Hello!

As part of our local NYC Judge class tonight, we went through the new policy changes and created a flow chart for the new Combat shortcut system. We also went over the Ask A Magic Judge Tumblr post about it and of course, used Toby's Blog Post as a reference.

After all that, we had a few questions about the new situation. Considering the 32 questions at the tail end of Toby's Blog Post, it seems as though we aren't the only ones who need some clarification so I wanted to bring our questions to these boards.

Question 1:
In the Ask a Magic Judge Tumblr Post, the author states the following as an example of the new policy:

Originally posted by Tumbler Post:

For example, if I control a Weldfast Engineer and a Scrapheap Scrounger (my only artifact creature) and I pass priority in my main phase to go to combat. If my opponent responds with a removal or bounce spell on either of these creatures, then the new shortcut assumes that they’re casting that spell in my main phase since it would change if the ability triggered at all or what it could affect.

However, this interpretation of the policy wording is different than what seems to be written:

Originally posted by New Policy:

If the active player passes priority during their first main phase, the non-active player is assumed to be acting in beginning of combat unless they are affecting how or whether a beginning of combat ability triggers.

We as a class came to the conclusion that bouncing the Scrapheap Scrounger would not result in the bounce happening in the main phase as the Tumblr Author suggests, because bouncing the Scrapheap Scrounger would not affect how or whether a beginning of combat ability triggered. The ability would still trigger even if you have no artifact creatures, it just would not go on the stack; and removing a target for the trigger does not affect “how” a combat ability triggers.

We came to the conclusion using policy as currently worded: bouncing or removing the Weldfast Engineer in response to a proposed Combat Shortcut would happen in Main Phase 1, while bouncing or removing the Scrapheap Scrounger in response to a proposed Combat shortcut would occur in Begining Combat.

Which would be correct? The Tumblr posts' interpretation of the rules, or ours?

To restate our question more generally: Does the removal of a potential target of a Begin Combat Trigger affect the “how or whether” a BC Trigger triggers? In the scenario described, would it be any different if AP controlled two potential targets (two artifact creatures)?

—————————————————————————————————–
Question 2:

We also had a question regarding the last line of the new policy as follows:

Originally posted by New Policy:

Beginning of combat triggered abilities (even ones that target) may be announced after any non-active player action has resolved.

which was interpreted in the Tumblr post as such:

Originally posted by Tumblr Post:

However, things get weird if the non-active player had any responses to the shortcut proposal and those responses didn’t affect how or whether any beginning of combat triggers triggered. In this case, these abilities go on the stack in the beginning of combat step and resolve normally, but after they resolve, the active player can still announce any and all beginning of combat triggers and put them on the stack at that time, even though the beginning of combat step has begun already and objects have already resolved on the stack. It’s a bit mind-bendy, at least to me, but basically it just takes the onus off of the active player to announce their triggers at the same time as the shortcut proposal.

What happens if there was no legal target for the trigger before this exchange, but now there is?

Example:

AP Controls Weldfast Engineer and a 1/1 Goblin as his only two creatures.
AP: “Combat?”
NAP: “Shock your Goblin.”
AP: “In response, cast Renegade's Getaway on my Goblin and make a Servo.”

I believe this exchange as written should happen in the Begin Combat step according to the new policy. Does AP now get to target the Servo with the Weldfast Engineer trigger, even though there was no legal target for the trigger at the time it was supposed to occur?


—————————————————————————————————–

Looking forward to solidifying my and my students' understanding of this new policy,
Russ

Edited Russell Deutsch (April 27, 2017 02:09:00 AM)

Hi,
Charlotte from the MagicJudge tumblr here.

While I realize that my interpretation of “how or whether” is slightly
unusual, I don't think it's completely out of line with policy. (I based my
initial interpretation on how dependency works, since it has similar
wording and in that case something that would/could be affected counts.)
After a thread on the L3 list led me to think that this interpretation
might be out of line, I emailed Toby and asked him to go over my post,
specifically that interpretation. Toby's response was “No, I think that’s
fine. I just don’t think that it’s going to come up. There’s almost never a
reason to act before the target is chosen, except in some weird situations
at which point it’s OK.”

All of the weirdness with this new shortcut comes in when NAP acts at the
wrong time, doing things that should be done in response to the trigger
itself rather than in response to going to combat. As Toby said, these
situations aren't that likely to come up, since most Competitive players
are going to wait for the trigger to go on the stack in these cases.

Many, many Questions, all deserving of Answers. I'll lock this thread, and get to work on those Answers.

(but Thanks! to Charlotte, for elaborating from the MagicJudge tumblr team)

d:^D

OK, sorry for the long wait - I'll admit to Amonkhet PPTQ distractions (among other things)!

Russell, I see how your group got to those conclusions - but I'm still going to suggest that y'all may be over-thinking it just a bit.

The previous Combat shortcut had the primary goal of eliminating the (now ancient) trick of claiming that, since NAP responded to “Combat?”, AP is still in Main Phase and can cast a creature with Haste, then attack with it. The actual implementation had various other effects as well, but that was our primary goal.

The new Combat shortcut adds more protection, while retaining that (ancient, but still relevant) original protection.

If NAP acts in a way that *could* prevent a Beginning of Combat trigger, the new policy allows that to happen without requiring NAP to be technically precise.

At the same time, AP is now protected against a “gotcha!” that was increasingly disliked, because it didn't feel natural to players - as evidenced by the number of times Judges had to explain to someone that they just missed their chance to animate or crew.

So, the purpose is fairly clear, right? Then what we should do when the exact words aren't fairly clear … is ask.

In the first scenario - no matter whether the NAP removes the Engineer or the Scrounger - it probably won't matter whether we're in Main Phase or Combat. If, for some odd reason, it really does matter? Just ask NAP “when did you do that?” and you've maintained the protections afforded by this change in policy.

In the second scenario - you've demonstrated one of the things that makes Magic so wonderful; there's always that card that refuses to play by the rules. Let's revisit something from that tumblr post:

basically it just takes the onus off of the active player to announce their triggers at the same time as the shortcut proposal

See how, once again, we're protecting a player from an onerous, unnatural requirement? Let's reword your scenario slightly, to nudge it much closer to what really happens:
AP: “Comba…”
NAP: Shock your Goblin!
AP: OK, Goblin dies, now I target my Scrounger with the Weldfast trigger…
NAP: Judge! She didn't name targets when she said Combat!

See how bad that plays out? It quickly devolves into he-said, she-said, and this word game is too easy to play. How about, instead, we just protect against that?

OK, lots of words there; short version: the spirit of the changes are to expand the protections against clever word games. Don't analyze things to the point that you reintroduce those word games, and the havoc they bring.

d:^D

Edited Scott Marshall (May 2, 2017 10:51:00 PM)