It's nice that so many people feel they have a sentence they like that accomplishes what we want but the fact is that the article disagrees with those. It gives no ground to stand on to those “sentences that feel nice”. Anything that hints at leaving Main 1, no matter if it includes the word priority or not comes under the umbrella of “most thorough description”. With an absolute statement like that there is simply no way out while keeping the article as it is. Either update the article to reflect those statements that have been given here or stand by it without trying to assure us that something can be said that steps around that generalisation. If this article is the official stance then proposed wordings on this discussion have no meaning anyway or if this discussion should be included then you're moving rules definitions even further from the actual rules documents.

I hope I don't sound too harsh or insulting, that's not my aim at least, but it's easy for those that feel that they have the “spirit of the article” to confidently say “of course it doesn't mean this situation” but for those who want to be sure that they have the provided meaning correctly without being in daily contact and intimate discussions with those high level Judges that update and interpret to the rest of us what the rules are. We only have the rules and the articles (when we can find them after months have passed) to help us understand the rules and this article states quite clearly that anything AP says when they want to end their Main 1 leads directly to declare attackers or provides an example where AP tells beforehand what they want to do in Beginning of Combat, while MTR on the other hand hints at no such thing.

Edited Lasse Kulmala (May 30, 2016 06:53:04 AM)

I agree with Lasse. While I understand what is meant, it's undeniable that the article directly contradicts some of the statements made here.

This shortcut is true for any statement that would imply that you want to leave your first Main Phase, no matter how carefully it has been worded. Even the most thorough statement like: “I pass priority to you in Main Phase 1” or “I want to enter in the beginning of combat step” falls under that shortcut.

Originally posted by David de la Iglesia:

And if they want to go there without explicitly stating what they're doing
they should be specific that they're interrupting the shortcut:

“I move to Beginning of Combat retaining priority”

…any statement that would imply…

What we've suggested is not an implication, it's a clear statement, and it will result in either the opponent interrupting your proposed shortcut, or you'll have priority to do what you want in your Beginning of Combat.

If you wish to imply something, you're back to the problematic question of “how can I phrase it to trick my opponent into misunderstanding things, to my benefit” - and the answer should usually be “you can't”. (I have to say usually, because the Communication Policy allows some misdirection re: Derived and Private information.

d:^D

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

Keep in mind that 99% of situations will resolve themselves easily. The 1% of situations where AP and NAP will disagree is going to be a communication issue, some of which may be a result of AP being a bit too clever. As judges, we just need to be aware of those situations where AP is being a bit too clever, and nip it in the bud. Otherwise, we help the players to clearly understand where they are at in the turn.

What most players I've talked to are worried about is this article pretty much says that they will not be able to animate their manlands if they enter combat step. I understand that there needs to be a blanket case in order to prevent AP from being clever wtih his words, but those situations a judge would most likely be called and we can come in and explain to them that it cannot be done the way AP wants it to go.

However, the article doesn't only cover that, it also states that because of this shortcut, if you leave your main phase, you lose the ability to animate your manlands, no matter how carefully you phrase it. It even noted that this was an unfortunate side effect of the shortcut including every phrase.

EDIT:

Scott Marshall
What we've suggested is not an implication, it's a clear statement, and it will result in either the opponent interrupting your proposed shortcut, or you'll have priority to do what you want in your Beginning of Combat.

If you wish to imply something, you're back to the problematic question of “how can I phrase it to trick my opponent into misunderstanding things, to my benefit” - and the answer should usually be “you can't”. (I have to say usually, because the Communication Policy allows some misdirection re: Derived and Private information.

So in other words, the statement “Enter beginning of combat, hold priority” will only move you top beginning of combat with priority? If so then I have no problem with this anymore.

Edited Michael He (May 30, 2016 10:32:35 AM)

Originally posted by Isaac King:

I agree with Lasse. While I understand what is meant, it's undeniable that the article directly contradicts some of the statements made here.

This shortcut is true for any statement that would imply that you want to leave your first Main Phase, no matter how carefully it has been worded. Even the most thorough statement like: “I pass priority to you in Main Phase 1” or “I want to enter in the beginning of combat step” falls under that shortcut.

David de la Iglesia
And if they want to go there without explicitly stating what they're doing
they should be specific that they're interrupting the shortcut:

“I move to Beginning of Combat retaining priority”

Could I ask that whatever I said to contradict the article be identified? I was specifically calling out where Michael He said that AP's shortcut somehow skipped the beginning of combat step. (EDIT: I would happily acknowledge that the phrasing could have been unintended language on his part.) The shortcut, or variations on the shortcut, don't skip the beginning of combat step. The shortcuts moves us into the beginning of combat step with NAP having priority. Or at least that NAP would be presumed to be acting in the beginning of combat step.

That is the crux of the issue.

This is why I believe there is confusion and points being conflated, but I think it gets more at the difference between AP's actions and NAP's actions. Most particularly, the point in time when NAP is acting. The application of the shortcut isn't about what AP can or can't do, it's about when NAP can act. Nothing AP can do can change the point in the turn when NAP can act.

Only NAP can change the point in turn as to when they can act, and only via an explicit statement to that end. No matter how carefully AP says things, NAP is generally going to be presumed to be acting in the beginning of combat step, unless NAP says otherwise.

That is completely inline with the MTR. Kevin's article falls well within policy.

However, this does not mean that AP can't do other things as part of the shortcut, or propose variations on the shortcut. It just means that, absent NAP saying otherwise, the use of the alternative shortcut still causes us to end up in the beginning of combat step, where NAP would otherwise be acting. Yes, it might mean that we make sure AP took an action in that step as well (such as animating Mutavault prior to declaring attackers), but that doesn't change where we end up.

I believe Scott's comments are inline there as well, as are David's and mine.

If people are taking Kevin's article to mean that AP can't propose any variation on the shortcut at all… Well, I think that's taking a very broad interpretation of what is written. I understand that the phrasing is less than ideal, and I can see some spots where the wording is unclear, but I don't think he goes that far.

It is one thing to say that AP can't propose any variation on the shortcut and have it end up that NAP is acting in the main phase… That is not allowed. But AP can certainly propose variations on the shortcut and have it end up in the beginning of combat phase. Again, where NAP would naturally be acting in most circumstances.

The section is entirely about AP not being able to control when in the turn NAP acts. No more, no less.

Edited Brian Schenck (May 30, 2016 10:38:30 AM)

Well, the way I (and several other judges) understood the article, it said that any variation of the shortcut would still fall under the shortcut (since it said no matter how carefully worded, and even included example statements and an example with manlands animation that reinforced that impression). That was the part that I was confused about since it implied that there's no way for AP to enter his own beginning of combat step with priority, even if he explicitly stated that.

There was a lot of confusion and opinions among the judges I talked to about this topic, which is why I made this post, so we could try to clarify things a little more and have a discussion.

Edited Michael He (May 30, 2016 10:43:42 AM)

I understand that there is confusion on this topic, but honestly I think Kevin's article is correct. This shortcut covers every kind of combat related sentences, except… let's see what MTR 4.2 says:

MTR 4.2
Certain conventional tournament shortcuts used in Magic are detailed below. If a player wishes to deviate from these, he or she should be explicit about doing so.

If you deviate from the shortcut by interrupting it, then you end up wherever you need to be at. The caveat here is to be explicit about deviating from the shortcut.

There are two meanings to the word imply. One is suggest without explicitly saying and the other is something that follows logically from the statement.

“I move to my priority in beginning of combat” definitely implies that you are moving away from Main 1 because you have to if you want to move to beginning of combat, so if the whole crux of this debate lies in the word ‘imply’ then I stand by my statement that the article is not clear and should be edited or explained in a follow up. Again I remind people that this forum is not where people will look for guidance in this matter (well, I don't think the article will be that either in the future so MTR should definitely be updated to clearly indicate what the article stated as the meaning of that shortcut) and this matter has obviously been a confusing one for people, myself included.

Originally posted by Michael He:

Well, the way I (and several other judges) understood the article, it said that any variation of the shortcut would still fall under the shortcut (since it said no matter how carefully worded, and even included example statements and an example with manlands animation that reinforced that impression). That was the part that I was confused about since it implied that there's no way for AP to enter his own beginning of combat step with priority, even if he explicitly stated that.

There was a lot of confusion and opinions among the judges I talked to about this topic, which is why I made this post, so we could try to clarify things a little more and have a discussion.

Ahh, that makes sense. I think I misunderstood your “trigger the shortcut and skip your beginning of combat step”, as you were meaning “trigger the shortcut and skip your own opportunity to act in the beginning of combat step.”

Totally understandable, and I could see how you might come to that conclusion. In that respect, yes, I think that Kevin's phrasing could have been a bit better about that.

To be fair, communication is a difficult issue, and there are lots of linguistic grey areas. Or perhaps gray areas? But, the point I think we all need to be on the same page about (MTR, articles, and forum posts notwithstanding) is the underlying principle to the shortcut and the use of the shortcut. Not just with potential deviations, but just how that works. It's not about the clever word game, with creating misunderstanding to that NAP doesn't understand when they are acting.

That's where we need to get away from the “parsing the phrase”-type things, so that it is functionally understood how the shortcut being proposed is actually different from the normal shortcut. Not just hinging on technical differences.

It is worth noting the pointlessness of the phrase “move to combat and hold priority” in a vacuum. Why do you want to do this? You already control the turn, so you're just throwing in priority passes that can only engender confusion. This should be discouraged.

It is extremely unlikely that your opponent is going to want to do something that isn't in response to an action you take. The only one I can think of in the past numerous years is Goblin Rabblemaster, and that card was a bit of a mess. Even that wasn't too bad, since “go to combat” would end up providing you with priority after the trigger resolved.

So, let's move out of the vacuum, and hypothesize that there's an actual reason you need to be in Beginning of Combat with priority - floating mana being the most common reason. All you need to do is explain why! “You want to do something with that mana, or can we move to beginning of combat?” explains why you need to start with priority, then change the game in a meaningful fashion before getting to a point where you have priority again. If you can't explain why you need priority to change like that (or the explanation is “I'm hoping to get NAP to jump the gun”), we aren't interested in enabling you.

Here's where I'm getting confused by the counter arguments to the article:

What strategic benefit is being lost by saying “I would like to activate my creature land in my beginning of combat step”? You're still taking your action as late as possible, and your opponent has the option to take actions before or after you do that. What are you losing by stating your action that way, other than the possibility that you can trap your opponent into acting during your main phase?

Sent from my iPad

Originally posted by Toby Elliott:

It is worth noting the pointlessness of the phrase “move to combat and hold priority” in a vacuum. Why do you want to do this? You already control the turn, so you're just throwing in priority passes that can only engender confusion. This should be discouraged.

It is extremely unlikely that your opponent is going to want to do something that isn't in response to an action you take. The only one I can think of in the past numerous years is Goblin Rabblemaster, and that card was a bit of a mess. Even that wasn't too bad, since “go to combat” would end up providing you with priority after the trigger resolved.

So, let's move out of the vacuum, and hypothesize that there's an actual reason you need to be in Beginning of Combat with priority - floating mana being the most common reason. All you need to do is explain why! “You want to do something with that mana, or can we move to beginning of combat?” explains why you need to start with priority, then change the game in a meaningful fashion before getting to a point where you have priority again. If you can't explain why you need priority to change like that (or the explanation is “I'm hoping to get NAP to jump the gun”), we aren't interested in enabling you.

One of the most annoying things about this discussion has been that generally those that think that the article is very clear and explains all constantly refer to AP trying to trick NAP out of an action but at no point have I seen anything from those that find the article confusing that even remotely points to that direction. The whole “AP tries to trick NAP” is a useless argument to bring to this conversation since that has never been in contention. Of course we don't want AP to try and trick NAP so why constantly bring it up since no one is suggesting anything like that.

Originally posted by Justin Miyashiro:

What strategic benefit is being lost by saying “I would like to activate my creature land in my beginning of combat step”? You're still taking your action as late as possible, and your opponent has the option to take actions before or after you do that. What are you losing by stating your action that way, other than the possibility that you can trap your opponent into acting during your main phase?

Easy example.
NAP has a floating blue mana and has Unsummon in hand as well as a creature on battlefield. AP has Turn Against in hand and mana to cast it.

Originally posted by Lasse Kulmala:

One of the most annoying things about this discussion has been that generally those that think that the article is very clear and explains all constantly refer to AP trying to trick NAP out of an action but at no point have I seen anything from those that find the article confusing that even remotely points to that direction.

I agree, but that's because *the shortcut works.* It clearly disallows trying to use those kind of tricks. Pointing out that no one is using those tricks is like believing your antivirus software is useless because you've never seen your computer get a virus.

Originally posted by Lasse Kulmala:

Easy example.
NAP has a floating blue mana and has Unsummon in hand as well as a creature on battlefield. AP has Turn Against in hand and mana to cast it.

Toby provided a clean solution here. The shortcut disallows anything that could be used to trick an opponent into casting a spell during the wrong phase (even if that's not the intent, and even if there's a good reason to play the way you're playing.) So you so you make it obvious–not “technically precise” obvious, but “explain it like I'm five” obvious–that you're still in main phase. As Toby said, “are you doing anything with your floating mana?” covers your bases nicely.

Originally posted by Lasse Kulmala:

One of the most annoying things about this discussion has been that generally those that think that the article is very clear and explains all constantly refer to AP trying to trick NAP out of an action but at no point have I seen anything from those that find the article confusing that even remotely points to that direction. The whole “AP tries to trick NAP” is a useless argument to bring to this conversation since that has never been in contention. Of course we don't want AP to try and trick NAP so why constantly bring it up since no one is suggesting anything like that.

I was answering the question “what do I need to say to move to having priority in BoC when I have a legitimate reason to do so?” Understanding that is easier if you have the wider context. I don't think that implied it was in contention.