Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

- 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.

Why would we give AP the ability to do this and not NAP? If we allow AP to scout for information in this way, we ought to let NAP respond to with “wait, cryptic command to tap your team” even after the “combat” “okay” interaction. At that point, we basically have 2) except without the ability to still be in the main phase, which seems silly given that 2) was described as the worst possible option.

Originally posted by Andrew Keeler:

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.

Obzedat, Ghost Council begs to differ =3
We used to have that saying “go” implied passing priority with an empty stack. (Which was different from how “combat” worked with Rabblemaster and friends)

Originally posted by Andrew Keeler:

Why would we give AP the ability to do this and not NAP? If we allow AP to scout for information in this way, we ought to let NAP respond to with “wait, cryptic command to tap your team” even after the “combat” “okay” interaction. At that point, we basically have 2) except without the ability to still be in the main phase, which seems silly given that 2) was described as the worst possible option.

“Combat” would always go to BoC if accepted, “attacks” always to DC if accepted. If you also add that “attacks” “okay” still allows for a Cryptic afterwards that would be silly indeed but not supposed to be the case here.

Preferably you want neither player the ability to do this (such as with the current shortcut).

Edited Toby Hazes (Feb. 14, 2017 01:01:15 AM)

I might be a bit late for the party: I recently also posted something about this issue in a different thread. might be more appropriate here. Posted something almost 2 years ago, which ws deleted but basically had the same content. So thank you very much Louis for opening up this thread.

______________________ insert: privious post in different thread ______________________

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: Players 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.

____________________ insert ends ______________________________

Needless to say that I am still opposed to the ruling and the excessive use of this shortcut in MTR and this contradicting the Comprehenisve rules. I am OK with it, if the rules are clear. Rules are rules. But for right now the rules are not “intuitive”. If NAP reacts to early HE can learn to play correctly as well, so that is totally not a reason for either side.

Alternatively introduce “in doubt” rulings: Sometimes Situations are not black and white but somewhere in between. In most written law the written law helps to solve these issues by stating what is considered to be “normal” and if a solution cannot be found this “general ruling” applies but leaves enough space for the single case. This would have solved Round 8 Aether Revolt PT issue. There was clearly NO way AP wanted to pass to declare attackers and there was nothing NAP could have done, he was tapped out, no interaction on board. So the NAP just used this “lack of MTR knowledge” to his advantage. We accept this shananigans because we are afraid of NAP being baited or tricked into something? Again this runs both ways but the way it is now it is not intuitive and not according to the comprehensive rules and in my opinion is a disadvantage to non-english-speakers. BTW there is - to my knowledge - no need for a player to speak english.

In a current issue of Limited Resources LSV and Marshall addressed this ruling in a very neutral and professional way which i deeply admire. They say that they weren't aware of this “rule” and needless to say that LSV is one of the most experienced players in the world. Also they clearly stated that “Judges will rule it that way” deliberatly avoiding to take a stance on this issue but accepting the ‘authority of the consulate’.

In my experience it is much harder to explain the current shortcut than to explain that there is a “beginning of combat step”.

Renaming the steps? Just call it “Preparation for Combat step” instead of “Beginning of combat step” it suits the Step structure better, says what it is and makes communication (which is the goal of this all) easier. I want to prepare for combat is clearly something different than “declare attackers”. Again this is aimed at the players of ALL nations - especially non-english-speaking players.

Originally posted by Denis Leber:

For the active Player the Turn Structure does not include Rule 507 “Beginning of Combat Step”.

Not true at all. AP can do whatever he wants in BoC.

Originally posted by Denis Leber:

If NAP reacts to early HE can learn to play correctly as well, so that is totally not a reason for either side.

In my experience it is much harder to explain the current shortcut than to explain that there is a “beginning of combat step”.

That is not the point. The point is that he needs to listen closely to the exact words AP uses, because even if he knows the turn structure perfectly well, AP can trick him by slightly changing his words. Preventing that is the point of the current shortcut.

Originally posted by Denis Leber:

Renaming the steps? Just call it “Preparation for Combat step” instead of “Beginning of combat step”

Nah, can't have the word “combat” in it.

So, last time we had this discussion (about 2 weeks ago iirc), Uncle Scott (I think it was him, I could be mistaken) made a very valid and good point that I'd like to repeat here:

Assume, for argument's sake, that there existed a shortcut which meant “end my main phase, move to beginning of combat, where I have priority in beginning of combat”. In a general sense, what function would such a thing serve? Yes, there are edge cases like if you have mana in your mana pool and want to drain it, but in a more general sense, what strategic benefit is there (beyond the obvious angle-shooting, which we want to discourage, not enable) to having or using such a shortcut?

In particular, notice that NAP is not restricted in any way from the actions they can take in main phase as opposed to BoC; in either case they can only take actions at instant speed. However, AP is incentivized to take all actions in main phase, as they can't take sorcery speed actions in BoC, so if something goes awry they have more leeway to fix it in main phase than BoC. Therefore, it makes sense for AP to take all their BoC actions in main phase anyway, where they have more leeway given that NAP is not restricted in any way in either case.

So my question again is, with the exception of angle shooters which we would like to discourage, and with the exception of edge cases which can already be handled in other ways, what function would a “move to beginning of combat, with me having priority” shortcut serve?

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

So my question again is, with the exception of angle shooters which we would like to discourage, and with the exception of edge cases which can already be handled in other ways, what function would a “move to beginning of combat, with me having priority” shortcut serve?

So people can play in the not-useful strategically-inferior way they want to play/expect to be able to play =)
Not a very high-priority reason (which is why the current shortcut has been going strong since forever) but a valid reason nonetheless. Fighting human nature blah blah.
See also allowing mana weaving if you shuffle thoroughly afterwards, I think.

Also, beginning of combat triggers like Weldfast Engineer are increasingly a reason why NAP would want to do something in main, and thus a reason why AP would want to be polite and give NAP that opportunity.

Edited Toby Hazes (Feb. 14, 2017 01:27:05 AM)

Originally posted by Andrew Keeler:

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.

The issue with #3 is that it ignores the reason (as I understand it) that we have policy as it is. Our current policy is written so that anyone in the world can play against anyone else at any level of play and it is clear what it happening. There can be a language barrier and communication can be verbal or non-verbal, but *any* indication of going to combat means the same thing everywhere. When this is ignored in discussing policy, it doesn't help bring positive change. Having people who have a strong grasp of the turn structure discuss this policy in English ignores that this same policy needs to be applied at FNM and the PT everywhere in the world.

1. Communication clarity that AP is not going to cast Sorceries, play lands or cast haste creatures. Again most if not all players use BoC to indicate that they won't do something in their first Main Phase.
2. Clear Turn Structure according to the Comprehensive Rules.
3. And why isn't AP allowed to give up an advantage by moving a step ahead that prevents him from casting Sorcercies if he choses to do so?

all this because some inexperienced player might react to early? When and how to react is a key element of the game as well. Educate the NAP to play his instants or activated abilites when they are most beneficial for him. He is the “reactive” player which should already give the “active” player the right to chose what or where she wants to be (always in line with the CR).

It is not our job to educate players to do things in their Main Phase. Magic is a very complex game and structuring the turn is important. I think the people who want to educate players to do something different from the rules need better reasons than “we want to help the AP to make smarter decisions” and “we fear that someone might bait something out of an inexperienced player”. You know how often that inexperienced player will be baited this way? If he is smart, exactly once in his life… and this once can be used to explain the BoC to him or her instead of telling the AP - well according to CR you are correct but MTR sees it differently so you are not correct and last not least even passing priority will screw you up - not because it is mentioned in the MTR but because “we judges decided this way”.

@Mike: I think Round 8 PT Aether Revolt clearly contradicts your point on what we can assume non-english-speakers are capable to express. So we should accept the “normative force of the factual” rather than thinking what “could or should be best”. Where best is imho - stick with the rules and the natural flow of the game.

I played against Japanese players and communication was difficult as it is but even they knew the difference between “combato” and “attack”. However try to tell them that “combato” and “attack” is the same - now you need an translator and not only that… you need to explain it (also seen Round 8 PT AR).

Originally posted by Mike Combs:

The issue with #3 is that it ignores the reason (as I understand it) that we have policy as it is. Our current policy is written so that anyone in the world can play against anyone else at any level of play and it is clear what it happening. There can be a language barrier and communication can be verbal or non-verbal, but *any* indication of going to combat means the same thing everywhere. When this is ignored in discussing policy, it doesn't help bring positive change. Having people who have a strong grasp of the turn structure discuss this policy in English ignores that this same policy needs to be applied at FNM and the PT everywhere in the world.

You are right, and I mention further down in that post the language problems with #3. The reason for the shortcut to exist is so that NAP can act with confidence when they want to, without AP attempting to capitalize on any confusion they've created, intentionally or otherwise. My list there was meant to be exhaustive of the possible shortcuts, and I purposely include that as an unworkable option since so many players seem to be calling for policy to be exactly that.

Question:
Is there anyone who can trace back the introduction of this shortcut and the thoughts behind it when it was first introduced? Also any material related to the discussions leading to the introduction to the MTR?

Also clear statement:
If the MTR contains a “rule” contradicting the CR it should as OP suggests be very clear and specific and cover all questions around it.

The current MTR 4.2 is not acceptable. Either clearify it or even better let “combat” be “combat” and “attack” be “attack”. The whole “bating information” discussion is of academic nature and can be seen either way. If in doubt stick with the CR.

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

So my question again is, with the exception of angle shooters which we would like to discourage, and with the exception of edge cases which can already be handled in other ways, what function would a “move to beginning of combat, with me having priority” shortcut serve?

So people can play in the not-useful strategically-inferior way they want to play/expect to be able to play =)
Not a very high-priority reason (which is why the current shortcut has been going strong since forever) but a valid reason nonetheless. Fighting human nature blah blah.
See also allowing mana weaving if you shuffle thoroughly afterwards, I think.

Do we allow this? Actually asking out of curiosity. Because if we do, we probably shouldn't, for a similar reason as to the recent crackdown on Pile Counting; it wastes time and at best does nothing aside from wasting time (and at worst is UC-Cheating).

Also, beginning of combat triggers like Weldfast Engineer are increasingly a reason why NAP would want to do something in main, and thus a reason why AP would want to be polite and give NAP that opportunity.

AP already gives NAP that opportunity under the current rules. By saying “Combat?”, with the intention of using that shortcut as appropriate, NAP has the opportunity to cast a spell at any point he wants. AP saying “combat?” doesn't mean NAP doesn't have the opportunity to act in 1st main.

Originally posted by Denis Leber:

1. Communication clarity that AP is not going to cast Sorceries, play lands or cast haste creatures. Again most if not all players use BoC to indicate that they won't do something in their first Main Phase.
2. Clear Turn Structure according to the Comprehensive Rules.
3. And why isn't AP allowed to give up an advantage by moving a step ahead that prevents him from casting Sorcercies if he choses to do so?

all this because some inexperienced player might react to early? When and how to react is a key element of the game as well. Educate the NAP to play his instants or activated abilites when they are most beneficial for him. He is the “reactive” player which should already give the “active” player the right to chose what or where she wants to be (always in line with the CR).

A shortcut for the purpose of “allowing the player to play poorly when they want that opportunity” is not a relevant shortcut. Intentionally writing in words into MTR for the purpose of allowing players to accidentally say the wrong ones and get gotcha'd into something they didn't want (which is how such a shortcut would be used more often than not) is not how we play Magic. Remember, it's Magic: The Gathering, not Magic: The Gotcha-ing.

It is not our job to educate players to do things in their Main Phase. Magic is a very complex game and structuring the turn is important. I think the people who want to educate players to do something different from the rules need better reasons than “we want to help the AP to make smarter decisions” and “we fear that someone might bait something out of an inexperienced player”. You know how often that inexperienced player will be baited this way? If he is smart, exactly once in his life… and this once can be used to explain the BoC to him or her instead of telling the AP - well according to CR you are correct but MTR sees it differently so you are not correct and last not least even passing priority will screw you up - not because it is mentioned in the MTR but because “we judges decided this way”.

It is not our job to educate players to play correctly, no, that is true. However, it is also not our job to intentionally give players opportunities to gotcha other players into doing things they didn't mean to do. As I'm sure you agree, if there existed a shortcut for “go to BoC, hold priority”, that shortcut would only be used by bad players and by players who are trying to gotcha their opponents into passing the main phase unintentionally. It would never be used by players who know what they're doing, on purpose. In which case I see little reason for codifying it.

As for baiting inexperienced players, a couple points:

1) Let's say you're new to Magic and you are playing at your first FNM. You have never played an event before, and you just play like you play with your friends at your kitchen table. You accidentally stumble into the shortcut that makes you pass your main phase, and your opponent calls you on it, and the judge upholds it. How likely are you to want to play a second FNM, or other competitive event, ever again? More likely, because of this experience, or less likely? The answer is less likely, and by allowing people to bait others by word games, especially for newer or more inexperienced players, this is a very big negative to the community side of competitive Magic: “You don't know the magic codewords, therefore you lose, not by any fault of your own, but you didn't learn our language”. That's very elitist and unwelcoming, and above all we should make the rules not elitist or unwelcoming to newer players.

2) Remember, again, Magic: The Gathering, not Magic: The Gotcha'ing. When you introduce a rule and one of your main points of support for your position is “It allows better players to gotcha worse players better”, you're probably on the wrong side of the argument.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Do we allow this? Actually asking out of curiosity. Because if we do, we probably shouldn't, for a similar reason as to the recent crackdown on Pile Counting; it wastes time and at best does nothing aside from wasting time (and at worst is UC-Cheating).

Here's a very old thread that touches upon it: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/3842/?page=1

AP already gives NAP that opportunity under the current rules. By saying “Combat?”, with the intention of using that shortcut as appropriate, NAP has the opportunity to cast a spell at any point he wants. AP saying “combat?” doesn't mean NAP doesn't have the opportunity to act in 1st main.

So what you're saying is:
AP who controls Weldfast Engineer: Combat?
NAP: Sure

Yes nothing bad has ever happened because of that exchange =D

(What I'm saying is that before BoC triggers, AP didn't expect NAP to do something in main, but now that he could expect it, he might anticipate it and out of politeness ask NAP permission to go to BoC instead of just going there. Again, human nature.)

Edited Toby Hazes (Feb. 14, 2017 02:31:25 AM)

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Do we allow this? Actually asking out of curiosity. Because if we do, we probably shouldn't, for a similar reason as to the recent crackdown on Pile Counting; it wastes time and at best does nothing aside from wasting time (and at worst is UC-Cheating).

We do allow players to make bad plays. The reason we disallowed multiple pile-counts during the game was because of tournament logistics and wasted time, not simply because it's ‘not optimal’ shuffling.

http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/31779/

This thread contained a lengthy discussion of whether we back up legal play made with the intention of taking an illegal action afterward. The conclusion is that we allow players to make the legal plays and hold them to those plays even as we stop them from taking the illegal action.

Edited Andrew Keeler (Feb. 14, 2017 02:40:02 AM)

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

AP already gives NAP that opportunity under the current rules. By saying “Combat?”, with the intention of using that shortcut as appropriate, NAP has the opportunity to cast a spell at any point he wants. AP saying “combat?” doesn't mean NAP doesn't have the opportunity to act in 1st main.

So what you're saying is:
AP who controls Weldfast Engineer: Combat?
NAP: Sure

Yes nothing bad has ever happened because of that exchange =D

(What I'm saying is that before BoC triggers, AP didn't expect NAP to do something in main, but now that he could expect it, he might anticipate it and out of politeness ask NAP permission to go to BoC instead of just going there. Again, human nature.)

If NAP says “sure”, I'm OK with forcing NAP to live with that decision. “Combat?” doesn't mean “We're now in my combat step? Oh, you wanted to kill my guy? Too bad so sad”. If NAP wants to act, NAP can still act. If AP wants to give NAP the option to act explicitly to have good manners (or for any other reason), he can do so explicitly: “I would like to end my main phase, do you have any effects?”, or, to varying degrees: “I would like to end my main phase and my Weldfast Engineer is about to trigger, any effects?”, “I would like to end my main phase, my Weldfast Engineer is about to trigger, targeting my Ornithopter, and by the way you're at 2 and have no flying blockers, and I'm going to attack you for lethal, any effects?”, and so on. All of this is allowed under current policy, there is no need to change it.

What is also allowed under current policy is “I would like to move to combat, and I have this Weldfast Engineer that is about to trigger, any effects?” if you want to be explicit about not missing your trigger. Or, again, to varying degrees: “I would like to move to combat, and I would like to target my Ornithopter with my Weldfast Engineer”. Or “I would like to move to combat, target my Ornithopter with Weldfast Engineer, and attack you for lethal”. These are all allowed shortcuts too under current policy. “Combat?” *looks at the opponent leery-eyed while watching them squirm under the decision of whether or not you're going to remember your trigger* is not a particularly engaging topic of discussion in Magic: The Gathering. It is one in Magic: The Gotcha'ing, I suppose, but that's unfortunately not the game we're playing.

Also, thanks for the reference on Mana Weaving, but that thread is older than the recent change on Pile Counting policy, and I was wondering if that change in policy towards pile counting also affected the discussion regarding mana weaving. To the best of my knowledge it didn't, but it might be worthy of revisiting if it didn't.

Originally posted by Andrew Keeler:

We do allow players to make sub-optimal plays. The reason we disallowed multiple pile-counts during the game was because of tournament logistics and wasted time, not simply because it's ‘not optimal’ shuffling.

I was specifically asking with regards to mana weaving. Do we allow mana weaving in-between games as long as the deck is sufficiently randomized afterwards, or is that considered “wasting time” the same way as pile counting is?

Edited Lyle Waldman (Feb. 14, 2017 02:50:33 AM)