The Origins of the Shortcut.
MTR 4.2:
"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."As we can see, there is a misleading ambiguity in this statement. How is "I'm ready for combat" seen as "go to my declare attackers" step? That is the question I propose to you. This specific tournament shortcut has been in the MTR since its conception in 2009(1). 6 years ago, we only had 6 cards had an ability that triggered "at the beginning of combat". Now, we have 17 cards that mention this rules statement and 8 of those cards can currently be played in standard(2). Given the influx of cards with this trigger, “Going to Combat” just ain't what it used to be.
At this point, it is time to make a change.
I have been asking many players who play at Competitive REL what "go to combat" means, what "declare attackers" means, and if there is any difference.
A majority of players think that the two statements have two completely different meanings. They use "go to combat" or "combat?" as a way to say "I am passing priority until my opponent has priority at the end of my pre-combat main phase". This makes perfect sense. So why are we skipping an integral step in that process?
For a long time this shortcut assumed that the "beginning of combat step" wasn't important, but that is no longer the case.
Why Does it Matter?
There are a lot of situations where this ambiguity can make things difficult for both players and judges. There are two different triggers that happen that I would like to briefly go over and talk about. The first one is the targeting "At the beginning of combat" trigger.
Surrak, the Hunt Caller is a great exampled of an "At the beginning of combat" triggered ability that requires a target. I know some other blogs have mentioned this interaction with the tournament shortcut before, but I would just like to discuss it in another light.
According to the current MTR in section 4.2, saying "combat?", or some other variation of, means that I missed my trigger. How is that obvious? Most people in this situation would think that saying "combat?" is asking their opponent if the need to do anything before they move to combat; the player is being courteous to their opponent. Why is that getting punished?
When we say "Combat?", we are using a shortened version of "Can we move to combat?"; if we are using that logic then "Combat?" should mean that we are asking our opponent if they are okay with going to the combat phase. When you do go to the combat phase, we should be going to the first step in the combat phase and we shouldn't be dismissing this step so flippantly since we have cards like Surrak being printed.
There is no reason for this shortcut to move all the way to declare attackers step, it is counter-intuitive when understood in English. Due to the fact that players shortcut past steps all the time without any words at all, it would be easy to apply that principle here when nothing is needed to be done in the beginning of combat step.
As I have said before, the current shortcut for this is ambiguous and punishes a player for giving their opponent an opportunity to interact with their game.
The next example I would like to talk about is the "At the beginning of combat" trigger that doesn't require a target, Goblin Rabblemaster.
Unlike the Surrak example above, the current MTR shortcut helps the player with the Rabblemaster abuse this ambiguity.
If I say "go to combat" and my opponent agreed and then wants to kill my Rabblemaster with Hero's Downfall, do I still get my token? According to the MTR, and numerous other judges, the answer is yes I do. So if my opponent wants to stop me from getting my token then they have to do this in the pre-combat main phase - not in the beginning of combat step, which is where the shortcut takes us.
On reddit.com, someone asked why you have to skip the beginning of combat step with the shortcut and followed it up by asking why the shortcut has to use such ambiguous statements(3). Toby Elliott, a level 5 judge, said this in response to the thread about tournament shortcuts:
They are asking if they can put their trigger on the stack now - they are merely being polite to their opponent.
The player is 99/100 times being courteous to their opponent and being intuitive - saying "go to combat" shouldn't mean "I miss my Surrak trigger" or "if you kill my Rabblemaster I still get a token". It means that they want the game to move as smoothly as possible and they are treating their opponent with the respect they would want given to them.
According to the current MTR in section 4.2, saying "combat?", or some other variation of, means that I missed my trigger. How is that obvious? Most people in this situation would think that saying "combat?" is asking their opponent if the need to do anything before they move to combat; the player is being courteous to their opponent. Why is that getting punished?
When we say "Combat?", we are using a shortened version of "Can we move to combat?"; if we are using that logic then "Combat?" should mean that we are asking our opponent if they are okay with going to the combat phase. When you do go to the combat phase, we should be going to the first step in the combat phase and we shouldn't be dismissing this step so flippantly since we have cards like Surrak being printed.
There is no reason for this shortcut to move all the way to declare attackers step, it is counter-intuitive when understood in English. Due to the fact that players shortcut past steps all the time without any words at all, it would be easy to apply that principle here when nothing is needed to be done in the beginning of combat step.
As I have said before, the current shortcut for this is ambiguous and punishes a player for giving their opponent an opportunity to interact with their game.
The next example I would like to talk about is the "At the beginning of combat" trigger that doesn't require a target, Goblin Rabblemaster.
Unlike the Surrak example above, the current MTR shortcut helps the player with the Rabblemaster abuse this ambiguity.
If I say "go to combat" and my opponent agreed and then wants to kill my Rabblemaster with Hero's Downfall, do I still get my token? According to the MTR, and numerous other judges, the answer is yes I do. So if my opponent wants to stop me from getting my token then they have to do this in the pre-combat main phase - not in the beginning of combat step, which is where the shortcut takes us.
On reddit.com, someone asked why you have to skip the beginning of combat step with the shortcut and followed it up by asking why the shortcut has to use such ambiguous statements(3). Toby Elliott, a level 5 judge, said this in response to the thread about tournament shortcuts:
"You are using ambiguity to gain an advantage (forcing the NAP to act first). Having this shortcut prevents that. To look at it another way - why are you passing priority to a point where you get priority again? The answers are incredibly corner-case-y."(4).In both the Surrak, the Hunt Caller and Goblin Rabblemaster examples, is the player really looking to gain an advantage by saying "go to combat"? The answer is pretty clear.
They are asking if they can put their trigger on the stack now - they are merely being polite to their opponent.
The player is 99/100 times being courteous to their opponent and being intuitive - saying "go to combat" shouldn't mean "I miss my Surrak trigger" or "if you kill my Rabblemaster I still get a token". It means that they want the game to move as smoothly as possible and they are treating their opponent with the respect they would want given to them.
What's the Fix?
Because of the wishy-washy nature of the current shortcut, we should clear it up to make it easier and more intuitive for everyone - both the new players and the veterans. To clear up any confusion there should be TWO shortcuts: one taking you to the end of the pre-combat main phase, and another taking you to the end of the beginning of combat step.
A new shortcut to handle the influx of these triggers could be proposed by having a statement such as "I'm ready for combat" or "Combat?" offers to keep passing priority until an opponent has priority in the pre-combat main phase. Opponents are assumed to be acting then unless they specify otherwise.
Then the original shortcut can be preserved by having a statement such as "Declare attackers" or "Attacks?" 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.
A new shortcut to handle the influx of these triggers could be proposed by having a statement such as "I'm ready for combat" or "Combat?" offers to keep passing priority until an opponent has priority in the pre-combat main phase. Opponents are assumed to be acting then unless they specify otherwise.
Then the original shortcut can be preserved by having a statement such as "Declare attackers" or "Attacks?" 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.
Conclusion.
If the past couple of sets have shown us anything, it is that Wizards plans on using the "at the beginning of combat" trigger on new cards moving forward. With how popular the current shortcut is, it is clear that the combat shortcut is ambiguous to the players. Luckily, all we need is a small change to the MTR to stop a lot of the turmoil for both players and judges.
As the game is changing and evolving, these documents need to do the same. We are at the point where the MTR, Wizards, and tournament officials need to recognize that the Beginning of Combat Step is an integral part of the game and needs to be treated that way.
Because going to combat just ain't what it used to be.
Because going to combat just ain't what it used to be.
If you have any comments please post them in the comments section below or email me at lexie9894@live.com.
Thanks for reading!
Was reading articles on combat and came across this though I noticed the old date, ill comment all the same. I've always felt that the onus, in regards to shortcuts, is on the player who would benefit from holding priority. For the player who controls Surrak, they only need remember their trigger, but the real responsibility is knowing how to properly respond during the turn. This knowledge is unfortunately denied to new players who rely on shortcuts during Friday night magic, but get surprised during competetive REL. I agree, a clear standard for proper shortcut terminology should exist in the tournament rules. Very good read.
ReplyDelete