So, since there seem to be some misunderstanding regarding the Official policy on this. Am I understanding this correctly?

As far as I read both MTR, the article and comments here, all ways of moving to combat or any specific step in combat would be part of the combat shortcut as specified in MTR. And, this shortcut can be interrupted like any other shortcut - by either player specifing when they want to interrupt the shortcut, for AP this need to be done as they propose the combat shortcut. Then they would have to act at the specified time.

If you only state which phase you want to be in, or that you pass priority once, you don't nescessarily want to act, so it doesn't disrupt the shortcut. But, as Toby says, if its clear by your statements that you want to act there, as in his example, we can rule that you wanted to act there - this is because exact wordings isn't what's important here . The important part is the difference between if you try to bait out responses by being able to act later anyway (usually not allowed, and usually includes asking to move to a step without specifing anything), or if you try to to be clear about wanting to do something before you attack, but after the main phase (usually allowed).

Originally posted by Toby Elliott:

I was answering the question “what do I need to say to move to having priority in BoC when I have a legitimate reason to do so?” Understanding that is easier if you have the wider context. I don't think that implied it was in contention.

It was more of a general observation about this discussion where both sides seemed to be talking about completely different things. One side wanted to clear a point that was confusing to them and the other side kept answering a totally different question and pointing out a situation that no one had asked about as if it explained anything.

But as I stated earlier I believe that this whole bruhahaa was because of that single word ‘imply’ and the poorly chosen examples in the article. Since imply has two definitions that are basically the opposites of one another then people would see the whole article and especially the examples in the light of the definition they assigned to it first (even if subconsciously) and there was no hope that either side would understand what the problem was for the other side :)

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

I agree, but that's because *the shortcut works.* It clearly disallows trying to use those kind of tricks. Pointing out that no one is using those tricks is like believing your antivirus software is useless because you've never seen your computer get a virus.

But no one in my knowledge has said that NO ONE is using those tricks, I only stated earlier that I have never personally witnessed anyone trying them but had seen NAP quickly capitalize if AP even unknowingly used a combat shortcut and ended up in declare attackers even if they didn't mean to. My point was that one side kept bringing this situation up again and again even though no one asked questions about it, but instead of the legitimate situation where AP needs to have priority in their beginning of combat without having to provide NAP with hidden information.

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

Toby provided a clean solution here. The shortcut disallows anything that could be used to trick an opponent into casting a spell during the wrong phase (even if that's not the intent, and even if there's a good reason to play the way you're playing.) So you so you make it obvious–not “technically precise” obvious, but “explain it like I'm five” obvious–that you're still in main phase. As Toby said, “are you doing anything with your floating mana?” covers your bases nicely.

Yes, and after that whole thing about the word ‘imply’ I can see how those fit to the article. This was only as an example to the question “What are you losing other than the possibility of trapping your opponent to acting in main phase”. Now I agree that this situation can be described as “trapping your opponent” but it is a completely legitimate trapping and I don't see a basis for preventing AP from waiting to beginning of combat before casting Turn Against, whether they know about the Unsummon or not and, as already stated, the article didn't prevent this action for AP.

AP of course has to give away the fact that they are going to do something in their beginning of combat but that's the necessity of paper magic some times and doesn't really differ from NAP maybe having to make sure if AP remembered their combat triggers or prowess triggers for example by asking for the P/T of a certain creature.

Hi all!

I believe that the secondary definition of imply does not make sense in the
context of the article, but these kinds of misunderstandings are the beauty
of language (as have been pointed out numerous times in this thread) ^^.

However I believe there's one more lesson to take away from this that
hasn't been addressed much. Some of you seem to have players and judges
that are confused by this article and/or by policy as phrased.

I think this shows you a good opportunity to spread awareness and
understanding of the policy behind this policy. Why we have it (which has
been illustrated a few times), how to make sure you get to do what you want
to do and understanding what we won't help you do.

I'm curious if those of you confused feel you can explain this policy
better to the players now and address their concerns :)?

Kind Regards
/Eskil
Den 30 maj 2016 22:41 skrev “Lasse Kulmala” <

The example Lasse points out is another where Toby has provided language
for the player to use: “I would like to take an action in the beginning of
combat, would you like to use your floating mana first?” There is no need
to create a “magic sentence” exception to the general shortcut for that.

Also, I don't think “floating mana in the main phase” can realistically be
considered not a corner case. Not what I was asking, I will grant you, but
it's generally been our philosophy not to worry too much about corner
cases, so I think it's worth pointing out.

So far, Lasse has been the only one to answer my query. What other
strategic considerations are we short-circuiting? My contention is that
there aren't any, or rather that there aren't enough strategic
considerations being lost to worry about in regards to the shortcut.

I would agree that, after this discussion, it is possible that Kevin's
article might be aided by including a paragraph focused on “what if I have
an action to take in my beginning of combat” that informs readers that they
can explicitly call out such things if they are needed.

Originally posted by Justin Miyashiro:

So far, Lasse has been the only one to answer my query. What other
strategic considerations are we short-circuiting? My contention is that
there aren't any, or rather that there aren't enough strategic
considerations being lost to worry about in regards to the shortcut.

Here's the situation that I'm not happy about, regarding not allowing AP to move to his Beginning of Combat while retaining priority.

Let's say AP has one or more triggers that will happen at the Beginning of Combat, and there is a possibility that his/her opponent has let at least one of these upcoming triggers slip his/her mind. For example, AP has a Surrak, the Hunt Caller, a Goblin Rabblemaster a Boros Battleshaper and a Citadel Siege with Khans mode selected, all in play. In this scenario AP just wants to get to their Beginning of Combat with priority so that they can put their triggers on the stack (choosing targets where applicable), without reminding their opponent during the first main phase that the triggers are coming up.

I know it's corner case, but if someone will have a trigger happening at the Beginning of Combat and they don't want to announce it during their Main Phase, there needs to be a way for AP to get to the priority they want.

Originally posted by Jason Malott:

regarding not allowing AP to move to his Beginning of Combat while retaining priority

That's not what's happening; we just aren't allowing you to be clever about it, in order to trick your opponent into acting in your Main Phase instead of Combat.

Originally posted by Jason Malott:

if someone will have a trigger happening at the Beginning of Combat and they don't want to announce it during their Main Phase

“Hey, I've got some stuff to do in the Beginning of Combat?” is clear enough for me. So are the other suggestions I've offered up.

Let me reiterate: the shortcut protects the NAP from being tricked into acting in AP's Main Phase, when - with very few exceptions (Rabblemaster) - NAP wants to act in Combat.

Kevin's article was a response to the endless requests for a clever way to accomplish what we don't want to allow. We are not eliminating the possibility of acting in the Beginning of Combat, when one of those corner cases does come up.

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

“Hey, I've got some stuff to do in the Beginning of Combat?” is clear enough for me. So are the other suggestions I've offered up.

You keep saying this, but Kevin directly contradicts you. The article says: “This shortcut is true for any statement that would imply that you want to leave your first Main Phase, no matter how carefully it has been worded.”

Saying that you want to do stuff in the beginning of combat implies that you want to leave your first main phase, so it invokes the shortcut. Basically we have multiple high level policy setting judges directly contradicting each other, and this is extremely confusing.

I still have absolutely no idea how I could force my opponent to spend/not spend his floating mana in the main phase before declaring my manland activation in the beginning of combat. No matter what words I use there's a risk I will be gotcha'd and miss my attack. If there is no way of accomplishing this, it should be made clear instead leading us on.

Originally posted by Mats Törnros:

Scott Marshall
“Hey, I've got some stuff to do in the Beginning of Combat?” is clear enough for me. So are the other suggestions I've offered up.

You keep saying this, but Kevin directly contradicts you. The article says: “This shortcut is true for any statement that would imply that you want to leave your first Main Phase, no matter how carefully it has been worded.”

Saying that you want to do stuff in the beginning of combat implies that you want to leave your first main phase, so it invokes the shortcut. Basically we have multiple high level policy setting judges directly contradicting each other, and this is extremely confusing.

Please read what has been said in the thread. Context is important. What Kevin's article states is that no matter what you say, it will be considered that the turn is no longer in your main phase and that if you aren't doing anything at the beginning of combat (by being explicit about it, like Scott mentioned), it's assumed that if your opponent does anything, it will be in your beginning of combat. There are no contradictions here.

This thread has gotten to the point that there aren't any new point of views discussed, we're just going in circles, beating a dead horse. It has been pointed out that Kevin's article could use a bit of clarification, and that feedback will get to him. In the mean time, I'm going to lock this thread to avoid adding more pages and more emails to all judges subscribed to the forums of the same arguments.

Edited Carlos Ho (May 31, 2016 12:08:20 PM)