I do get that we could say that he wanted to trick his opp, i just see that you all talk about clear communication and whatnot and for me “Move to my end step” is as clear as it gets.

“Bolt you for 3”
“Naming Borborygmos”

All very clear instructions on whats going to happen.
What is going to happen is that i want to move to my end step. Thats it.


We could say we are protecting NAP here and say we are in the End Step, but is it AP's fault that his opponent doesn't know steps?

“Move to my End Step” isn't clear due to the existence of the shortcut (well it is but not perhaps in the way the player saying it thinks)
“Naming Borborygmos” - is clear, it's the exact name of a card. Maybe not the best thing to name but we don't judge that.

I think trying to expand this further though is starting to confuse matters. The end of the day, any implication of moving to the End Step, like moving to Combat, will make the shortcut happen it happens like this so that as said before we aren't instructing/judging how close to the line a player are but telling them just stay away from it.

Originally posted by Sandro Carlucci:

is it AP's fault that his opponent doesn't know steps?

This might be why many judges are having a hard time with this scenario. You can't assume the opponent doesn't know the turn structure. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure most of the time, the opponent will have a very good idea of the turn structure, and be very clear about the fact that he or she was going to act in the end step, not in the main phase. However, by using technical jargon, the other player has tried to trick the opponent into acting at another time. This isn't right. It's pretty much the same as the situation where a player asked to get priority only to say that he or she didn't really want to do anything with it, but since priority was passed, now attackers can't be declared. Yes, what was said was clear, but it was only done with the intention of trying to gain an advantage out of wordplay. That's why that's disallowed in the rules, and that's also why we have the end of turn shortcut.

Originally posted by Sandro Carlucci:

We could say we are protecting NAP here and say we are in the End Step, but is it AP's fault that his opponent doesn't know steps?

There is no evidence present that suggests that NAP doesn't know the steps to the turn. What may be unclear is NAP's understanding of AP's choice of words, which goes to communication rather than knowledge.

Even if NAP doesn't know the exact names of the steps and phases, that gets into more technical knowledge of the game that truthfully isn't required to play the game. Not to a general common understanding for the majority of players.

Originally posted by Carlos Ho:

This might be why many judges are having a hard time with this scenario. You can't assume the opponent doesn't know the turn structure.

If he knew he would know we are going to the end step.
where else would we go?
If my opponent assumes that we are doing something other then moving to my end step how can it be my fault?
I know that in almost every scenario you would move to the next turn, but then when you are playing modern you would NEVER EVER name “Borborygmos”. so assuming something will happen just because it happens alot is not quiet right?

I do understand that in this scenario he may have tricket the opp into something he wouldn't do in the first place, but then in other scenarios the same thing happens all the time..

http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/25009/
Tricking opponent into saccing his permanents

http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/24500/
Tricking opponent in havins a 2/2

In every scenario you could have said what was really going to happen in the first place and then no problems arise but you wouldn't have used your knowledge to win you the game, would you?

If someone has a higher knowledge of things to come then he will more likely be the one who wins.
But in this scenario you denie him his knowledge.

I have a hard time comprehending why when i say “Moving to one step further” will be interpreted as a shortcut. If im going from second main to “your turn” then we could say, hey wait a minute… i wanted to do this and this in your end of turn.
But if i tell my opponent that i simply want to move ONE step further, why is that a shortcut?

There is no evidence present that suggests that NAP doesn't know the steps to the turn. What may be unclear is NAP's understanding of AP's choice of words, which goes to communication rather than knowledge.

“Moving to End Step”. How can that be unclear?
Isn't it evidence that if he doesn't know what that means he doesn't know steps?
If he knew about steps he would know what “Moving to End Step” mean?


And i may be overthinking things, but i think i need to know those kind of things to be a better judge, so just telling me (or anyone who would know those things too..) to not discuss it further will not make me learn things, and isn't this all about learning?

Edited Flu Tschi (Feb. 29, 2016 09:45:50 AM)

Originally posted by Sandro Carlucci:

If he knew he would know we are going to the end step.
where else would we go?

Because we're humans and communication is tricky. Because you don't assume that your opponent is just trying to trick you, so you react normally, like many players do, and cast your spell. Because maybe you didn't even understand exactly what the opponent said, but it was clear to you that he was done with his turn (there are so many ways to do this).
We are humans, we aren't computers just processing inputs and outputs. You can't expect humans to behave like a machine.

This doesn't have anything to do with superior understanding of the rules. It's just trying to use word trickery, which is a no-go. We don't reward that, and it's been said many times in this thread already, making it go around in circles. Please stop trying to justify it.

Originally posted by Carlos Ho:

Because we're humans and communication is tricky. Because you don't assume that your opponent is just trying to trick you, so you react normally, like many players do, and cast your spell. Because maybe you didn't even understand exactly what the opponent said, but it was clear to you that he was done with his turn (there are so many ways to do this).
We are humans, we aren't computers just processing inputs and outputs. You can't expect humans to behave like a machine.

I could say this sentense to every scenario out there.
Kind of weak argument there..

and btw we are talking about this scenario, NAP clearly understood everything. Maybe not to his liking, but even he agreed that they would be in the end step..

If NAP assume somethings gonna happen even if it doesn't is not AP's Problem, is it?

I cast thoughtseize, NAP shows me his hand, i then target myself. Dickmove, but not my problem.
He assumed i targeting him, like 99% of the time, but not this time. Not my problem.

This doesn't have anything to do with superior understanding of the rules. It's just trying to use word trickery, which is a no-go. We don't reward that, and it's been said many times in this thread already, making it go around in circles. Please stop trying to justify it.

Im not trying to justify anything, im just trying to understand where we draw the line between the power of knowledge and trickery.

Sandro, it is because we have a specific, structured shortcut put in place
to protect NAP in this kind of situation, because this is a very frequent
situation where either deliberately bad or accidentally bad communication
happens. I've ruled that a “pass to you” hand gesture is enough to say AP
is passing the turn and NAP is acting in the end step. Why would I then
say “oh, you tucked a couple words next to end step and now your opponent
is not acting in the step they wanted to act”?

As I said above, if you are asking the question “how can I sound like I am
using a shortcut, but use words in such a way where I am not” then you are
asking a very bad question.

Brian talks about the “Can I get priority on your main phase? I have
priority? Ok, I pass priority, you are in combat now.” situation. This is
very much the same. You are technically following the letter of the rules,
but we have put in some communication policy to prevent players from taking
advantage of the fact that the game thrives on communication that is “good
enough”.

The difference between knowledge and trickery is that knowledge involves
superior strategy. Trickery involves getting your opponent to make a
decision either they did not want to make or did not realize they were
making be specifically presenting false information.


And none of this has touched on players that don't share a common language,
either, note. You are making a really broad assumption, that both players
have a full comprehension of the question A is asking. This is not always
the case, and oftentimes N will know enough Magic-as-a-language to hear
“%%%go to end%%%” and will be able to figure out that A wants to end their
turn, and so says “response”, which they know means “I want to act”. Does
your opinion change when one of the players speaks just enough English to
know the memorized phrase “Please get Riki Hiyashi?” If so, you may have
some issues with consistent rulings on situations like this across multiple
events, or multiple calls in the same event, and that's very frustrating to
players.


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

I think this topic has gotten to a point where we're just beating a dead horse, so I'm going to close it, pending an fficial answer.

Originally posted by Carlos Ho:

I think this topic has gotten to a point where we're just beating a dead horse, so I'm going to close it, pending an 'O'fficial answer.

Thank you, Carlos - I was wearing this burgundy shirt at GP Houston, and serving jury duty this morning, or I'd have closed this long ago.

Note that we are not waiting for yet another ‘O’fficial answer - the ones already presented should be sufficient.

d:^D