While it's possible that a player wants to do this without it being a ‘trick’, I agree that it is exceptionally rare. I'm fine first confirming this, and then going with Josh's suggestion.

I guess it'll just have to come to Callum's suggestion of “call a judge” in the very rare cases. I'm content with that for now. I shall now sit here and just hope that R&D doesn't make cards that make the cases less rare.

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

As Toby breaks apart my wording, there are scenarios where the standard shortcut may not apply; those are possible, given the proper context.

Toby Elliott
There is zero tolerance for the kind of verbal trickery attempt posed in the initial question, to the point where if it means you have to give away a little information in weird corner cases (yay, Cauldron Dance), that's an acceptable sacrifice to make it clear that Cryptic-Command-baiting is not a recognized form of mental sport.

Just to clear something up because I'm a bit confused right now. The way I read it those statements say something different from each other.

I have a Cauldron Dance in my hand and I say “I want to go to my beginning of combat”.
According to the first, this is a corner-case context where the standard shortcut doesn't apply, so this will end up with me having priority in BoC.
According to the second, this is a weird corner case where you have to give away a little information so I should've just said “cast Cauldron Dance” because now this will end up with me in declare attackers.

Edited Toby Hazes (Jan. 4, 2015 09:57:10 PM)

The purpose of the shortcut is to disallow players to rules lawyer and
verbal trick their opponents. Not to take away from them perfectly legal
(though extremely rarely used) opportunity to progress to BoC with priority.

But because of the shortcut existence and philosophy, you need to be very
careful while doing that and you need to make sure your opponent fully
understads you and you also need to avoid doing that in order to trick your
opponent.

In my opinion something like the following would be acceptable way to
achieve your goal even without prior agreement:
AP: I want to end my main phase and progress into Beginning of Combat step
with me having priority. Do you want to play anything in my Main phase?
NAP: I want to tap your guys whith my Cryptic Command.
AP: Do you want to do it in my Main Phase or in Combat phase before
decklaring attackers?
NAP: Eh… in Combat phase.
AP: In that case wait, I want to cast my Cauldron Dance in my Beginning of
Combat step first. (Don't question the strategical benefits of putting 2
creatures on the battlefield which will get subsequentially tapped!)

It would also be good practice to call a judge to observe the situation and
help with potential language problems and general misunderstandings which
might happen because of the extreme rarity of this situation. But there is
a way to progress to BoC with priority without prematurely revealing your
intentions to cast Cauldron Dance.

TL;DR: Situations when the shortcut does not aplly are extremely rare, but
they do exist. They require complete understanding of both players and
non-mischievous intentions in order to be legal. This can be achieved by
pre-game redifinion of “Combat” shortcut (as Eric pointed out), or by
ad-hoc bypassing the shortcut (which is best done with judge's assistance).

2015-01-04 12:20 GMT+01:00 Toby Hazes <forum-15122-8299@apps.magicjudges.org

Originally posted by David Záleský:

In my opinion something like the following would be acceptable way to
achieve your goal even without prior agreement:
AP: I want to end my main phase and progress into Beginning of Combat step
with me having priority. Do you want to play anything in my Main phase?
NAP: I want to tap your guys whith my Cryptic Command.
AP: Do you want to do it in my Main Phase or in Combat phase before
decklaring attackers?
NAP: Eh… in Combat phase.
AP: In that case wait, I want to cast my Cauldron Dance in my Beginning of
Combat step first. (Don't question the strategical benefits of putting 2
creatures on the battlefield which will get subsequentially tapped!)

I agree that this wording is ok, and I'd even allow AP to cast his Cauldron Dance after NAP has resolved his Cryptic Command. That actually is the nail in the coffin for the “cast Goblin Guide” request: if NAP wanted to act in the Beginning of Combat and not just trick his opponent, why are they not happy to get to act in response to whatever NAP is doing? Or should we get into Split Second/mana floating scenarios?

We can discuss which statements allows AP to act in the Beginning of Combat if they have a reason to do so (which is already a corner case), but there is no way I would allow them to act in the Main Phase if NAP did not explicitely state that they want to act in the Main Phase (maybe as an answer to a question from AP).

Edited Florian Horn (Jan. 5, 2015 01:04:30 AM)

I have misgivings about prohibiting players from taking game actions that are legal, even if they are uncommon or designed to get their opponents to make suboptimal plays. Players are not required to declare their exalted triggers before combat damage step, for example, nor to point out optimal blocks, nor even to tell them to attack with a creature that can't block because mise well. It is a legal play to pass priority in your first main phase, and it is a legal play for your opponent to play a spell in your first main phase. It is also a legal play for your opponent, in response to “I pass priority”, to say “in your beginning of combat step, foo” (and for you to say “but I wanted to bar in my beginning of combat step”, etc.).

If there is a desire – and I can understand a philosophy for one – for a rule that says “you may only pass priority in your main phase without also offering to pass it in your beginning of combat step, unless you have a legal and strategically appropriate game action that you intend to use in your beginning of combat step”, then the rules need to be changed so they say that (although I don't know how they would), not applied by fiat or cliché (such as “MTG is not Gotcha”).

Call me when it happens. Goblin Rabblemaster and Cauldron Dance are exceptions, but in 99% of the cases with these cards involved, the ‘strategic correct play’ is still clear, and will be communicated properly. Some variation of: ‘Kill your guy before going to combat’ in response to AP reaching for the token pile and the other hand starting to tap the critters is how this scenario plays out at 999 out of 1000 tables each day.

In the Cauldron Dance scenario, AP kinda has to let his opponent know he intends to play something in the beginning of combat step. So NAP might play instant speed discard in the first main instead of during combat? Yeah, that is relevant if there is a Funeral Charm imprinted on an Isochron Scepter. Which certainly happened once or twice in the history of the game. But in that game, noone bothered to look up policy to find the correct way to solve the stack issues. In all other games, it didn't matter, and the game went on.

Note that judges shouldn't use in-game strategic ramifications to determine whether an infraction occurs, but when sculpting policy, we have to be aware how many games are impacted. Changing the rule to better solve the ‘Cauldron Dance’-issue might make us give 5 GRVs for the ‘Rabblemaster’-issue each standard PPTQ. That would not be a favorable outcome.

Jasper, Funeral Charm isn't the only instant speed discard spell to worry about. Mardu Charm can also instant speed get rid of a Caldron Dance.

As for everyone saying that there is rarely a time when you need priority in BOC, one of the top decks in standard right now, Jesskai tokens, quite often needs to go to BOC, resolve the Rabblemaster trigger, and then start casting things before declaring attackers (think Stoke the Flames). I think it's incredibly unfair to tell a player that when they said, “beginning of combat?” if they didn't tell their opponent they had something they don't get to use it because it could be verbal trickery. I also think that while baiting out a Cryptic or similar during main 1 when the opponent thought it was BOC isn't something we want, baiting it out when the opponent knows when they're acting is something we should be allowing players to do. The former is gotcha and the latter is bluffing, and bluffing is allowed. Even if I don't have my Stoke the Flames, as long as I have a card in hand, I don't want to be forced to let my opponent to know that.

Goblin Rabblemaster actually works a little differently, just like our dear friend Desecration Demon before him =)
The shortcut gives NAP priority in Beginning of Combat. Normally, if the NAP declines to do anything, that means we now go to the next step, Declare Attackers. But with a card that triggers in BoC, NAP declining to do anything means that trigger resolves and now both players get priority in BoC again. For Stoke the Flames for example. So no problems there.

Edited Toby Hazes (Jan. 5, 2015 09:24:12 AM)

But acting after a Rabblemaster trigger is never a problem: you only pass until your opponent has priority in the BOC step, and you will get priority again after the Rabblemaster trigger has resolved.

Likewise, you can play a Cauldron Dance by saying, while you are in main phase, “I want to cast Cauldron Dance in my BOC step”. You only get to a problem if you want to be sure that you will get to act in the BOC even if your opponent passes, and not reveal what you have in hand (or in mind). In that case, call for a judge or be extra explicit. I doubt that many judges are not ok when someone is as clear as David suggests.

The original question is whether someone can be super technical (i.e. correct, but not very clear), not ask when their opponent wishes to act, and then claim that they are still in main phase. The answer is no.

Originally posted by Florian Horn:

Likewise, you can play a Cauldron Dance by saying, while you are in main phase, “I want to cast Cauldron Dance in my BOC step”. You only get to a problem if you want to be sure that you will get to act in the BOC even if your opponent passes, and not reveal what you have in hand (or in mind). In that case, call for a judge or be extra explicit. I doubt that many judges are not ok when someone is as clear as David suggests.

What's wrong with “I'd like to announce an effect in my beginning of Combat step?” Why does a judge need to be involved here?

The original question is whether someone can be super technical (i.e. correct, but not very clear), not ask when their opponent wishes to act, and then claim that they are still in main phase. The answer is no.

To me, the bolded part is the key. The precise words spoken to leave the main phase are far less important than the fact that the player said “Gotcha!” If the active player had simply asked, “still in my main phase?” we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The problem is not with the wording (the one you proposed is ok for me), it is with who is responsible if a misunderstanding occurs. For example, if you say that and your opponent Cryptic Commands, I think you should confirm that he wants to act in the main phase, and I am likely to rule in his favor if you do not and they claim that they did not understand what you wanted to do.

Yeah, the bolded part is the important one. There is a bit of a “shifting goalposts” in this thread as people move between “Can I gotcha my opponent” and “Is there a way to do what I want while being clear”. The baseline is that the need to be clear supersedes your right to not reveal anything when you want to act in the BoC step. Even your wording is not information-free, as you may signal to your opponent that you have something in hand that works in the BoC step. The usual answer is that you could bluff using that.

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

To me, the bolded part is the key. The precise words spoken to leave the main phase are far less important than the fact that the player said “Gotcha!” If the active player had simply asked, “still in my main phase?” we wouldn't be having this conversation.

As a matter of course, the player proposing the “alternative shortcut” should be clear in what he is doing and where the shortcut causes the game to end up. The request of “I wish to enter in my ‘Beginning of Combat Step'.” being made here is decidedly unclear and leaves the actual end point up to interpretation, as clearly illustrated in the original post. The argument being made that the active player is somehow being “more technically precise” is moot, as “more technically precise” language does NOT somehow ensure clear communication. In fact, it can be quite misleading in a lot of cases, when most people usually have functional knowledge of the game.

If the active player really wants to ask his opponent if that player wants to take an action before the combat phase actually begins, then the active player should actually do that. The active player should not get into some technical “passing priority” jargon to trick the opponent into a misplay. I'll repeat what both I and Toby Elliott said; the active player already controls a lot about the pacing of the turn and when things happen, so the active player should be clear about differences in timing.

This kind of clear communication is a necessity to play a game like Magic. Certainly the active player doesn't have to provide full and complete information all the time, but the active player does need to be clear about what is going on and when it is going on. Especially when the active player is proposing something alternative to a standard shortcut that is largely understood to mean one thing, as recognized in the MTR itself:

Certain conventional tournament shortcuts used in Magic are detailed below. If a player wishes to deviate from these, he or she should be explicit about doing so.

It's not that hard to request the active player be clear here. “I'm leaving my main phase. Do you want to do anything before my combat phase begins?” Or even, “Move to beginning of combat, and Goblin Rabblemaster's trigger is on the stack.”

Edited Brian Schenck (Jan. 5, 2015 08:36:00 PM)

I keep coming back to the same thought: it's not that complicated.

Rabblemaster is - as TobyH noted - very similar to that troublesome Demon. But the players (usually!) handle this just fine:
AP: Rabblemaster trigger?
NAP: before Combat, Bile Blight your Rabbler.
AP: OK, no token for me.
-or-
AP: Rabblemaster trigger?
NAP: *sigh* … yep.
AP: make a token, attack with all these dudes…

As far as we're concerned, announcing those triggers (Rabblemaster or D-Demon) functions just like saying “Combat?”, when there's nothing to trigger - AP is being quite clear about where he or she wants the game state to end up, and NAP has the opportunity to interrupt this shortcut.

To me, the only tricky part of all this is the corner case - Cauldron Dance - because it's the exception that proves the rule. Consider:
AP: Combat?
NAP: sure.
AP: Activate Mutavault and attack.
NAP: Judge!
Judge: sorry, you need to activate Mutavault before you skip ahead like that.
AP: derf? (and, eventually, understanding - we hope)

Contrast that with:
AP: Combat?
NAP: sure.
AP: OK, I have to do this before attacking; Cauldron Dance, targeting…
NAP: Judge!
Judge: sorry, you need to … (reads the card … thinks … derf) OK, yeah, I guess there's no good way to do that. That's fine, carry on.

Let's not get bogged down in the technical details of the language necessary to cast Cauldron Dance at the appropriate time. Besides the fact it's a corner case, the very pursuit of “perfect wording” falls apart as soon as I remind you that a LOT of players and judges don't speak English.

Any player - or Judge! - who asks me “how do I craft my words to trick my opponent” goes directly onto my “lumps of coal for next Christmas” list. That's not how we want the game played.

d:^D

P.S. - please note that the global Judge community will not benefit from a slew of argumentative responses to this post; for their sake, please, if you still don't get it / agree, take it up with your local mentor(s). I think I've been painstakingly clear, and I think we've covered all the necessary ground.

I have been judging a PTQ yesterday and I ruled a sacrifice to give haste to butcher of the horde the same way I (and all of us I believe) rule an activation of mutavault and not like goblin rabblemaster.

Am I correct?

Please explain your scenario in a bit more detail?