Why is passing priority in your first main phase a shortcut to move to declare attackers?

Also why is the phrase “move to beginning of combat” a shortcut that skips said beginning of combat phase and moves you to declare attackers?

Both of these seems really counterintuitive to me.

Most importantly, it seems that this article suggests that it's impossible for AP to simply enter his beginning of combat phase with priority and he will have to announce everything he intends to do in that step beforehand. (I could be reading this wrong and AP can simply state that he intends to hold priority when he moves to his beginning of combat step).

A few of the judges I've spoken to said that it's only an issue in “corner cases” where your opponent has floating mana in your main phase (people who want to activate manlands in beginning of combat step could always do it in their main phase and it wouldn't make a difference, with only a few corner cases according to them).


Most people I play with will only do things at the last possible chance in order to give their opponents information. This means that they activate their manlands in their beginning of combat before they attack. It seems to me that this broad definition of the shortcut will allow for people who are knowledgable about it to play gotcha and prevent them from attacking with their manlands if they move to combat or even simply pass priority in the first main phase. So while you're fixing a problem that allows people to fish for information, you're also punishing players who aren't quite aware of how broad this shortcut is by denying them a play they thought was obvious. I might be mistaken, but I think more people know how turn structure and priority work than people who know how shortcuts work (specifically how broad this one is).

So my question is, am I overreacting on this issue? Because it seems to me that most judges I've talked to think it's fine as it is, but quite a lot of my players are very confused.

I think it is important to note that some points in that article are not uncontroversial, and not all judges will agree that it presents a correct or even a coherently logical interpretation of policy (I know there are certainly points I disagree with, and I am planning to write a counterpoint article to point them out). This is an issue which has been debated many times, both here on judge apps and elsewhere over the years, and I doubt that we may ever reach consensus on all aspects of it.

Originally posted by Michael He:

Because it seems to me that most judges I've talked to think it's fine as it is, but quite a lot of my players are very confused. It seems to me that this broad definition of the shortcut will allow for people who are knowledgable about it to play gotcha and prevent them from attacking with their manlands if they move to combat or even simply pass priority in the first main phase.

Why are your players trying to move to combat without animating their lands and trying to pass priority in their main phase without moving to combat? Barring the corner-cases the judges you talked to brought up, there is no (non-sleazy) reason for them to ever do either of those things.

There is the new card in SOI, nahiri's machinations, that gives target creature indestructible at the beginning of your upkeep. Players may try to force entry into their beginning of combat step with this card as to not misses the trigger.

I would assume if a player says attacks or what not the shortcut allows them to choose a target with this card and have it be opponents priority in beginning of combat step with the trigger on the stack. Otherwise the trigger would always be missed.

They must choose a target when the trigger would be placed on the stack.
Allowing your opponent to have priority in the beginning of combat step
without declaring a target means the trigger has been missed.

In the case of Nahiri's Machinations, the active player can simply indicate
their target as they pass to combat. There is no way for the NAP to
“gotcha” them by somehow tricking them here. If AP is aware of their
trigger, they can simply indicate its target. This is similar to the
Goblin Rabblemaster trigger, with the exception that the player must
indicate as they're going to beginning of combat what the target of the
trigger is.

As far as activating manlands goes, Kevin's article gives your players a
very clear way to do so: “Go to combat and activate this manland” or
something similar. This would seem to me to be a very good opportunity to
educate your players on the default tournament shortcuts.

Originally posted by Robert Hinrichsen:

I am planning to write a counterpoint article to point them out

I feel compelled to point out that Kevin's article represents the ‘O’fficial position on this policy.

d:^D

Originally posted by Michael He:

Why is passing priority in your first main phase a shortcut to move to declare attackers?

To summarize what's been said before: players have, repeatedly, tried to use linguistic games, traps, and “gotchas” to trick opponents into casting things in the “wrong” phase. Magic should be a game of skill, but that skill involves the rules of the game, not the skills of knowing the exact phrasing to bypass a defined shortcut. Players shouldn't be at an advantage because they are playing the game in their native language and their opponent isn't.

For that reason, policy (fficially, as Scoot points out) makes it clear that anything that sounds remotely like “go to combat” means you're using the “go to combat” shortcut. This does unfortunately mean that sometimes, players will get caught without their Landimals turned on. No policy is perfect, and the benefit of disallowing “gotchas” outweighs the occasional downside. This is especially true because the cases where this shortcut harms a player are generally corner case; as Callum points out, there are few non-sketchy reasons to need to activate Mishra's Factory in combat rather than in main.

And if you really, really need to do something in combat? Just do what Kevin suggests and propose a shortcut skipping straight to your action: "In my combat step, cast Cauldron Dance?“ or ”I would like to activate an ability in my Beginning of Combat phase. Before that, would you like to do anything in my Main Phase?"

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

Michael He
Why is passing priority in your first main phase a shortcut to move to declare attackers?

To summarize what's been said before: players have, repeatedly, tried to use linguistic games, traps, and “gotchas” to trick opponents into casting things in the “wrong” phase. Magic should be a game of skill, but that skill involves the rules of the game, not the skills of knowing the exact phrasing to bypass a defined shortcut. Players shouldn't be at an advantage because they are playing the game in their native language and their opponent isn't.

For that reason, policy (fficially, as Scoot points out) makes it clear that anything that sounds remotely like “go to combat” means you're using the “go to combat” shortcut. This does unfortunately mean that sometimes, players will get caught without their Landimals turned on. No policy is perfect, and the benefit of disallowing “gotchas” outweighs the occasional downside. This is especially true because the cases where this shortcut harms a player are generally corner case; as Callum points out, there are few non-sketchy reasons to need to activate Mishra's Factory in combat rather than in main.

And if you really, really need to do something in combat? Just do what Kevin suggests and propose a shortcut skipping straight to your action: "In my combat step, cast Cauldron Dance?“ or ”I would like to activate an ability in my Beginning of Combat phase. Before that, would you like to do anything in my Main Phase?"

The problem I see is that something that is clear (“go to my beginning of combat step” or “End my first main step”) will now becomes muddy just because they fall under the shortcut. I'm fine with “combat”, or “go to attacks” being a shortcut, but lumping these two into it takes it a little too far as they are both very clear on exactly which phase they want to go to. You said magic is not a game of words or gotchas, but you're creating one here by allowing the opponent to prevent you from attacking with your manlands because you didn't use the right words when moving to combat.

This is creates another word game where players will have to specifically say where they want to go and use words like “move to my beginning of combat, not declare attackers” instead of something that should be clear. Now with this rule, just because I player say “combat”, they will not be able to animate their manlands to attack.

Regarding activating your manlands in your main phase, it's in a player's best interest to wait before doing something until the last moment in order to prevent giving their opponents information. It's intuitive for players to do this (you never see a player want to use a combat trick before blockers are declared for example), and when you suddenly through in a different rule just for beginning of combat step it will confuse players. Yes, I understand the reason why you want this rule, but at this point, I feel it's doing more harm than good. Although it's not as relevant for standard, but there are often mana floating in modern and legacy where you run cards that can destroy your opponents lands, and therefore players have a very good reason to wait before activating their manlands. You call them corner cases, but it happens quite frequently and players get into a habit to play that way.

But am I understanding it wrong that you cannot enter beginning of combat with priority because of this shortcut?

Originally posted by Michael He:

allowing the opponent to prevent you from attacking with your manlands because you didn't use the right words when moving to combat

First, this is a lesson that only needs to be learned once; second, it has nothing to do with “using the right words” - just animate your lands, then attack with them.

Originally posted by Michael He:

it's in a player's best interest to wait before doing something until the last moment in order to prevent giving their opponents information

This usually has no bearing on animating lands (or most pre-combat actions), except in certain cases - as you noted:

Originally posted by Michael He:

there are often mana floating in modern and legacy where you run cards that can destroy your opponents lands

And we've (fairly clearly, I believe) explained how easy it is to handle that situation:

Kevin Desprez
For instance, “In combat, I animate my land”.

It's also been suggested you can say something like “I'd like to do something in Beginning of Combat, unless you have anything else in my Main Phase?” That's a fine way to make your opponent commit to using any floating mana, or losing it.

Originally posted by Michael He:

But am I understanding it wrong that you cannot enter beginning of combat with priority because of this shortcut?

You are, indeed, misunderstanding it - as I just noted, above.

Originally posted by Michael He:

you suddenly through in a different rule

We didn't suddenly throw in this rule; it's been stated as policy for at least a decade, if I recall correctly. It was stated as such before we formalized the Shortcuts, and they've been in effect for a long time; the very first MTR took effect on July 1, 2009, replacing the Universal Tournament Rules (which had replaced the Magic Floor Rules). In that July 2009 document was the same wording of that shortcut as we have today. And the MTR continues to say that:

Players are responsible for … Being familiar with the rules contained within this document.

d:^D

Didn't we remove the part with “superior rulesknowledge is an advantage” from our philosophy?

Ontopic: I don't like that Shortcut either, because you have to be extremely precise where you want to be, and then if the judge doesn't speak english very well does rule against me because I said it correct but the judge didn't understand it.

No, as far as I am aware, we still consider superior rules knowledge to be an advantage we want players to have.

This is not about superior rules knowledge, though. This is about clarity of communication. As Scott and others have pointed out, I doubt any of us would have a problem if, every time you wanted to pass priority in your main phase In order to have priority in your beginning of combat step, you said something like “I would like to go to my beginning of combat step, is there anything you want to do in my main phase before that?” The trouble is, most players won't ever do that, and will be happy to proclaim any response by the opponent to be happening in their main phase even when that's not what the opponent wants to do.

It's also worth pointing out that policy already sometimes requires players to give away information if they want to act, so they are not always entitled to act as late as possible to hide information. The example I'm thinking of is in triggers. If you want to know if your opponent has remembered Exalted or some other trigger with no visible effect on the game state, you may have to ask about it. Similarly here, if you want to attack with your manlands, you're going to have to give that info away one priority pass before you may technically have to. I'm not really concerned about that.

Sent from my iPad

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

It's also been suggested you can say something like “I'd like to do something in Beginning of Combat, unless you have anything else in my Main Phase?” That's a fine way to make your opponent commit to using any floating mana, or losing it.

From the linked article

Even the most thorough statement like: “I pass priority to you in Main Phase 1” or “I want to enter in the beginning of combat step” falls under that shortcut.

I'm pretty sure you (Scott) have said something to the effect of “there is no magical order of words that will allow a player to pass priority in the main phase and end up with priority in the beginning of combat step”.

And I feel like “I'd like to do something in the Beginning of Combat” is getting close to word play. Even if it is clear (it is probably as clear as the two examples quoted).

If we're getting away from word play in this example - we need to maintain that consistently. And AP is forced to say what that thing they're doing at the beginning of combat is, each and every time.

Edit: The quote that I completely rephrased in my own mind:

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

The shortcuts also - esp. this one! - are designed to eliminate certain types of misleading communication - like the original example.

For all those who haven't read the entire post, I'm going to - at the risk of sounding snarky - sum it up:
OP: “I want a way to trick my opponent into tapping my guy during my main phase, so I can play my Haste creature and attack with it.”
Judge: “No.”

It really is that simple - so, please, stop trying to find a clever wording that will work, or arguing that we should allow some variation of clever wording.

Edited Edward Bell (May 28, 2016 04:49:28 PM)

Originally posted by Edward Bell:

And I feel like “I'd like to do something in the Beginning of Combat” is getting close to word play. Even if it is clear (it is probably as clear as the two examples quoted).

Why?

Originally posted by Michael He:

The problem I see is that something that is clear (“go to my beginning of combat step” or “End my first main step”) will now becomes muddy just because they fall under the shortcut. I'm fine with “combat”, or “go to attacks” being a shortcut, but lumping these two into it takes it a little too far as they are both very clear on exactly which phase they want to go to.

Those phrases aren't nearly as clear as you might believe–parsing all the implications of those phrases requires you to know exactly how priority ties into the turn structure. And not just know abstractly, but be familiar enough with to be able to handle on the fly in-game.

Your average player hearing “Go to my beginning of combat step” is going to believe that the game is now in the beginning of combat step, because hey, that's where the active player said they were going. “End my first main” has the same result–if the main has ended, we have to be in the beginning of combat now, right? So they will jump in with their tap effects and similar, because they know the beginning of combat step is their last chance to use them. And to make things even worse, a lot of them will do so by saying, “In response, I…”, because hey, that's how you use instants, right? In response to things?

And then an unscrupulous opponent will say, “Hah, gotcha!”, play their sorcery-speed effect, and laugh.

Originally posted by Michael He:

You said magic is not a game of words or gotchas, but you're creating one here by allowing the opponent to prevent you from attacking with your manlands because you didn't use the right words when moving to combat.

If there is a gotcha here, it is a far smaller and less impactful one than the one that exists when the shortcut doesn't apply. Haste creatures and tap effects–and other ways of making the shortcut matter–exist in every Limited environment, often multiple times at common, while animateable lands show up only once every few years, and almost always at rare.

A “No animation for you!” gotcha can be played around by animating the lands before explicitly attempting to move to combat, which has no strategic downsides and many players do unconsciously anyway, whereas playing around a “Ha, you did that in the main phase!” gotcha requires a precise understanding of exactly what words your opponent said and what that implies, which can be extremely difficult, especially when the players might not even share a common language.

Originally posted by Michael He:

Regarding activating your manlands in your main phase, it's in a player's best interest to wait before doing something until the last moment in order to prevent giving their opponents information. It's intuitive for players to do this (you never see a player want to use a combat trick before blockers are declared for example), and when you suddenly through in a different rule just for beginning of combat step it will confuse players.

On the contrary, it's a perfectly natural evolution. “Do things as late as possible” is at its heart a lie-to-children; the reality is much more complex–do your players play lands before combat in Limited so as to represent tricks?

It is often useful to conceal information, but sometimes it is not, and grasping that can be a significant step in growing as a player.

Originally posted by Michael He:

Although it's not as relevant for standard, but there are often mana floating in modern and legacy where you run cards that can destroy your opponents lands, and therefore players have a very good reason to wait before activating their manlands. You call them corner cases, but it happens quite frequently and players get into a habit to play that way.

It requires the opponent to tap in such a way that land destruction can prevent removal from being cast, that the destruction needs to be used during the player's main phase (so it's something waiting in the hand rather than on the battlefield already, or it would have been used at the end of the opponent's turn), and that the player controls an animateable land that they definitely want to attack with on the current turn.

So yes, I'd call that a corner case. The number of times it comes up is negligible compared to the number of times “My opponent has a tap effect (or similar) and I'd like them to use it earlier than they should so I can use this non-instant effectively” comes up.