Hi all! Here's a scenario that came up at a recent PPTQ where I was a player:

Albert says “Go to Combat?” Natasha says “Ok.” Albert then activates Rogue's Passage targeting one of his creatures. Albert then proceeds to attack, and Natasha calls for a judge. She claims that Albert missed his chance to attack.

How would you rule here?

Thanks!!

Edited Tristan Killeen (Aug. 8, 2015 12:59:53 AM)

It sounds like a textbook case of the shortcut - if you're not ruling that Albert is in combat after his opponent confirms “go to combat,” you might as well throw out the shortcut.

That said, I disagree with the judge's conclusion. When this happens (or the more common “attack, attack, activate colonnade, attack”) the player is trying to activate an ability when he or she isn't allowed to do so, which is a game rules violation. The player didn't skip attacking, he or she is just trying to do something at a time when it's not allowed.

Sorry, I was unclear, the judge didn't say that Albert couldn't attack, that was what Natasha said to the judge. I'll edit my post to make it a little more clear :)

Originally posted by Tristan Killeen:

Albert says “Go to Combat?” Natasha says “Ok.” Albert then activates Rogue's Passage targeting one of his creatures. Albert then proceeds to attack, and Natasha calls for a judge. She claims that Albert missed his chance to attack.

How would you rule here?

That seems to be something not entirely related to shortcuts for sure. The player may do not know about the shortcut or simply not know about the sequencing of the steps of the turn and what you are supposed to do in them.

Albert is just trying here to activate an ablity when he does not have priority. I don't think I can rule something else than in the worst case GRV if the opponent seems un satisfied, untap what has been tapped for the rogue passage activation then proceed to declare attackers.

The argument Natasha is trying to make is a stretch and cannot stand before either policy philosophy nor common sense in my opinion.

Edited Théo CHENG (Aug. 8, 2015 02:04:19 AM)

I would rule Out of Order Sequencing - attacking, holding priority and activating Rogue's Passage has exactly the same effect as using Rogue's Passage precombat.

I agree with Theo that Natasha's response is trying to gain advantage not supported by policy.

Jon, it’s a little dicey to call this OoOS when we have a player baiting out a response from their opponent. Part of this shortcut is there to prevent the active player from doing all sorts of shady things like digging for responses and then still getting to perform all their actions. While they haven’t ’skipped combat’ they really shouldn’t get to attack and use rogue’s passage AND gain information that they shouldn’t otherwise have access to.

Will you force then the declaration of blockers before any activation?
I also do not think that it is really an OoOS. While I do agree with you with the spirit of the policy, I do not think it really applies here. Since the rogue passage should be activated before blockers, the attacking player will always have to make the first move, making it hard for any significant infirmation scouting.
Of course speaking to the players is the best, but as it is presented, I would think of just a rules mistake.

Edited Théo CHENG (Aug. 8, 2015 10:04:56 AM)

Originally posted by Benjamin McDole:

we have a player baiting out a response from their opponent. Part of this shortcut is there to prevent the active player from doing all sorts of shady things like digging for responses and then still getting to perform all their actions. While they haven’t ’skipped combat’ they really shouldn’t get to attack and use rogue’s passage AND gain information that they shouldn’t otherwise have access to.

What makes you suspect that they're trying to bait out a response? The scenario just reads like an innocent mistake to me. “Rogue's passage, Attack” doesn't give you access to any kind of information that “Attack, hold priority, Rogue's Passage” doesn't (apart of course from finding out whether your opponent knows rules you don't.)

Originally posted by James Winward-Stuart:

What makes you suspect that they're trying to bait out a response? The scenario just reads like an innocent mistake to me. “Rogue's passage, Attack” doesn't give you access to any kind of information that “Attack, hold priority, Rogue's Passage” doesn't (apart of course from finding out whether your opponent knows rules you don't.)

The wording of the scenario as posted is…

Albert says “Go to Combat?” Natasha says “Ok.” Albert then activates Rogue's Passage targeting one of his creatures. Albert then proceeds to attack, and Natasha calls for a judge. She claims that Albert missed his chance to attack.

…and as presented, Albert seems to be asking a question about whether he can go to combat or not. That Natasha says “Ok” presents as there being some kind of interaction between the players where Albert is looking at Natasha for some kind of response with Albert pausing long enough for that response. While it is possible that it was more like “Go to combat” and Albert didn't make any kind of pause, the question mark reads as a “pause” in the conversation to me as well.

So, I don't see this as being “Rogue's Passage, Attack” either; Albert did not indicate he was holding priority to use the ability whilst moving to combat. At least not per my reading of how this is presented.

Edited Brian Schenck (Aug. 8, 2015 02:34:00 PM)

I don't think that Albert was holding priority, I think that Albert just didn't understand how the relevant shortcuts and steps worked. What I'm querying is Ben's argument that the player can get information they shouldn't have access to from this - I can't see how they can.

I agree with you about how the “Go to combat” part probably happens, but I don't see how Albert can gain information or an advantage from the mis-sequencing of Rogue's Passage and the Attacks. The pause/question on go to combat doesn't make any difference, as there's no extra information or advantage to be had. Albert might want to see if Natasha is going to do something to one of the creatures, and then respond to it, but that same interaction could happen in Beginning of Combat or in Declare Attackers.

There might be a way to get advantage by fishing for information about blocking intentions - but the scenario as presented doesn't include that.

I agree with John & Jon's interpretation - it's clear from Albert's actions after the shortcut is accepted that he haven't skipped his attacks, he's just tried to activate Rogue's Passage at a time when he couldn't. I'd just explain this to him (with Warning) and have him play on from there (no doubt he'll activate the Rogue's Passage in Declare Attackers).

Edited James Winward-Stuart (Aug. 8, 2015 03:23:54 PM)

Originally posted by James Winward-Stuart:

I don't think that Albert was holding priority, I think that Albert just didn't understand how the relevant shortcuts and steps worked. What I'm querying is Ben's argument that the player can get information they shouldn't have access to from this - I can't see how they can.

I agree with you about how the “Go to combat” part probably happens, but I don't see how Albert can gain information or an advantage from the mis-sequencing of Rogue's Passage and the Attacks. The pause/question on go to combat doesn't make any difference, as there's no extra information or advantage to be had. Albert might want to see if Natasha is going to do something to one of the creatures, and then respond to it, but that same interaction could happen in Beginning of Combat or in Declare Attackers.

I believe that the point Ben was making was that this situation really couldn't be OOoS, given the potential information gain. Which I believe your last sentence sums up rather nicely the point I would make; Albert certainly can look for information here.

While true that there's not much potential benefit of that information to Albert, or even that Albert could gain that information at a later point in time, only that his question and pause could gain information to help him with any decisions. The phrasing of the interaction also makes clear that Albert's pause for Natasha's response also illustrates this is not one block of actions.

We can debate the “baiting” part, but I don't believe that's really the crux of the issue here. Rather, it simply illustrates why this isn't really OOoS. Which is then why this really can't be a “Rogue's Passage, Attack” kind of situation. There's nothing to indicate that Albert held priority, or otherwise performed this as a block of actions. Not when looking to Natasha for some kind of response.

Pretty much what Brian has said. I’m also certainly not saying that AP can’t attack, nor that they can’t even activate Rogue’s Passage, just that they’re not doing it as a block of actions here, and OoOS can’t really apply.

Albert then activates Rogue's Passage targeting one of his creatures. Albert then proceeds to attack, and Natasha calls for a judge.

This is my block of actions. I agree that the question of whether Albert can move to declare attackers is not part of this block of actions.

Why does doing those two actions the wrong way round give an opportunity for information?
It is my understanding that we allow animation of creatures when blockers are declared (“block, activate mutavault, block with it) as OoOS, why does the same not apply here?

If it were ”Attack with creature?“ ”Okay“ ”I'll activate Rogue's Passage before blockers" I agree that information has been gained and that AP was fishing and shouldn't be able to activate the ability. I can't reconcile that with the situation listed, however.

Originally posted by Jon Lipscombe:

Albert then activates Rogue's Passage targeting one of his creatures. Albert then proceeds to attack, and Natasha calls for a judge.

This is my block of actions. I agree that the question of whether Albert can move to declare attackers is not part of this block of actions.

Take a step back for a moment, and consider the original “Go to combat?” situation as we apply the standard shortcut from MTR 4.2…

A statement such as “I'm ready for combat” or “Declare attackers?” offers to keep passing priority until an opponent has priority in the beginning of combat step. Opponents are assumed to be acting then unless they specify otherwise.

…as once Albert has asked “Go to combat?”, that means he's passed priority to Natasha up to the beginning of combat step. Albert has to wait until after declaring attackers to actually activate Rogue's Passage's ability, as he doesn't have priority. Once Natasha says “Okay”, then Albert can proceed with declaring his attackers and activating Rogue's Passage targeting his creature.

Once Albert has asked the question about moving to combat, he's waiting for Natasha and doesn't have priority to take any action. I suppose you could argue that this is really actions he's taking in the declare attackers step, just in the wrong order, but IMO that generally implies he has priority to take the actions. Which is normally how OOoS is applied.

Originally posted by Jon Lipscombe:

Why does doing those two actions the wrong way round give an opportunity for information?
It is my understanding that we allow animation of creatures when blockers are declared ("block, activate mutavault, block with it) as OoOS, why does the same not apply here?

Perhaps we're speaking apples and oranges right now. Breaking it down as you see it, I can see that from your perspective the “Activate Rogue's Passage, target this, then attack with this” can be seen as OOoS in its own way. That is, as a subset of the bigger picture if we were to parse out the different pieces.

However, that really only works if Albert has priority to take his actions. Which he doesn't have, as Natasha has priority should we go by our standard shortcut. Especially in comparing with the “Block, animate Mutavault, block with Mutavault” situation; in that situation, Natasha nominally has priority at that point and/or is the one who would legally be taking actions at a time that she normally would take those actions.

Originally posted by Jon Lipscombe:

If it were “Attack with creature?” “Okay” “I'll activate Rogue's Passage before blockers” I agree that information has been gained and that AP was fishing and shouldn't be able to activate the ability. I can't reconcile that with the situation listed, however.

I think that's the disconnect. When I consider this situation, I evaluate from the perspective of “Does Albert even have priority to propose his action?” If not, then he needs to wait until he legally can do those actions. Which is something largely implicit from OOoS in my opinion; the player taking the action needs to at least take the action at a point when he can legally take the action. Perhaps that's too fine a parsing, but this also follows why we don't allow the “Attack with this creature, activate Mutavault, then attack with Mutavault.” (A situation that is not comparable with the blocking situation.)

Still, this doesn't mean that Albert missed his opportunity to attack; it means that Albert has activated Rogue's Passage at a time when he couldn't. I don't see how we make the jump to that conclusion, given that Albert's actions clearly indicate he is declaring attackers. He's just goofing things up such that OOoS doesn't seem to apply here.

Remember, one of the seminal examples of what is and isn't OoOS is this:

“Attack, attack, activate mutavault, attack” => OK

“Combat?”
“OK”
“Attack, attack, activate mutavault, attack” => Not OK

What's the difference? In the first case, you're being a bit sloppy and we're not going to be sticklers about it. In the second case, you've explicitly advanced the game past the last possible point where you could have activated the mutavault and still attacked with it. Because you're being very clear according to the rules, we go what what you said.

That said, I think the original scenario is a little unclear on the time between when AP activates Rogue's Passage and when he declares his attackers. I can see myself possibly ruling OoOS here if it happened all at once, but probably not if there was an explicit back-and-forth where AP activates the Passage, waits for responses, gets none, then attacks.

I would definitely not rule that AP has missed his chance to attack. That's a level of rules lawyering I'm not going to support.