No where in the rules did you show us it says the word combat is a shortcut used to skip directly to the declare attacker phase from what I can see. You say other words such as Declare Attackers? and others but not just Combat. If you show that Combat is shortcut for goto declare attackers in the rules I will agree with you, if not then it isn't in the rules and ambiguous.
My favorite part of the article: "a change that many people embrace, but one that many other people detest, probably because their decks are terrible, or they play red." Fun stuff.
The problem here is that the rules are in English, for English-speakers. The rules say "combat" is a shortcut to declare attackers... in English.
Someone without a good grasp of the English language might know the word "combat", and use that to convey going into the combat step when he may not know enough to structure a sentence. I've found that English speakers have a hard time getting to grasps with this but using "keywords" (such as combat) is extremely common when trying to communicate in a foreign language you don't speak fluently.
Holding non-English-speaking players to the same standards for English-language shortcuts is completely unfair in an international setting such as the Pro Tour. No, they won't know the details of the (English language) rulebook, as they, well, don't know English.
The only colorless tribe on the list (excluding gimmick colourless like soldier or wall) is Eldrazi, which is being used to maintain the exclusion of Eye of Ugin (which is very powerful in all colourless ramp anyway.) So, unless Cloudpost gets a Natural Order-style guarantee, it's a fair target for Construct's 5th win.
"4.2 Tournament Shortcuts
A tournament shortcut is an action taken by players to skip parts of the technical play sequence without explicitly
announcing them."
"Combat ?" or "Attack ?" does not suggest to skip one or more parts of the turn ergo it isnt a shortcut.
No one has obtained information they have not right to have with this and no game states have been misrepresented with this through the years - all that must be in your head.
Sounds like there are two good words that can mean two different things. Combat vs. Attack - no reason not to take advantage of this in a future rules update.
Since NO will not be purified, still going with my list, I nominate Wall of Blossoms, or maybe Wall of Roots instead. Both are creature type Plant Walls. That way, with Plant and Wall each taking one slot, one can be the Wall of Blossoms and the other can be the Green Sun's Zenith, currently slotted in Wall. This way it doesn't matter which is which.
With Construct picking up a 4th win, that might put All Is Dust on a de facto watchlist.
The problem is that with the advent of beginning of combat triggers (especially in constructed), having a "magic word" that skips that step isn't good. Beginning of combat triggers almost never existed prior to the last couple of years (looking at Modern, only Battle-Rattle Shaman and Sentry Oak come up, which weren't even great in limited), but now they're commonplace, along with cards that require targets (and thus are easier to miss compared to something like Toolcraft Exemplar).
Felorin, I like your comment when you say "Sounds more like a trap to me than a good policy."
This is one of the problems of the current situation with the shortcut. To watch Nguyen call the judge with that smug look on his face was cringe worthy. This sort of thing will encourage other foxy sharks to seek "Gotcha! You said Combat! Eat shit and die!" moments rather than a reflection of the real intention of his opponent.
And whilst there might not be many such incidents on the Pro Tour, at the GP level there will be so many players who will get caught out on this silly shortcut.
If I understand your question correctly, you still would not be able to target Heart of Kiran if it is not crewed in main phase. Once the ability is on the stack, regardless of an 'if', you have to select the target from the available legal targets.
By the way, in the example you give, where you'll miss the Weldfast Engineer bonus to your Heart of Kiran bonus if you crew it during Beginning of Combat Step rather than Main Step... Am I correct in believing you could still get the bonus if Weldfast Engineer had its ability templated as an "intervening if" type of ability, rather than the way it actually is (not an "intervening if"?) Because then you could respond to the intervening if trigger going on the stack by crewing up.
I think because of cases like this, the "intervening if" - much as I personally enjoy it - is probably a bad idea, as it makes important gameplay hinge on a minor nuance of wording and triggering rules that most players do NOT know to that level of accuracy.
Do you know whether Wizards has made it a policy not to use intervening if on templating of new cards any more, leaving it just as something you have to know to play older cards? If they have, I think that's probably the right decision. Though it'd make Weldfast Engineer a little more "player mistake resilient".
Hmmm, just read Weldfast Engineer again, never mind. That doesn't work, does it? It needs to target an artifact creature, and the Heart is NOT a valid target at the time the intervening if trigger would go on the stack, and you have to declare targets when placing even an intervening if trigger on the stack. Well, that much less value to be lost here if Wizards is no longer manufacturing new intervening if triggers. (Now if it said "when this, if that, all artifact creatures get +2/+0...)
I should note too, that my intention to wait a few seconds during my priority in Beginning of Combat Step wasn't just due to tiredness. I had a legitimate uncertainty in my mind about whether I wanted to tap his biggest guy, or keep the mana open for some other ability or instant I had. I figured ok, let's see if he does anything else in Main Phase first that affects my decision. Then I'll finish making that decision based on my preliminary thoughts plus the knowledge of what he did or didn't do in Main Phase, once I'm in Beginning of Combat Step. I think this was a reasonable line of thought for me as someone seeking to maximize information and quality of my gameplay, given the slight possibility of him doing something that would impact my decision. (Haste creature, enchanting a creature or running out an equipment and putting it on, etc.)
But apparently I was only in Beginning of Combat Step for like a nanosecond or something. Sheesh.
I missed an opportunity to use my Pacification Array to tap an attacker because of a judge ruling similar to this one, at Grand Prix San Jose. Of course I accepted the judge ruling and played on, and after the resulting attack dropped me to 1 life, I barely managed to win anyway. But I don't agree with the rule.
We were in Main Phase. My opponent said 'Combat?" or "Go to Combat?" and I said ok, indicating in my mind 'I don't want to do one last thing in Main Phase before we go to Beginning of Combat Step". But as soon as I said "Ok" he started to tap attackers and declare them, and I said no wait, I wanted to do something in Beginning of Combat Step, and we called a judge, who said I couldn't.
I'm sorry, but when you're in Main Phase, the next Phase to happen in your list is 506, Combat Phase, whose first part is Beginning of Combat Step. The next STEP to happen is 507, Beginning of Combat Step. Declare Attackers is another step that happens AFTER that one, and neither has the word "Combat" in it itself, nor is it the first thing to happen in the Combat Phase.
If my opponent says "Go to Declare Attackers?" and I say "Ok", my expectation is he's asking if we both agree to skip ahead to 508, Declare Attackers Step, and I will miss any chance to do something in Beginning of Combat Step if I say ok. But he did NOT say that, nor did he say "Advance to Combat phase? And the SECOND step therein?" The ruling makes zero sense to me.
Nor did he say "Advance to Beginning of Combat Step and then pass my priority and do nothing, so if you say yes or ok, I'll assume you're passing your priority within that step as well and we proceed to Declare Attackers". I get priority at the end of his Main Step when he wants to be done with it. And I take saying "Combat?" as meaning "Ok I don't have a damn thing left that I'm doing during my Main Step. Do you want to do one last activated ability or spell or randomly float mana at the end of my Main Phase? Or do we successfully get into Combat Phase as I have requested to move to, and I can now do a Beginning of Combat Step action like maybe I'll crew a vehicle then?" I'll note that many of my opponents have said "Go to Declare Attackers Step?" when they know I have a tapping effect on-board, and I'll say "No, first I'll tap your Dudezor". And slightly more polite ones say "Go to Beginning of Combat step?" knowing that I am going to tap one of their guys then just about every turn. I say the same against opponents with on-board tappers.
Frankly, I often say "Ok, tap that guy". On this particular day, I was a little fatigued from so much Magic, and I would have gone "Ok." then paused a couple seconds. Then said "Tap that dude." before anything else happened, as he had no vehicles in play nor any other "do this in Beginning of Combat Step" on-board abilities. But he tapped his shit SO FAST once the word Ok was out of my mouth, that it came before the next sentence I would have said.
Sounds more like a trap to me than a good policy. Apparently "Combat?" Meant "Pass MY priority in Main phase, assume you have passed YOUR priority in Main phase if you don't disagree, then got to Begin Combat Phase AND PASS MY PRIORITY AGAIN and it's now YOUR priority in the second part of Begin Combat Phase, the defender's priority, if you agree... AND IF YOU JUST SAY YES OR OK, AND DON'T SAY SOMETHING ELSE ALSO VERY QUICKLY, assume you also pass priority a second time!!!"
So "Combat?" "Ok" is assumed to mean TWO priority passes by each player, taking you not "just barely into the Combat Phase" or "Into the first step with the word combat in the name" but "into the second step of the combat phase for some reason rather than the first".
Clear as fucking mud, Pete. I can't say I agree with that as "the best policy choice to avoid miscommunication".
I will continue saying "Go to Beginning of Combat Step" when it's me deciding what to say, especially since I know now that the official rules make it WAY too easy to vaporize that important step with neither player getting the chance to do shit during it, with just two total words spoken between both players. Yikes.
MTGO has other issues.
There are lot of bugs. And yes it's true, I 'F6'-ed myself several times. BUT nobody can come 'explaining' to me that MY intention was to pass this step!
So you find it more satisfying when your opponent mistakenly passes priority to the declare attackers step and is sitting there for 30 seconds trying to figure out why MTGO will not let him crew his vehicle?
MTGO is not one bit more forgiving in this area, hell, it won't even tell you what you did wrong, just sit there mutely until you figure out why it won't do what you are telling it to.
People make mistakes in paper or MTGO, it seems pretty silly to say the paper judge should have let it slide then compare it to MTGO where it could never be let slide.
More to the point, they do so for a very specific reason.
This was done to prevent players from obtaining information they had no right to have by misrepresenting the state of the game. The most common example of this was to attempt to see if the opponent had any responses to you going to the declare attackers step while technically not yet actually being at that step.
The fix was making any attempt to say combat or attack move you directly to the declare attackers step.
This has been an explicit part of the tournament rules for years, the fact that you don't know the rules doesn't mean the judges are wrong.
I think, you should all watch the video on youtube!
There may be situations, when your argumentation makes sense, Pete. Complicated combat situations..
BUT, here it is totally clear! The defending player was completely tapped out, there was nothing he could do!
Why the hell should the attacking player pass and NOT attack ( or activate vehicles)?!?
Even a piece of wood would have. Calling a judge, and claiming 'combat' means, 'I don't want to attack, is definitely cheesy. Glad to play without judges in MTGO.
I see your point, but I don't buy it and here's why. The MTR uses the phrase "such as" when talking about the Shortcut phrase "Ready for Combat". As a result, Wizards have failed to even clearly specify what the acceptable shortcuts are to pass priority in Declare Attackers phase. "Such as" is often a very useful phrase if you want to give someone a rough idea of what you're talking about, but it's a terrible phrase to use if it's trying to provide a prescriptive rule for all judges to follow. Can you honestly say that all judges would interpret the concept of "such as..." in the same way?
I am confident that I could come up with 20 or more phrases which are somewhat similar to the "such as" shortcuts in the MRT (some more dissimilar than others), then propose those same 20 phrases to a handful of different judges, and there will be some variance between whether the judge thinks the phrases used were inside or outside the bounds of the shortcut. So your goal of achieving consistency between all judges is not realised, and this is all because the MTR wording itself is so sloppy.
No where in the rules did you show us it says the word combat is a shortcut used to skip directly to the declare attacker phase from what I can see. You say other words such as Declare Attackers? and others but not just Combat. If you show that Combat is shortcut for goto declare attackers in the rules I will agree with you, if not then it isn't in the rules and ambiguous.
My favorite part of the article: "a change that many people embrace, but one that many other people detest, probably because their decks are terrible, or they play red." Fun stuff.
The problem is that they take a common non shortcut word and define it as a shortcut when it isn't and have never been a shortcut.
The problem here is that the rules are in English, for English-speakers. The rules say "combat" is a shortcut to declare attackers... in English.
Someone without a good grasp of the English language might know the word "combat", and use that to convey going into the combat step when he may not know enough to structure a sentence. I've found that English speakers have a hard time getting to grasps with this but using "keywords" (such as combat) is extremely common when trying to communicate in a foreign language you don't speak fluently.
Holding non-English-speaking players to the same standards for English-language shortcuts is completely unfair in an international setting such as the Pro Tour. No, they won't know the details of the (English language) rulebook, as they, well, don't know English.
The only colorless tribe on the list (excluding gimmick colourless like soldier or wall) is Eldrazi, which is being used to maintain the exclusion of Eye of Ugin (which is very powerful in all colourless ramp anyway.) So, unless Cloudpost gets a Natural Order-style guarantee, it's a fair target for Construct's 5th win.
My friends tell me I am quite daft, so you longtimegone is the explanaation why daft people win in magic, because you are dafter than people like me.
"4.2 Tournament Shortcuts
A tournament shortcut is an action taken by players to skip parts of the technical play sequence without explicitly
announcing them."
"Combat ?" or "Attack ?" does not suggest to skip one or more parts of the turn ergo it isnt a shortcut.
No one has obtained information they have not right to have with this and no game states have been misrepresented with this through the years - all that must be in your head.
Congrats Michelle! :D Plants have a storied history in TWA. Grats for bringing them and winning. :)
Cloudpost, yes; I had assumed it was already on the list.
Maybe AiD, maybe Candelabra of Tawnos, maybe even Cloudpost. The power of constructs and similar tribes lies in the fast colorless mana.
Sounds like there are two good words that can mean two different things. Combat vs. Attack - no reason not to take advantage of this in a future rules update.
Since NO will not be purified, still going with my list, I nominate Wall of Blossoms, or maybe Wall of Roots instead. Both are creature type Plant Walls. That way, with Plant and Wall each taking one slot, one can be the Wall of Blossoms and the other can be the Green Sun's Zenith, currently slotted in Wall. This way it doesn't matter which is which.
With Construct picking up a 4th win, that might put All Is Dust on a de facto watchlist.
The problem is that with the advent of beginning of combat triggers (especially in constructed), having a "magic word" that skips that step isn't good. Beginning of combat triggers almost never existed prior to the last couple of years (looking at Modern, only Battle-Rattle Shaman and Sentry Oak come up, which weren't even great in limited), but now they're commonplace, along with cards that require targets (and thus are easier to miss compared to something like Toolcraft Exemplar).
Felorin, I like your comment when you say "Sounds more like a trap to me than a good policy."
This is one of the problems of the current situation with the shortcut. To watch Nguyen call the judge with that smug look on his face was cringe worthy. This sort of thing will encourage other foxy sharks to seek "Gotcha! You said Combat! Eat shit and die!" moments rather than a reflection of the real intention of his opponent.
And whilst there might not be many such incidents on the Pro Tour, at the GP level there will be so many players who will get caught out on this silly shortcut.
Excellent points.
If I understand your question correctly, you still would not be able to target Heart of Kiran if it is not crewed in main phase. Once the ability is on the stack, regardless of an 'if', you have to select the target from the available legal targets.
By the way, in the example you give, where you'll miss the Weldfast Engineer bonus to your Heart of Kiran bonus if you crew it during Beginning of Combat Step rather than Main Step... Am I correct in believing you could still get the bonus if Weldfast Engineer had its ability templated as an "intervening if" type of ability, rather than the way it actually is (not an "intervening if"?) Because then you could respond to the intervening if trigger going on the stack by crewing up.
I think because of cases like this, the "intervening if" - much as I personally enjoy it - is probably a bad idea, as it makes important gameplay hinge on a minor nuance of wording and triggering rules that most players do NOT know to that level of accuracy.
Do you know whether Wizards has made it a policy not to use intervening if on templating of new cards any more, leaving it just as something you have to know to play older cards? If they have, I think that's probably the right decision. Though it'd make Weldfast Engineer a little more "player mistake resilient".
Hmmm, just read Weldfast Engineer again, never mind. That doesn't work, does it? It needs to target an artifact creature, and the Heart is NOT a valid target at the time the intervening if trigger would go on the stack, and you have to declare targets when placing even an intervening if trigger on the stack. Well, that much less value to be lost here if Wizards is no longer manufacturing new intervening if triggers. (Now if it said "when this, if that, all artifact creatures get +2/+0...)
I should note too, that my intention to wait a few seconds during my priority in Beginning of Combat Step wasn't just due to tiredness. I had a legitimate uncertainty in my mind about whether I wanted to tap his biggest guy, or keep the mana open for some other ability or instant I had. I figured ok, let's see if he does anything else in Main Phase first that affects my decision. Then I'll finish making that decision based on my preliminary thoughts plus the knowledge of what he did or didn't do in Main Phase, once I'm in Beginning of Combat Step. I think this was a reasonable line of thought for me as someone seeking to maximize information and quality of my gameplay, given the slight possibility of him doing something that would impact my decision. (Haste creature, enchanting a creature or running out an equipment and putting it on, etc.)
But apparently I was only in Beginning of Combat Step for like a nanosecond or something. Sheesh.
I missed an opportunity to use my Pacification Array to tap an attacker because of a judge ruling similar to this one, at Grand Prix San Jose. Of course I accepted the judge ruling and played on, and after the resulting attack dropped me to 1 life, I barely managed to win anyway. But I don't agree with the rule.
We were in Main Phase. My opponent said 'Combat?" or "Go to Combat?" and I said ok, indicating in my mind 'I don't want to do one last thing in Main Phase before we go to Beginning of Combat Step". But as soon as I said "Ok" he started to tap attackers and declare them, and I said no wait, I wanted to do something in Beginning of Combat Step, and we called a judge, who said I couldn't.
I'm sorry, but when you're in Main Phase, the next Phase to happen in your list is 506, Combat Phase, whose first part is Beginning of Combat Step. The next STEP to happen is 507, Beginning of Combat Step. Declare Attackers is another step that happens AFTER that one, and neither has the word "Combat" in it itself, nor is it the first thing to happen in the Combat Phase.
If my opponent says "Go to Declare Attackers?" and I say "Ok", my expectation is he's asking if we both agree to skip ahead to 508, Declare Attackers Step, and I will miss any chance to do something in Beginning of Combat Step if I say ok. But he did NOT say that, nor did he say "Advance to Combat phase? And the SECOND step therein?" The ruling makes zero sense to me.
Nor did he say "Advance to Beginning of Combat Step and then pass my priority and do nothing, so if you say yes or ok, I'll assume you're passing your priority within that step as well and we proceed to Declare Attackers". I get priority at the end of his Main Step when he wants to be done with it. And I take saying "Combat?" as meaning "Ok I don't have a damn thing left that I'm doing during my Main Step. Do you want to do one last activated ability or spell or randomly float mana at the end of my Main Phase? Or do we successfully get into Combat Phase as I have requested to move to, and I can now do a Beginning of Combat Step action like maybe I'll crew a vehicle then?" I'll note that many of my opponents have said "Go to Declare Attackers Step?" when they know I have a tapping effect on-board, and I'll say "No, first I'll tap your Dudezor". And slightly more polite ones say "Go to Beginning of Combat step?" knowing that I am going to tap one of their guys then just about every turn. I say the same against opponents with on-board tappers.
Frankly, I often say "Ok, tap that guy". On this particular day, I was a little fatigued from so much Magic, and I would have gone "Ok." then paused a couple seconds. Then said "Tap that dude." before anything else happened, as he had no vehicles in play nor any other "do this in Beginning of Combat Step" on-board abilities. But he tapped his shit SO FAST once the word Ok was out of my mouth, that it came before the next sentence I would have said.
Sounds more like a trap to me than a good policy. Apparently "Combat?" Meant "Pass MY priority in Main phase, assume you have passed YOUR priority in Main phase if you don't disagree, then got to Begin Combat Phase AND PASS MY PRIORITY AGAIN and it's now YOUR priority in the second part of Begin Combat Phase, the defender's priority, if you agree... AND IF YOU JUST SAY YES OR OK, AND DON'T SAY SOMETHING ELSE ALSO VERY QUICKLY, assume you also pass priority a second time!!!"
So "Combat?" "Ok" is assumed to mean TWO priority passes by each player, taking you not "just barely into the Combat Phase" or "Into the first step with the word combat in the name" but "into the second step of the combat phase for some reason rather than the first".
Clear as fucking mud, Pete. I can't say I agree with that as "the best policy choice to avoid miscommunication".
I will continue saying "Go to Beginning of Combat Step" when it's me deciding what to say, especially since I know now that the official rules make it WAY too easy to vaporize that important step with neither player getting the chance to do shit during it, with just two total words spoken between both players. Yikes.
MTGO has other issues.
There are lot of bugs. And yes it's true, I 'F6'-ed myself several times. BUT nobody can come 'explaining' to me that MY intention was to pass this step!
:Glad to play without judges in MTGO.
So you find it more satisfying when your opponent mistakenly passes priority to the declare attackers step and is sitting there for 30 seconds trying to figure out why MTGO will not let him crew his vehicle?
MTGO is not one bit more forgiving in this area, hell, it won't even tell you what you did wrong, just sit there mutely until you figure out why it won't do what you are telling it to.
People make mistakes in paper or MTGO, it seems pretty silly to say the paper judge should have let it slide then compare it to MTGO where it could never be let slide.
:"Combat ?" or "Attack ?"is not a shortcut
The rules explicitly say otherwise.
More to the point, they do so for a very specific reason.
This was done to prevent players from obtaining information they had no right to have by misrepresenting the state of the game. The most common example of this was to attempt to see if the opponent had any responses to you going to the declare attackers step while technically not yet actually being at that step.
The fix was making any attempt to say combat or attack move you directly to the declare attackers step.
This has been an explicit part of the tournament rules for years, the fact that you don't know the rules doesn't mean the judges are wrong.
I think, you should all watch the video on youtube!
There may be situations, when your argumentation makes sense, Pete. Complicated combat situations..
BUT, here it is totally clear! The defending player was completely tapped out, there was nothing he could do!
Why the hell should the attacking player pass and NOT attack ( or activate vehicles)?!?
Even a piece of wood would have. Calling a judge, and claiming 'combat' means, 'I don't want to attack, is definitely cheesy. Glad to play without judges in MTGO.
Chris Botelho is running a spicy BUG Aetherworks deck at GP Pitt, I will post a link to it if the list goes up.
Thanks Pete for your response.
I see your point, but I don't buy it and here's why. The MTR uses the phrase "such as" when talking about the Shortcut phrase "Ready for Combat". As a result, Wizards have failed to even clearly specify what the acceptable shortcuts are to pass priority in Declare Attackers phase. "Such as" is often a very useful phrase if you want to give someone a rough idea of what you're talking about, but it's a terrible phrase to use if it's trying to provide a prescriptive rule for all judges to follow. Can you honestly say that all judges would interpret the concept of "such as..." in the same way?
I am confident that I could come up with 20 or more phrases which are somewhat similar to the "such as" shortcuts in the MRT (some more dissimilar than others), then propose those same 20 phrases to a handful of different judges, and there will be some variance between whether the judge thinks the phrases used were inside or outside the bounds of the shortcut. So your goal of achieving consistency between all judges is not realised, and this is all because the MTR wording itself is so sloppy.