So do we simply disallow the Tenement Crasher, or do we rewind to the main phase?

Originally posted by Robert Hinrichsen:

I strongly disagree with Scott and Brian

Please, feel free to disagree, in the right forum (like this one), and express your opinions (as you've done). But PLEASE be sure to follow policy when you're judging. You may not like or agree with every policy, but we have to apply it correctly, all the same. As long as we're all on the same page when it comes to judging, and interacting with players, then we can disagree in places like this, towards better understanding of policy - or even bettering of that policy.

Oh, and - what Toby said. (That kind of goes without saying, I think…)

Originally posted by Adam Zakreski:

So do we simply disallow the Tenement Crasher, or do we rewind to the main phase?

Unless there's a Winding Canyons or similar effect, you can't cast Tenement Crasher during your Combat Phase - which is where we are.

After all, AP said they wanted to leave their Main Phase - which means they want to go to Combat.

Thanks. Just wanted to make sure the resolution was explicit.

Something I would like to add, because it's not mentioned here.

There is a language barrier. It's easy to forget that in reality (especialy in european GPs) are players playing against each other that don't have a common mother language and are communicating in a non native language. And there are some countries where the english knowledge among many players is not that good. Relying by decisions on the precise, ruleswise correct, english wording is in such cases going to fail because you can't reasonable expect the opponent to actualy understand the english meanings well enough to even have a chance to make the correct decision.

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

What in this situation demonstrates “superior rules knowledge”? Because it doesn't seem there's really anything here in terms of the player demonstrating “superior” knowledge of the actual steps or phases in the turn. Just a player trying to use some clever wording against his opponent, in order to try to “mind trick” his opponent. Whether one says “Leave the main phase” or “Ready for combat”, there's no real functional difference in what is being accomplished. (Edit: Joshua has covered this very well, and is precisely right on the reasons why.)

That's not rules knowledge, unless we're trying to aim for the maximum amount of pedantic detail when it comes to policy. This is verbal gymnastics. There is no reason to encourage this kind of behavior.

You argued earlier that unclear communication isn't the right place for mind tricks in competitive magic. I agree (having argued elsewhere that it is a pity that the rules as they stand allow for outright deception through omission when players answer questions about derived information). I don't believe that is the case here: when a player states “I want to leave my main phase,” or even simply “I pass priority” when the stack is empty during his main phase, he is clearly communicating exactly what he wants to do in terms of game actions. He isn't using a shortcut at all, because in this instance the number of priority passes he wants to make is exactly one. He isn't proposing to skip over anything. The statement in question has essentially the same meaning to me as if he had asked “go to the beginning of combat step?”

I view this case as manifestly different from the case where a player says “combat?” because in that case there is in fact an ambiguity. Does the player mean beginning of combat? Does he mean declare attackers (which is the part of the game many if not most players would associate with the word “combat”)? In practice, he is more likely to mean the latter, so when we look to the shortcut to resolve the ambiguity, we go with the latter option as the default. This makes perfect sense, but we should not lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with a shortcut—that is to say a necessary tool we use to resolve ambiguities which arise due to players' natural tendency not to play the game in a technically precise manner. What we have here is a player explicitly playing in a technically precise manner, and thus disclaiming use of the shortcut altogether, which I think he is perfectly within his rights to do; just because we have a fallback position to deal with players who communicate ambiguously, this does not mean that we should mandate use of the shortcut when it is clear both that the player intends not to use it, and that the player is otherwise compliant with the communications policy (as he is not misrepresenting free or derived info).

As to your question about how this situation relates to superior rules knowledge, I would answer as follows. The active player in this case is aware that if his opponent taps his creature during his main phase, he will be able to cast a haste creature and attack with it that turn, thereby denying his opponent the opportunity to tap the newly cast creature. He also knows that, in order to proceed to beginning of combat, both he and his opponent must pass priority on an empty stack during his main phase. He does not know how well his opponent knows the rules, so in order for his plan to succeed he wants to give his opponent the opportunity to make the tactical mistake of using his tap ability during the main phase rather than during beginning of combat. He therefore says “I want to leave my main phase.” If his opponent is as knowledgeable about the rules as he is, the opponent will see through this gambit and simply say “Ok, before attackers I tap your guy,” or “Ok, during beginning of combat I tap your guy,” or perhaps (if he is feeling technical) “Ok, I pass priority. Now that we are in beginning of combat, I tap your guy.” In each of these cases, the non-active player is clearly passing priority, so the game moves on and the gambit has failed. If, however, the opponent is not so knowledgeable, he may take the bait and use his ability during the active player's main phase, thus springing the trap. In the first case, the active player had no superior knowledge of the rules and thus gained no advantage. In the second case, the non-active player did not know that the rules require him to pass priority before the game moves on to beginning of combat, so the active player was able to gain an advantage from his superior knowledge of the rules, in accordance with MTR 4.1.

Scott Marshall
Please, feel free to disagree, in the right forum (like this one), and express your opinions (as you've done). But PLEASE be sure to follow policy when you're judging. You may not like or agree with every policy, but we have to apply it correctly, all the same.

Your point is well taken. Precedent, authority, and consistent application of rules are all important virtues in any rules system. I should clarify that my disagreement is in principle only, and that whilst the rules are perhaps not such as I would have them, I am of course prepared to enforce the official interpretation.

Originally posted by Robert Hinrichsen:

As to your question about how this situation relates to superior rules knowledge, I would answer as follows.

My opinion: he may need to have technical rules knowledge to gain this particular advantage, but he's not getting that advantage through his rules knowledge; he's getting it through word play - linguistic trickery. It may look like technically precise wording, but it's really not meant to be precise, but on the contrary, to be misleading.

And, as Martin mentioned, this becomes more compounded in environments where both players only share a language that is foreign to one or both, and that both may not have more than a basic grasp of.

Originally posted by Robert Hinrichsen:

As to your question about how this situation relates to superior rules knowledge, I would answer as follows. The active player in this case is aware that if his opponent taps his creature during his main phase, he will be able to cast a haste creature and attack with it that turn, thereby denying his opponent the opportunity to tap the newly cast creature. He also knows that, in order to proceed to beginning of combat, both he and his opponent must pass priority on an empty stack during his main phase. He does not know how well his opponent knows the rules, so in order for his plan to succeed he wants to give his opponent the opportunity to make the tactical mistake of using his tap ability during the main phase rather than during beginning of combat. He therefore says “I want to leave my main phase.” If his opponent is as knowledgeable about the rules as he is, the opponent will see through this gambit and simply say “Ok, before attackers I tap your guy,” or “Ok, during beginning of combat I tap your guy,” or perhaps (if he is feeling technical) “Ok, I pass priority. Now that we are in beginning of combat, I tap your guy.” In each of these cases, the non-active player is clearly passing priority, so the game moves on and the gambit has failed. If, however, the opponent is not so knowledgeable, he may take the bait and use his ability during the active player's main phase, thus springing the trap. In the first case, the active player had no superior knowledge of the rules and thus gained no advantage. In the second case, the non-active player did not know that the rules require him to pass priority before the game moves on to beginning of combat, so the active player was able to gain an advantage from his superior knowledge of the rules, in accordance with MTR 4.1.

I agree that the player proposing this likely “knows the rules” better than his opponent, in terms of some kind of technicality that he is using to create that “gotcha” moment. I would even agree that the player proposing this and deliberately choosing these words is probably aware of the policy itself, likely trying to make certain that he uses “something” that isn't close to the standard shortcut in an attempt to try and bait out an instant or ability. And, certainly, that is a “use” of the rules. Otherwise, why bother with the choice of words?

But, that isn't really superior knowledge of the rules. I would argue that both players likely know the rules equally well when it comes to the steps and phases. Certainly on a functional level, where the majority of players are likely to simply play a game of Magic. There's no “better rules knowledge” to be had here, if we want to discuss that section of MTR 4.1. This is a “gotcha” moment, which strays from the intent of the shortcuts as they were created and meant to be applied. They are meant to help maintain a decent pace of play and otherwise void “gotcha” moments.

When it comes down to it, this really isn't about “I know more than you.” This is about “I want to mislead you into where we're going to end up.” That's communication, plain and simple. Not rules knowledge. There's no superior decision tree here; just about trying to obfuscate parts of the decision tree from the opponent.

My view here is that we should ask NAP when they intended to act.

What I think has actually happenned is that the AP has passed priority with an
empty stack in their main phase, at which point the NAP has proposed a shortcut
to them acting with priority in the beginning of combat step. The AP can then
agree to that shortcut (in which case the tapping happens in beginning of
combat), or they have to state what they're doing in between that.

The NAP clearly was intending to tap outside of the main phase and the AP can't
make them do something different just by word play. Talking to the players is a
good way to find out what they thought was going on and if there's unclear
communication, then we clarify. Find out that the NAP wanted to shortcut, then
ask the AP if they want to interrupt that shortcut to do something. I rather
suspect that they don't.

Matt

I want to make sure that we are not giving the impression that we are suggesting that an active player has no way of passing priority in the First Main Phase without automatically implying that he or she is also passing priority in the Beginning of Combat Step. Would it be safe to say that if the active player says, “I wish to leave the First Main Phase and keep priority to act in the Beginning of Combat Step.” That if the non-active player then acts (in response) that the active player is then safe to believe that he or she is still in the First Main Phase?

The Active Player doesn't have to say anything that complex. If they want to play a spell during the Beginning of Combat, they just say “during the Beginning of Combat step, I play <spell>”. If the NAP wants to do something in the 1st Main Phase, they interrupt, just like they always handle things like this.

Originally posted by Shawn Doherty:

The Active Player doesn't have to say anything that complex. If they want to play a spell during the Beginning of Combat, they just say “during the Beginning of Combat step, I play <spell>”. If the NAP wants to do something in the 1st Main Phase, they interrupt, just like they always handle things like this.

That does not seem ideal. If NAP has a Tectonic Edge or something he can then use it in the main phase while AP had to reveal which spell was in his hand.

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

Players should play Magic. Not word games. Judges should also be encouraging the former, not the later.

There's a time and a place for “mind tricks”. Unclear communication isn't one of them.

Brian, and others,

I'd like to know how you think an active player can more clearly indicate that he wishes to pass priority such that the game will advance to the beginning of combat step with the active player having priority there. This is a legal play.

Originally posted by James Do Hung Lee:

Would it be safe to say that if the active player says, “I wish to leave the First Main Phase and keep priority to act in the Beginning of Combat Step.” That if the non-active player then acts (in response) that the active player is then safe to believe that he or she is still in the First Main Phase?

I would say that the AP should then clarify when the NAP was acting, so that there is no confusion about where in the turn they are.

Thomas Ralph
I'd like to know how you think an active player can more clearly indicate that he wishes to pass priority such that the game will advance to the beginning of combat step with the active player having priority there. This is a legal play.

Something like “I want to do something at the beginning of combat step. OK?” Or even what James suggested earlier, that tells me exactly when in the turn the AP wants to be. That doesn't necessarily tell me when the NAP is acting though, which is what needs to be clarified using clear communication instead of making assumptions.

That's my opinion anyway.

Another way to look at it, if the NAP says OK the AP can declare attackers and then when the NAP tries to tap the creature the AP can say they were using the shortcut then they are using the shortcut in the first place no matter the wording. Personally I feel that is the case in this situation.