This is an excellent scenario and is particularly relevant to me, because this is a shortcut I struggle with. The MTR defines this in a way that is counter-intuitive and contrary to the way I often see players using this shortcut. Before becoming a judge, I would have never thought that “combat?” would actually take me past the point I'm allowed to activate my mutavault (for example). It seems to me that “combat?” should take you to (your priority in) the beginning of combat step and “declare attacks?” should take you to the declare attackers step (if you opponent agrees to pass their chance at priority).

But, whether I like it or not, it seems the MTR is pretty clear in what this shortcut means. It also says that “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.” So, without explicit deviation, there is no arguing that we have now moved to NAP's priority in the beginning of combat. I assume the intention of the MTR definition is to get to declaring attackers as quickly as possible while giving NAP one last chance to do something beforehand. With the that purpose, it seems like a stretch to me that you can include a trigger in this pre-defined shortcut without being explicit and say that it was on the stack when your opponent received priority. On the other hand, it does not say “with an empty stack” and this type of trigger only needs to be acknowledged on resolution.

The fact that AP tapped and attacked immediately after calling lifelink does imply that he isn't quite as technical in his play and probably didn't actually realize the precise shortcut he was proposing. Seems like a chance for some education on careful play and better communication.

Although I've waffled a bit, I think this is similar enough to casting an instant with an unannounced trigger on the stack. If we want to use the technicality of the meaning of the shortcut, I suppose we should also use the technicality of not having the phrase “with an empty stack.” I would clearly give priority back to NAP before attackers are declared, but rule the trigger was not missed even though I doubt AP knew exactly what he was doing.

I do think this shortcut could use some refinement to prevent confusion such as this.

After taking the time to write this, it occurred to me that a better approach would be to engage the players. It would be good to start by asking NAP how the trigger was missed. Assuming NAP gives an answer that accurately explains that the shortcut is defined to move to his priority in the beginning of combat step, we could see how AP responds. If AP says, “sure, with my trigge to the stack” I'd be very comfortable saying the trigger was not missed.

Originally posted by Jesse Watts:

To me this is not missed trigger, but rather shortcuts being proposed. no infraction for either party, and ask neville if he accepts the shortcut, or if he has a response, either to the angel gaining lifelink, or when he receives priority after the ability resolves..

True overall, but I do think that you should NOT allow Neville to respond to the choice of Lifelink. The trigger has resolved already and Neville allowed that to happen (“ Neville indicates no responses”).

I suspect that the correct answer here is that AP missed their trigger, though I stand by my decision that I would give it to him.

Without reading other responses: No infraction or penalty.

From the MTR on standard tournament shortcuts:

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.

In this case, the opponent first gets priority in the beginning of combat step with the Skirmisher trigger on the stack. Nothing indicates that the game has advanced past the point where Adam had to make his choice for the trigger.

The only thing that could arguably require a fix is in the unlikely event that Neville wants to take a game action in between the Skirmisher trigger resolving and the Declare Attackers step. If that was the case, I tell Adam to play a bit more carefully and let Neville take his action.

Before reading: The shortcut of saying “Combat,” or something similar, offers to keep passing priority until the opponent has priority at the Beginning of Combat step. That puts us right when it would trigger, with the opponent having priority with Skirmisher's ability on the stack. Adam then acknowledges his trigger before taking any game actions and declares an attacker.

No infraction, no penalty, no fix.

After reading: Same conclusion. Explain to both players why it works that way, and if NAP had something he wanted to do between Adam choosing Lifelink and declaring attackers, allow him to do so (since it seemed like this all happened quite quickly).

Originally posted by Jacob Kriner:

I would love if you could explain some questions regarding your solution

I am taking the intent of the “Combat” shortcut to be getting us to Declare Attackers as quickly as possible. Because of the communication implications of having a shortcut involved I am taking the intent of the shortcut from the MTR and the NAP accepting the shortcut, rather than the intent of the AP.

This is how Neville understands the shortcut, accepted the shortcut, and when he passes priority we should be moving to the next step. If Adam wanted his shortcut to mean something else, such as asking his opponent if his trigger resolves (by having it on the stack), the onus was on him. MTR 4.2 requires being explicit in any deviation from the “conventional tournament shortcuts”.

Adam passed priority by using a shortcut. As he now has gained an advantage via additional information (his opponent choosing not to do anything in the Beginning of Combat step) he can’t go back.

I made a thing

Originally posted by Jason Kennedy:

I made a thing

The problem with your thing is that it gets the timing wrong. Specifically where text “Resolve Trigger” appears. The trigger for the Skirmisher cannot resolve until both players have passed priority. Your picture implies somehow that when AP says, “Combat” he or she gets to skip past the resolution of his triggers.

This isn't the case, which is why the shortcut explicitly goes to the first time NAP has priority in the beginning of combat step. at this point, he or she gets to respond to any triggers placed on the stack by AP's stuff. Breaking it down, AP is shortcutting through:

AP: “Okay, the stack is empty here in my first main phase. I pass.”
NAP: “I also pass.”
AP: “It is now the combat phase. Beginning of combat step. Angelic Skirmisher triggers. I have priority. I pass priority.”

I fail to see how AP gains any advantage since NAP has every opportunity to respond to the trigger. Also, we assume that triggers are not missed until the clearly and definitively are missed. Arguing that the combat shortcut leads to AP gaining an advantage is like saying AP gets advantage in the following scenario:

AP: “It's now the combat phase. Beginning of combat step. I cast Battlewise Valor. I pass priority.”

In this scenario, the trigger isn't missed, but assumed to be on the stack under the instant. How is that different?

Originally posted by Jason Kennedy:

I am taking the intent of the “Combat” shortcut to be getting us to Declare Attackers as quickly as possible. Because of the communication implications of having a shortcut involved I am taking the intent of the shortcut from the MTR and the NAP accepting the shortcut, rather than the intent of the AP.

You say that you are taking the intent of the shortcut from the MTR what is the wording of the MTR Shortcut?

1. The choice for this trigger is made as the trigger resolves.
2. The shortcut to “combat” offers to pass priority until NAP has priority in the Beginning of Combat step.

The trigger is on the stack when NAP announces “no response”. As long as AP then acknowledges and resolves that trigger before proceeding any further, nothing has been missed. The MTR definition of the “combat” shortcut supports this (see #2 above). There is no missed trigger, no infractions, and no penalty to be issued.

It is also worth noting that after AP makes this choice, there is another passing of priority prior to actually declaring attackers. If NAP wanted to do something after the choice was made/trigger resolved, before attackers were declared, he could back up AP to the point in-between where NAP has priority again to take such an action. The trigger would already have been resolved, but it would be prior to declaring attacks. However, I am not suggesting this information be volunteered to either player, just pointing out that the option to do so exists.

This is kind of like saying “pass turn” with a Wisperwood Elemental in play. You offer to pass priority until NAP has priority in the End Step. If NAP accepts the shortcut, your trigger is still there and can be resolved after NAP passes priority back.

Hello all, and thank you for all your input! Here is our solution.

As most of you figured out, Adam has proposed to use a conventional shortcut that passes priority to Neville during beginning of combat. The first opportunity for Neville to receive priority during combat is with Adam's trigger on the stack. Adam has clearly not missed his trigger. Even though Neville might not have been clear about it or even known, he was choosing not to respond to the trigger. Adam then resolves his trigger correctly but does continue to declare his attack very fast. While Adam's play is not ideal, it is also not illegal.

The ruling is no penalty, untap the angel and allow Neville to respond after the trigger resolves, before attackers are declared, if he so desires.

Thank you and see you at the next scenario!

Without reading responses or documents:
If I recall correctly, the player makes a choice for Angelic Skirmisher's trigger when it resolves (I used to play that card, in fact, I still consider it mildly playable :) ). So the first time the the player has to indicate awareness of the trigger is when it resolves, because until then, it requires no choices or targets.
When AP asks “Combat”, he is using a shortcut to pass priority to the opponent in beginning of combat step. At this point, we can assume that the trigger is on the stack. Opponent indicated no response, so the trigger resolved, AP chose lifelink.
This is where I get a bit unsure: Technically, AP gets priority after this trigger resolves, then he passes priority to the opponent. At this point, the opponent still has the chance to take an action. Despite this, AP immediately went to declare attackers step and declared attackers.

So my ruling here would be: no infraction, no penalty. Adam didn't miss his trigger, but he “rushed” to declare attackers, so I would do a minor backup to the point where Neville has priority after this trigger resolved.

After reading:
It seems I remembered correctly. As for the skipping Neville's priority after the trigger resolved, seems some of you agree that it shouldn't be allowed and backup is called for in this case.
Also, I don't see how Out of Order Sequencing could be applied here.

Edit:
Sorry for replying after the solution is posted, I didn't notice that. :/

Edited Zoltán Tóth-Bajnóczi (Sept. 17, 2015 02:44:26 PM)