Myers controls an Angelic Skirmisher. It's Briggs turn and she says “I would like to go to the attack step” and Myers says “Sure”. Where are we now in the turn? Briggs meant to go to the Declare Attackers Step, but Myers thought they were just going from the Main Phase to the “Attack Phase”, so in her mind they're in the Beginning of Combat Step with an Angel trigger on the stack.

Edited Toby Hazes (April 4, 2013 10:19:10 AM)

Well, why was the judge called?
I ask because I imagine that the judge was called because as Briggs reaches for his creatures and Myers reminds Briggs that he has to choose something. In my opinion this is showing a clear awareness of the trigger, but players misunderstanding where they are at in the turn. Therefore I would not rule this a forgotten trigger.

By offering “I would like to go to the attack step”, Briggs has offered to pass priority until Myers has priority in the Beginning of Combat Step (per MTR 4.2). It could be reasoned, then, that Myers saying “Sure” without anything further (if the Angel trigger had been on the stack, it would be resolving now) constitutes explicitly moving to the Declare Attackers Step, and thus her Angel's trigger is missed (since it requires a choice upon resolution).

That said, if it seems that there was genuinely confusion over where in the turn they were (for example, if Briggs began declaring attackers and Myers immediately interrupted to point out the Angel's trigger), I'm likely to rule that the trigger is not missed and remind both players to be more careful with their communication.

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

Myers controls an Angelic Skirmisher. It's Briggs turn and she says “I would like to go to the attack step” and Myers says “Sure”. Where are we now in the turn? Briggs meant to go to the Declare Attackers Step, but Myers thought they were just going from the Main Phase to the “Attack Phase”, so in her mind they're in the Beginning of Combat Step with an Angel trigger on the stack.

Your explanation is a bit vague, could you elaborate a little more? I'm going to assume that the situation is as follows:

It is Briggs' precombat main phase. She asks to go to the Declare Attackers step. In this, she is asking to create a shortcut to pass priority until Myers has it at the Beginning of Combat step. Myers accepts this shortcut.

So here is where we stand: the trigger from Skirmisher is not missed until Briggs declares attackers. Do note, however, that she can't declare attackers before Myers has the opportunity to note awareness of the trigger. Likewise, Myers can't intentionally ‘ignore’ the trigger to gain an advantage by seeing what Briggs will be attacking with.

This is where I agree with Jonas - why was the judge called? (Or, in another situation, why are the players arguing?) Did Briggs start to declare attackers and Jonas said “Wait, I need to resolve my trigger”? Or was it something along the lines of Briggs waiting for Jonas to have ample time to utilize the trigger, then continue on?

Briggs does not explicitly mention the Declare Attackers step. While in her Main Phase, she only says she wants to go to the “Attack Step”.

Jonas' assumption has the scenario nailed down. After saying Myers said “Sure”, Briggs reaches for her creatures to attack, and Myers says that she still has a trigger to resolve.

Basically the question is, or at least the question I have is, what meaning can we give to “Attack Step”? Does it mean “Declare Attackers Step” or is it too ambiguous for that?

Edited Toby Hazes (April 4, 2013 11:04:42 AM)

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

Briggs does not explicitly mention the Declare Attackers step. While in her Main Phase, she only says she wants to go to the “Attack Step”.

Jonas' assumption has the scenario nailed down. After saying Myers said “Sure”, Briggs reaches for her creatures to attack, and Myers says that she still has a trigger to resolve.

Basically the question is, or at least the question I have is, what meaning can we give to “Attack Step”?

I would say explicitly the Declare Attackers step. If there was any confusion, then that should have been resolved before agreeing to such a shortcut. And with Jonas's assumption, the trigger is not missed, as the player noted it before it would be missed.

Edited Peter Richmond (April 4, 2013 11:05:18 AM)

If the AP says something other than “Do you have anything before I attack?”, then the NAP has a chance to resolve the trigger before attackers are declared. The AP is not allow to use subtle language or try to trick the opponent into agreeing to miss the trigger. If the NAP says “wait, we haven't resolved the Angel trigger” then it hasn't been missed.

Originally posted by Peter Richmond:

I would say explicitly the Declare Attackers step.

Sorry what do you mean with this exactly?

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

Peter Richmond
I would say explicitly the Declare Attackers step.

Sorry what do you mean with this exactly?

By this, I mean that going to the “Attackers step” means the Declare Attackers step only.

Well what was said was not even “Attackers Step” but “Attack Step”, but anyways, if it means “Declare Attackers Step” wouldn't that mean the trigger was missed?

If Briggs explicitly asks “I want to go to the Declare Attackers Step” and Myers says “Sure” doesn't that mean that both players agree they're now in the Declare Attackers Step and the trigger is missed?

Edited Toby Hazes (April 4, 2013 11:21:35 AM)

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

Well what was said was not even “Attackers Step” but “Attack Step”, but anyways, if it means “Declare Attackers Step” wouldn't that mean the trigger was missed?

I doubt players think that way, and typical evidence suggests that most don't know the difference between “step” and “phase”. So, I would lean more on the standard shortcut from MTR 4.2 in this case…

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.

…and the exact words used shouldn't matter. The general shortcut is to moving to the beginning of combat step. At this point, Myers would have priority. Saying “Sure” shouldn't constitute more than acceptance of that shortcut.

From a general communication expectation, I would be very careful with just how closely a judge parses the language the players use. A lot of times it is technically (even functionally) incorrect. How many times has anyone heard a player describe “activating a triggered ability”? Or even “the stack resolves”? Getting into that close wording is likely to get a judge to miss the general back and forth that is going on, presuming the players are even talking that much.

If Briggs goes to declare attackers, providing Myers immediately points out that he needs to resolve Skirmisher's trigger, I don't see how the trigger was missed. Myers may not even be aware that the game is moving to the next point in time where he needs to actually act to point out the trigger.

I try to discourage people from saying “attack step” for this reason.

The player most likely didnt forget the trigger. He just didnt know exactly the technicalities behind it.

What Brian says, esp. this:

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

I would be very careful with just how closely a judge parses the language the players use

Policy is not intended to be used by players as a strategy; it's intended to be used by judges to unravel the tangled webs woven by players - who, no matter what we do, simply will not play with the sort of technical precision that exactly matches the rules and policies.
And, given that context, it should be clear that we can't reward a player who is trying to obfuscate reality to take advantage of a literal reading of policy.
I'll also note - the opponent can “disarm” this trap with a simple “what do you mean?” :)