This came out of a #mtgjudge discussion this morning, at the end of which there wasn't agreement. The question is, if the active player says “pass priority in my main phase”, does this constitute a shortcut to the non-active player having priority in the begin combat step?

For example:

Amanda is playing in a Competitive REL tournament, and has built up a threatening board against four untapped Islands. The stack is empty, and she says “pass priority in my main phase”. Nicole says “Cryptic Command, tap your creatures draw a card.” After Cryptic resolves, Amanda casts Monastery Swiftspear and says “Combat?”. Nicole calls a judge, objecting that she meant to cast Cryptic in the beginning of combat. How do you rule?

Other cases where someone might want to be careful about priority passes around the beginning of combat: if they control a Goblin Rabblemaster, if they tapped lands with an effect like Tamiyo, the Moon Sage and want to cast an instant (Through the Breach), if they have creaturelands that could be animated.

The disagreement centered around whether this kind of phrasing is an example of Magic: the Gotcha, or whether Amanda is using her superior rules knowledge (MTR 4.2) to bluff her opponent. I come down on the side of the latter, and I was pretty surprised to learn that I might be held to a shortcut for attempting to *avoid* shortcutting and stick to very explicit, technical communication.

I see this as an example of Magic: the “Gotcha!”

Amanda tried to play around an MtG shortcut that exists for convenience so that players can have fun playing the game without being frustrated by having to remain as technical to the rules as possible. If Amanda truly wanted to let Nicole know she would receive priority in the main phase, there should be some clear indication that states priority would be received there, not simply Amanda is passing priority in her main phase without saying where it ends up.

That being said, this was an example of word-play and I don't encourage it in any sanctioned MtG game whether it's during a Tuesday night draft or in the top 8 of a Grand Prix.

I honestly am not seeing how there can be any question in the scenario
you've given. The player has stated a very specific action at a specific
time that they wish to take. There is nothing about what the player has
said that goes along the lines of “attacks”, “combat”, etc. from the
tournament shortcuts to make what they said mean something different.

Eric:

Your thoughts here seem to be contradictory. It seems to me you're saying
“Players shouldn't have to worry about being very technical in their play
all the time” and then follow it up by saying “Amanda should be super duper
technical and very specific about exactly what is happening here to get
what she wants.” This seems to go against your first statement. Amanda has
not used a pre-defined shortcut and she likely has not described this as a
shortcut meaning something else previously during there match. Instead, she
has said something that has a specific meaning at a specific time. How can
saying that mean anything other what she has said?

One of the things about the tournament shortcut rules is that they exist to
define what happens when players take shortcuts - they shed some light on
the ambiguity that happens when players don't necessarily announce every
little priority pass. However, I'm not interested in invoking the
tournament shortcuts when a player has declared an action as clear as this
one: while “combat” could potentially mean many things and the MTR
shortcuts are needed to lend meaning to AP's words, “pass priority” is
quite clear, and “pass priority in my main phase” is even clearer. After AP
says this, NAP has priority in the main phase. If NAP takes no action, the
top item on the stack will resolve, or if the stack is empty, we will move
into the beginning of combat step.

This is an old, oft-repeated debate; someone else (who isn't already tired from Day One of the #MTGWMC) could maybe search the archives and find previous conclusions on this very topic.

(Hint: stop trying to find tricks that work.)

d:^D

Why did Amanda want priority in BoC? What does she want to do then that she couldn't do in First Main?

With something like Goblin Rabblemaster, you don't need it (the trigger's assumed remembered since you don't need to choose targets when it triggers). With something like Yasova Dragonclaw you can say “Beginning of Combat, Yasova trigger?” and see if they want to kill it before moving to BoC and picking your target.

Language barriers are definitely a thing, and more of a thing the larger the event is. If you're not absolutely positive your opponent realizes what you're asking them here, say it again or call a judge to explain it for you. Or both, even. Nicole clearly thought they were in BoC, so Amanda didn't explain herself well enough.

Originally posted by George FitzGerald:

“Players shouldn't have to worry about being very technical in their playall the time”

That's right! They shouldn't need to. That's the reason why it's fun to play a card game with many (many!) rules. However, there are moments when a player needs to be a bit more descriptive about what they intend to do here, particularly when they're doing/saying something that is not typically observed in most games.

Originally posted by George FitzGerald:

“Amanda should be super dupertechnical and very specific about exactly what is happening here to getwhat she wants.”

…and she should be. She wanted to pass priority to Nicole so that Nicole would receive it in the main phase instead of the beginning of combat step. Amanda just stated she was passing her priority, not at what moment her opponent would receive priority after it was passed.

Scott Marshall
(Hint: stop trying to find tricks that work.)

^ This x100

Ask Nicole when she was playing the spell. Amanda can't mind trick Nicole
into thinking it's one part of the turn when it isn't through wordplay,
that's not something we encourage. If Nicole says she played her card in
Beginning of Combat, then that's when she played it.

Furthermore, if Amanda wanted to verify when Nicole was casting it, she
should have asked. “Still in Main?” would have sufficed. But otherwise,
without clarification, we can't just assume she's playing it in first main.

Nick Short

I certainly agree with Nick here. If NAP has responded, then we can simply
ask her when she intended to cast that response, and as long as she doesn't
say something unreasonable, we can probably just accept that. The point
where I wish to interpret “Pass priority in my main phase” as the
plain-text phrase that it is, is if NAP says “no responses” and AP then
decides to activate a manland or take some other action before declaring
attacks.

How is using Magic specific terms to describe what you want to do a “mind
trick”? And why should Amanda verify when Nicole was casting the spell when
she already gave very specific indications of what and when she did what
she wanted to do?

If we should be hand holding a player through knowing the rules, then
perhaps we should remove the line about “rewarding players with superior
knowledge of the rules” from the MTR.

Originally posted by Dan Collins:

One of the things about the tournament shortcut rules is that they exist to
define what happens when players take shortcuts - they shed some light on
the ambiguity that happens when players don't necessarily announce every
little priority pass. However, I'm not interested in invoking the
tournament shortcuts when a player has declared an action as clear as this
one: while “combat” could potentially mean many things and the MTR
shortcuts are needed to lend meaning to AP's words, “pass priority” is
quite clear, and “pass priority in my main phase” is even clearer. After AP
says this, NAP has priority in the main phase. If NAP takes no action, the
top item on the stack will resolve, or if the stack is empty, we will move
into the beginning of combat step.

Precisely. Shortcuts exist to fill gaps in communication so that players can play the game naturally without needing to be technically precise at all times. This does not mean that players are precluded from playing precisely if they choose to do so, as AP has done here. In this case, their is no gap in communication to fill–AP has been perfectly clear in specifying exactly which game action she is taking and when she is taking it. There is therefore no applicable shortcut at all. It then falls to NAP to understand what the in-game consequences of that action are. If she doesn't understand what AP is saying, she is always free to call a judge. Otherwise, MTR 4.1 continues to apply:

The philosophy of the DCI is that a player should have an advantage due to better understanding of the rules of a game …

Finally, I find this to be unreasonable, as well as incompatible with the above passage from MTR 4.1:

Eric Paré
Amanda just stated she was passing her priority, not at what moment her opponent would receive priority after it was passed.

The consequence of AP passing priority in her main phase is that NAP has priority in AP's main phase. I can find no justification for holding that any additional precision is necessary. In fact, just the opposite: we require this level of communication when a player is proposing a new shortcut, but the very essence of this situation is that a player is choosing to avoid the use of shortcuts altogether.

Here is one of the more recent discussions about combat shortcuts, everyone will find some very detailed answers there.

Edit: horrible grammar, I'm also too tired to write something :-(

Edited Auzmyn Oberweger (Dec. 11, 2015 04:34:16 PM)

Back many, many years ago, this trick worked. The entire point of that
shortcut is to prevent this specific trick (because in 99% of
circumstances, that's not NAP's intended outcome). So if we're going to
allow it by using certain magic words, then it defeats the purpose of
having that shortcut in the first place. It may as well not exist, if AP
can *unilaterally* turn it off at will.

Nick Short

On the matter I have found myself in constant disagreement with plenty of judges, in France or even in the US. I really think that the little section about this shortcut in particular is worth revisiting.
I am on the side of saying that any phrase you use to move forward in the turn is using the shortcut because I believe it is the spirit of the paragraph.
I understand also the point of view of others, because it means more or less that you cannot play games without using it, making using magic tournament shortcut here mandatory.

On the topic of this shortcut in particular I am a little split in mind. On this one I think that nowadays it is used way way more often by players that know well the policy to make opponents miss land animation, used at least as much for this reason than for the first purpose of the shortcut. A bit like the former infraction for failure to reveal a morph, the way it is used today is sometimes making me a little uncomfortable.

On this topic I really wish to see an update of the MTR which makes the shortcut a little less interpretable by each judge. Many of us are starting to say that the shortcut is only applicable with the sentences given in example and are in the same grounds than the players who are trying to avoid the shortcut. I personally do not agree with that but the way the shortcut explanation is written today we have I believe athe little too much wiggle room for personal belief and interpretation.

T_O