My apologies if you're sick of discussing the combat shortcut, but I would like to present a case that a small revision to the MTR could make the workings of the combat shortcut far more clear and accessible to players. Basically I think that if we are still comfortable with the current philosophy as discussed in Kevin's 2016 article, more examples of shortcut invocation needed to be added. I will go into more detail below, starting with my understanding of the current philosophy and finishing with my reasoning for a MTR revision.

So currently the accepted interpretation of the combat shortcut in the MTR is that any statement implying a pass of priority in the first main phase falls under the shortcut. We do not attempt to draw a line between ambiguous statements (“combat?”) and unambiguous statements (“I pass priority in my main phase” or “I would like to move to my beginning of combat step”), with the philosophy being that differentiating between such statements would be difficult and even in the case of a clear statement the AP can gain an advantage if the NAP misunderstands. For example, a language barrier or limited knowledge of the rules could cause the NAP to unintentionally use their priority in the main phase when they would rather have acted in BoC. Drawing such a line could also encourage APs to slow the game down by frequently moving to beginning of combat and taking no actions, just to give the NAP a chance to misplay. Unfortunately the rule that prevents players from requesting priority and doing nothing with it would normally not apply here because priority is being passed rather than requested, although slow play warnings and some extra passages in the MTR could potentially prevent abuse.

I think that the main disadvantage of the current philosophy is that a well-meaning player who tries to use clear and explicit language to move to BoC without revealing information can be called out by the NAP for unintentionally using the combat shortcut, advancing the game to declare attackers. I think it’s debatable whether this is an acceptable tradeoff for the issues that come with an alternative structure, but given our current stance I believe the MTR need to be updated for clarity. At the moment the MTR contain only two examples of invoking the combat shortcut - “I’m ready for combat” and “Declare attackers?”. There is essentially no debate about the latter statement, and I think most agree that the former is ambiguous and therefore deservedly invokes the shortcut. The primary point of contention among those well-versed in the rules is whether any explicit priority pass in main phase should constitute a use of the shortcut, but the answer judges have decided on is based on philosophy and discussion not available to a player reading the MTR. If we are content with the current philosophy I think the MTR passage about the combat shortcut needs to at the very least have the “Beginning of Combat?” example added, if not a more thorough rewrite. Currently it seems to me that reading the MTR and making an honest attempt to be clear with communication is not always enough to avoid unfortunate combat shortcut mistakes, which could be remedied to some extent with a minor MTR update.

Please share your thoughts about whether such an MTR revision could help provide clarity for players. I would also be interested in hearing alternative systems to deal with the AP's use of the beginning of combat step.

Originally posted by Louis Habberfield-Short:

Please share your thoughts about whether such an MTR revision could help provide clarity for players.

There was a discussion on ChannelFireball's MagicTV that got me thinking. There, Paul Cheon explains what a certain section of the player base considers intuitive, and it's the opposite of what the MTR shortcut is based on.

The discussion starts at 29m13s.

Paul makes this statement at 30m07s.

I'm not saying MagicTV should dictate policy or anything but they have the ear of and presumably represent a good portion of the player base, or at the very least a good portion of the “C”competitive part. The intention of the MTR shortcut is to protect inexperienced players but the MTR is only in effect in events catering to experienced players. According to Paul, those players actually get confused by the current enforcement of the shortcut. So there is a bit of a disconnect there. Who is the shortcut trying to protect?

The MTR applies to all sanctioned tournaments, not just ones run at
Competitive REL.

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017, 23:42 Jochem van 't Hull <

I do not believe the combat shortcut should be even changed. There was an unfortunate incident where a player lacking rules knowledge made a bad decision because of that, but that doesn't make the words of the policy bad.

Originally posted by Charlotte Sable:

The MTR applies to all sanctioned tournaments, not just ones run at
Competitive REL.

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017, 23:42 Jochem van 't Hull <

I'm aware, although I'm not sure which forum this post would be more appropriate for.

Originally posted by Philip Böhm:

I do not believe the combat shortcut should be even changed. There was an unfortunate incident where a player lacking rules knowledge made a bad decision because of that, but that doesn't make the words of the policy bad.

My main point is that if we aren't going to change the shortcut, we should at least add more examples of its use to the MTR so that players can understand it better. I am also open to making changes to how it works, but I understand that this could easily create more problems than it solves.

My concern here is that in practice, while the MTR is confusing for many players, the current rule allows for what should be intuitive gameplay. I cannot come up with a scenario, and certainly there isn't one in competitive Magic, where it is disadvantageous for a player to Crew a Vehicle, cast a spell, or activate an ability in Beginning of Combat Step vs. Precombat Main Phase.

Even in the case of floating mana, the MTR makes fairly clear that a player IS explicitly allowed to pass priority to themselves in Beginning of Combat Step in an attempt to cause that mana to empty by simply saying something to the effect of: “I'd like to move to Beginning of Combat Step to cause the mana in your pool to empty”

I think the current rules allow for the least “gotcha” Magic, which is ultimately what we're trying to avoid. This debate obviously stems out of a Professional Event on coverage, and the Twitter and Reddit fallout afterward, and I don't think it is the job of the Judge community to change rules because they prevent “gotcha” Magic or reward suboptimal play (in this case, crewing a Vehicle in BoC).

It's like the change to triggers, specifically in the announcement of Prowess, or lack thereof. I think that rule is of a similar philosophy, and I don't hear anyone clamoring for it to be changed.

In short, I enjoy these discussions and think they are good for considering policy, but I don't think this rule needs to be changed.

This thread is not about changing the current rules. Let's not get off
track?

2017-02-12 21:35 GMT-05:00 Ian Doty <forum-33468-6b77@apps.magicjudges.org>:

How is this thread not about changing the current rules? It's got ‘MTR Revision’ in the title and the OP asks whether a revision should be considered and what the alternatives could be.

My biggest issue is this issue exists because players don't read the MTR, changing the wording of the shortcut or adding more examples aren't going to help because players won't read the changes to the MTR so unless we changed it to exactly what players are thinking they are doing and the aim is always to stop the Icey/Ball problem the MTR wording will always be slightly unintuitive to players.

I think one of the better course of actions is to use this current spike in awareness of the other policy documents to try and educate players that they exist and the possible implications these documents have on players due to shortcuts and Free, Derived and Private information.

I posted this on the other thread talking about variations of the “Combat” shortcut, but I think it's actually more relevant here.

In general, we have 3 options for how this policy could look.

1) Current Policy (all mentions of combat move to Beginning of Combat with NAP having priority)

2) All mentions of combat or attacks move to BoC with AP having priority (becoming equivalent to a single priority pass)

3) Have all mentions of “combat” move to BoC and all mentions of “Attacks” move to declare attacks.

Option 3 seems to be the most popular among non-judges, but I think we all agree that it is completely unfeasible from a policy perspective. I creates a language barrier issues, makes judge calls harder by forcing us to play “who said what?”, and assumes that the main impetus for the shortcut existing in the first place (haste creatures in particular) will not show up in competitive play in conjunction with people wanting to go to BoC.

Option 2 is potentially feasible, though it makes combat more obnoxious since you need to declare combat twice in order to declare attackers. This may create a barrier to entry for newer players who don't know how the combat step is structured, but would still solve the problem of NAP knowing for sure where we are in the turn. It has the advantage of more accurately representing the way the game is actually structured.

Option 1 is ostensibly the most true to how players actually play magic, but I think that we're learning that this assumption is no longer the case, particularly since MTGO gives players the option to stop in their BoC step and take actions. It can seem confusing to players that they need to “reveal information prematurely” during in-person play, and there are a sharply increasing number of triggers that interact with the BoC step, so it is much more likely that actions would be legitimately taken during the BoC step.

In short, I think that it would be reasonable to consider enacting option 2 (all “combat” and “attacks” shortcuts equate to passing priority in Main 1) as a revision to MTR section 4.2. We're gathering more and more evidence of how the current shortcut, in spite of its sufficiency as policy, is not working as well as we'd like. I've had instances where players have used the shortcut and then asked what phase I was responding in when I made a response. I've seen players detail how they “always” casually use “combat” to move to BoC step, not to declare attackers. I've seen discussions among judges about how to handle players calling a judge before a match and asking if they can agree to ignore the current combat shortcut in favor of a modified one. I've even seen several judges say they personally don't like the current shortcut even though they enforce it as written. In light of how resilient these problems have proven in the face of our increased player education efforts, it is worth looking at whether a revised policy could better serve our needs.

Originally posted by Andrew Keeler:

2) All mentions of combat or attacks move to BoC with AP having priority (becoming equivalent to a single priority pass)

So the rule would be if you say “Attack?” you're not actually looking to attack? That just doesn't make much sense on a plain English level.

Not to mention that the vast majority of the player base now have to retrain themselves in what they say and how they play.

Originally posted by Andrew Keeler:

We're gathering more and more evidence of how the current shortcut, in spite of its sufficiency as policy, is not working as well as we'd like

Are we? So far I've heard of one person at the Pro Tour make a play error. But that's really it.

Originally posted by Andrew Keeler:

I've had instances where players have used the shortcut and then asked what phase I was responding in when I made a response

There's no harm in clarifying things (and it's an opportunity for you to explain the shortcut).

Originally posted by Andrew Keeler:

I've seen players detail how they “always” casually use “combat” to move to BoC step, not to declare attackers

Best to educate them. Opponents will usually just play on, but the player risks getting caught out at Competitive events.

Originally posted by Andrew Keeler:

I've seen discussions among judges about how to handle players calling a judge before a match and asking if they can agree to ignore the current combat shortcut in favor of a modified one.

Players can agree new shortcuts. I see no upside to this particular one though. The downside of course is that the opponent probably has no idea why the player is looking to change a shortcut.

Originally posted by Andrew Keeler:

I've even seen several judges say they personally don't like the current shortcut even though they enforce it as written

Why don't they like it?

Originally posted by Andrew Keeler:

In light of how resilient these problems have proven in the face of our increased player education efforts

What problems? Maybe it's just me, but I'm seeing a lot of “this is how it COULD be bad” and very little “this actually happened”. In the online groups I see regularly, the ones making the loudest noises seem to be the same ones who complain any time anyone (Wizards, Judges, TOs etc) change anything. Everything is always bad/worse. And it's just a handful of people. The vast majority don't involve themselves and carry on as normal. Which leads me to believe the silent majority don't see or have a problem.


The thing that many people seem to miss is how useful the shortcut is right now. In fact it's so good at doing it's job that you don't even realise it. AP says “combat”, NAP responds, and the game carries on without anybody thinking “I'm glad that shortcut is in the MTR”.


Also, the moment you have the “Combat” shortcut operating differently from the “Go” shortcut things start looking a little weird.

Originally posted by Louis Habberfield-Short:

My main point is that if we aren't going to change the shortcut, we should at least add more examples of its use to the MTR so that players can understand it better.

I agree that both “leave main”/“pass priority” and “beginning of combat step?” should both be explicitly named in the MTR.

I also agree with others that your topic title is somewhat unfortunate =) In CR Update Bulletin terms, you're asking for a non-functional templating change, but it sounds like a call for a functional change.

Originally posted by Ian Doty:

Even in the case of floating mana, the MTR makes fairly clear that a player IS explicitly allowed to pass priority to themselves in Beginning of Combat Step in an attempt to cause that mana to empty by simply saying something to the effect of: “I'd like to move to Beginning of Combat Step to cause the mana in your pool to empty”

Where do you get that from the MTR? =)

Originally posted by Gareth Tanner:

My biggest issue is this issue exists because players don't read the MTR, changing the wording of the shortcut or adding more examples aren't going to help because players won't read the changes to the MTR so unless we changed it to exactly what players are thinking they are doing and the aim is always to stop the Icey/Ball problem the MTR wording will always be slightly unintuitive to players.

Problem is that a lot of judges also weren't aware of the extent of the shortcut. I do believe a more elaborate ruling in the MTR would help a lot there.

Originally posted by Andrew Keeler:

I posted this on the other thread talking about variations of the “Combat” shortcut, but I think it's actually more relevant here.

In general, we have 3 options for how this policy could look.

1) Current Policy (all mentions of combat move to Beginning of Combat with NAP having priority)

2) All mentions of combat or attacks move to BoC with AP having priority (becoming equivalent to a single priority pass)

3) Have all mentions of “combat” move to BoC and all mentions of “Attacks” move to declare attacks.

I agree this is a better place for that discussion =)

With that, here's a fourth option I've heard and a fifht I've thought about that would be an extension of 3):

4) Rename the BoC to a word unrelated to combat. For example “Scout Step”. Combat and attacks would both go to BoC, but “scout?” could go here.

5) If NAP responds to any statement such as “attacks”, “combat” or “leave main”, that response could be in either main or BoC. If it matters to AP when the response is exactly, he should ask.

That would allow 3) without some of the wordplay.
This solves 1 of the 2 problems that the current shortcut addresses:
- AP can't bait NAP to respond at the wrong time.
- AP can still get an extra priority pass to test the waters. If AP fears a Cryptic Command he can first ask “combat” and if NAP doesn't respond he can more safely animate his land. Because if NAP had said okay to “attacks?” he would've been too late with his Cryptic, so NAP either needs to pay attention or just do things at the earliest opportunity.

For reference, 2) is the worst of all in my opinion, just like when all triggers had to be announced. I don't want to play Magic: the Unnecessary Bookkeeping, asking twice every combat, as the vast vast majority of the time there is no reason at all to ask your opponent whether you can leave your main.

Edited Toby Hazes (Feb. 13, 2017 03:10:26 PM)

I keep hearing the insistence “I've always played saying ‘Combat’ meaning BoC step.” And I'm like, okay, why though? What benefit does doing this have? And if that is true, are you asking to attack as well right after?

I've yet to get an answer to these questions from anyone I've asked. It's a really weird insistence that people aren't getting to do what they want as a result of this shortcut.

Mark,
All other things being equal, I agree that the current policy is perfectly fine as policy, and that ultimately it is a player's own fault for not following the MTR and getting burned for not doing so. That being said, one of the major reasons, as I understand things, for why we initially preferred the current policy to the alternative that always puts us in the BoC step with AP having priority was that this policy was a better match to how people actually (intuitively) play the game and expect the game to play out.

My contention is that we're now learning that the shortcut is not as intuitive as we expected, and that there are many people, including several judges, who do not like the current shortcut (and whose dislike of the shortcut far pre-dates the incident at the PT and has persisted through several clarifications of what the policy actually is, including Toby's “Do not pass go” article). I think that, in light of this, it would be advisable to at least consider whether the difficulties could be alleviated to some extent by changing the shortcut to the other possible option. I fear that we're starting to head in the direction of telling people what we think ought to be intuitive to them, rather than dealing with what is actually intuitive to them.

I agree that having the “go” shortcut work differently from the “combat” shortcut would be a strange mismatch, but to counterpoint I think it is telling that we never have a problem with the “go” shortcut even as we continue to have people complain about the “combat” shortcut. I should clarify that I don't think the policy needs to change, nor do I expect it to change; I do want to raise the possibility that it could change and that the end result would accomplish the same goals of the shortcut as it currently exists. I also recognize that the change most non-judges are asking for (“combat” goes to BoC, “attacks” goes to declare attacks) is never going to happen and that this reality will likely cause any change that does come down to be dissatisfying to those players.

I'm thinking of running a small-scale experiment on this front:

Intuitively, in the exchange “combat,” “okay,” “attacks,” which priorities are being explicitly passed, and which are being shortcut over?

I expect that all judges would answer that “okay” explicitly passes priority in BoC, and that the other passes (both in main 1, and AP's in BoC) are being shortcut over. If a significant number of non-judges instead answer that “combat” would pass in main 1, “okay” passes back in main 1, and then “attacks” shortcuts over both priorities in BoC, then I think that the ‘intuition’ argument leans in favor of changing the shortcut rather than keeping it as it currently exists.