wording instead, which works directly to their advantage and has no
disadvantage. That's why it's important that we have the default
shortcuts, and that we follow them.

The premise is that we are protecting the NAP from the AP progressing the game to a state further than NAP wants to go.

If AP said “Combat” or even “Move to my Combat Phase”, we would rule that we are now in the Beginning of Combat step with NAP having priority. Much in the same way we are ruling that “Move to my End Step” means we are going to the End Step with NAP having priority. These are agreed upon and even codified shortcuts in the game. Now, if either player wants to do something else than the agreed upon shortcut, they need to be clear in doing so. I feel that especially the AP needs to clearly communicate if they want to move to a specific phase or step AND keep priority in it. Using phrases like “Before combat, I'd like to…” or “In the End Step, I will cast…” clearly indicates that they are going to a certain step and are keeping priority there. So for me, “Move to my End Step” is treated in the same way as “Go to Combat”.