Why is it still a shortcut if the word “combat” is not mentioned?

Then please correct the Game Rules and MTR accordingly, that the “Beginning of Combat step” no longer exist or at least can not be accessed by AP.

Edited Denis Leber (Feb. 9, 2017 09:23:03 PM)

Just several months ago there's been an iteration of this ‘combat shortcuts’ discussion with the relation to the crewing in the beginning of combat step. The policy stance on the question is as valid here as it was valid back then: a player needs to be explicit if he or she wishes to deviate from the established shortcuts listed in MTR.

With that regard, I believe, the phrase Toby suggested in the opening post is totally legitimate. It doesn't interfere with the established shortcut, it proposes a new one. Assuming the that players know how triggers work and are aware of the BoC step, there is no ambiguity about where we end up if the opponent accepts it.

Originally posted by Denis Leber:

Why is it still a shortcut if the word “combat” is not mentioned?

Because of the philosophy behind the purpose of the shortcut. “Pass priority” sounds very much like going to combat (because after all, what else could it mean? If AP wanted to actually make a play then they would say so). Wordplay and trickery don't get AP around the shortcut. If they have actions at the Beginning of Combat then they should take them and stop messing around.

Isnt that more Magic the Wordening than anything else?!

Ok, now we are at the point where the sentence “pass priority” is considered Trickery. This poisoness tree of “shortcut to combat” bears unhealthy fruits.

Then please correct the shortcut rules in MTR: If a player passes priority in his first Main Phase this is considered to have passed priority until the declare attacker step. For the active Player the Turn Structure does not include Rule 507 “Beginning of Combat Step”. An Exception is only if triggered abilities happen at the Beginning of Combat step. These “divine intervention triggers” grant the active player to have a step mentioned in 507 Comprehensive Rules.“

Also Add: Player do not only have to know the contents of the Comprehensive Rules, the MTR but also any official ruling issued on Judge Apps. The order to apply these Rulings are: Official Rulings and Documents on Judge Apps, MTR and last Comprehensive Rules.

Then cut the section in the MTR where it says:
A player should have an advantage due to better understanding of the options provided by the rules of the game, greater awareness of the interactions in the current game state, and superior tactical planning. Players are under no obligation to assist their opponents in playing the game.

While at it, also cut:
A player may interrupt a tournament shortcut by explaining how he or she is deviating from it or at which point in the middle he or she wishes to take an action. A player may interrupt his or her own shortcut in this manner. A player is not allowed to use a previously undeclared tournament shortcut, or to modify an in-
use tournament shortcut without announcing the modification, in order to create ambiguity in the game.

NOW the whole ”combat shortcut“ thing is getting closer to the ”rules of the game".

Let's not rehash the whole brou-ha-ha about the shortcut, and how to get around it; been there, done that.

Back to the original post: the proposed wording should work, but it will also confuse some number of opponents and perhaps even some judges who will then disagree about what you said, meant, or did … and you'll miss your trigger. :p

I'm having a hard time imagining this actually mattering. Most of the time, you only have one viable target, and the opponent knows it. You say “combat, target FOO”, and she says “before combat, kill Weldfast” … just like we did back in the Rabblemaster days.

In the rare occasions where you think your opponent has Shock (i.e., can't kill Weldfast), you have Weldfast and 2+ x/2 artifacts that could attack, then the unusual situation justifies unusual wording.

d:^D

I think the reason this primarily matters is that I want to give my opponent the opportunity to miss my Weldfast trigger without me saying that I want to activate it. If I point to a card and say “trigger”, they then have the opportunity say, before that triggers I kill it. What people are looking for here is a way to say “do you have any main phase actions before I move to the beginning of combat step?” without having to say something that complex.

Currently there's no clear allowance for that besides saying something like the above, which is awkward at best.

I agree with Marc De Armond. Instead of making communication easier the current shortcut-rule “combat” or “pass priority in Main phase one” complicates things and limits design space. I have not yet met a player who did not understand the beginning of combat step, yet I met many who do not get the “shortcut” rules. The risk of someone taking of the “shortcut”-rule especially against non-native-english speakers is severely higher than having the AP clearly announce in what step he wants to move or be and if that is OK with NAP.

Originally posted by Marc DeArmond:

Currently there's no clear allowance for that besides saying something like the above, which is awkward at best.

Yes, existing policy means there's not really any easy way to move into beginning of combat without either missing targeted BoC triggers or reminding your opponent of their existence, and someone attempting it will find it awkward or even impossible.

But this is hardly the only case where the realities of physical gameplay and the player communication it requires make it difficult or impossible for paper games to perfectly match the Platonic ideal imagined by the rules or MTGO, as anyone who's tried to put two cards on the bottom of their library “in a random order” or played with Sylvan Library knows.

Sometimes, if you want to know whether your opponent's triggers have resolved, you're going to have to acknowledge their existence and risk reminding your opponent–that's just a reality of physical play. It seems only fitting that sometimes you're going to have to do the same for your own triggers.

I can say ‘trigger Weldfast’ but I shouldn't have to specify a target until the ability goes on the stack, right? Can this ‘combat shortcut’ allow for that? The more scenarios I see being built around this beginning of combat step and triggers, the more I feel like the current rules aren't the perfect answer.

It's also not in line with what's possible on MTGO. People have to learn two rulesets to stay in touch with competitive magic? Different time limits, different combat shortcuts? It's not great…

double posted somehow

Edited Kenneth Pletinckx (Feb. 10, 2017 10:52:51 PM)

Personally I'd vote for keeping MTGO out of the discussion, as MTGO is not Magic and comparing digital and analogue gameplay really won't yield much except the realisation that they don't share design space :).

MTGO is not the same as paper Magic. It's very similar, but there are some
differences. There are different realities to playing an online game with
automatically enforced rules and an in person game where more mistakes are
possible. Just because something is possible on MTGO or in the platonic
ideal of the comprehensive rules doesn't mean it's feasible to have it
happen flawlessly in person. The Magic Tournament Rules exist to bridge
this divide between what the rules say and how players actually play Magic.

Should players be able to move to the beginning of combat step without
disclosing their plans? Yes, because the CR says they should. However,
years of actual tournaments showed that allowing such freedom led to a lot
of situations in which players abused the priority system to force their
opponents to act either too early or too late to do what they wanted to do,
and so some tournament shortcuts were created to enforce how the active
player can move through their turn and how the non-active player can obtain
priority.

Sure, there were far fewer beginning of combat triggers back then than
there are now, but the intent of these shortcuts remains the same: to
protect the non-active player and to require more specificity from players
that wish to act outside of these shortcuts.

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017, 13:26 Kenneth Pletinckx <

The real big problem in my eye in this shortcut is the “bad feeling”.

Why do i have to say what im gonna do in a competitive strategy game?
Makes no sense..
(I get that in most cases it does not matter if i crew in main or beginning of combat, but the bad feeling is still there..)

Some rules are here to protect the integrity of the game, some are here to protect the fun (How the hell can you allow players to play with masterpieces? Its the bad feeling that comes with it if you open it and not able to play it.. but for the game's sake, its bad.)

So how is this Shortcut designed? to protect NAP? in my eyes, wrong approach.

I get that if this shortcut is reversed we would have the old “Ball Lightning” cheat back, but be honest, how many times comes this up and players come to you and ask “now, he played cryptic, can i play a haster?” and how many times did someone ask “can i crew now?”.. i guess its the ladder that comes up far more ofter these days..

So, remove the shortcut or put the shortcut into BoC.. not perfect, but better then all the standard players (even pro players..) dont get frustrated.
(if you come with ball lightning, well then now we have NAP ask where we are instead AP saying whats he gonna do. Not perfect, but better in my opinion.)

Originally posted by Sandro Carlucci:

I get that if this shortcut is reversed we would have the old “Ball Lightning” cheat back, but be honest, how many times comes this up….

With equipment existing these days? Far more often than you think. And definitely far more often than the once in a blue moon case where someone misses an opportunity to crew.

Originally posted by Sandro Carlucci:

Why do i have to say what im gonna do in a competitive strategy game

You can't play Magic without actually doing things. By definition.