ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.ย. 2024
- Everything you need to know about going to combat: interactions with triggered abilities like Goblin Rabblemaster or Surrak, the Hunt Caller; interactions with both players wanting to cast a spell; interaction with manlands and vehicles
Support Judging FtW on Patreon at / judgingftw
Suggest a question: forms.gle/YTK2... - เกม
This is why I say, "move to attacks," not, "move to combat," to make it unambiguous that I want to move to the declare attack step, specifically - not just the beginning of combat.
While that alleviates the ambiguitiy a bit, you are giving away free information that way, namely that you don't intend to do anything in your beginning of combat. That is a corner case scenario, sure, but it's not that rare that I'd usually be willing to do that.
@@ridiculous_fox the only scenario i could see it mattering is when there's a beginning of combat trigger. In which case, I'll always say "Move to my beginning of combat step" to avoid any ambiguity
I say both. "Move to combat" to indicate I'm ending my pre combat main, then "declare attackers" to indicate that I'd like to do so. It's good Magic etiquette to communicate where in the turn you are, and it helps to mitigate situations where your opponents attempt to respond post hoc.
If I ever become a certified judge, all credit for my training would be to you.
Comments like this are honestly so appreciated. I strive to be a high-quality educational resource, so knowing there are people out there who value my channel for that is among the highest compliments I can receive.
@@JudgingFtWthis channel made me interested in becoming a judge. Certainly makes it look a bit more realizable and the information digestable
It sounds like everyone knows that there's a better and clearer way to do things, but no one wants to do it differently even though it takes an entire 1 extra sentence to remove all ambiguity and confusion.
"Move to combat" now means "The active player is passing priority in their main phase with an empty stack. The next thing is the beginning of combat."
"Move to declare attacks" now means "The active player is passing priority in the beginning of combat step with an empty stack. The next thing is the declare attackers step."
It's really that easy.
That's how we do it in my playgroup and guess how often someone gets confused about what's happening.
Great vid. I would have loved a little history about why it got changed in regards to the gp with vehicles
You mean the Pro Tour Aether Revolt with the round 8 feature match between 7-0 players César Segovia and Thien Nguyen
I prefer keeping the video concise, but I did check the description hoping to find that history
A new LGS is opening up in my town, and I want to become their level 1 judge, currently binging your channel so I can gain the confidence to do that. (I’ve been the “Rules Guy/ level 0 judge” for my friend circle for a while now)
Keep up the good work!
So I'm a little bit confused because you didn't mention the crew part in the end. If active player says go to combat, and opponent says okay, can the active player still crew before declaring attackers?
There is a whole tournament controversy that came up with that
The shortcuts are stupid. When i say i change phase/step, i mean to go into the very next one. When i say "combat" that means only one thing: entering the battle phase; then i say "declaring attackers" because im now then entering the declaration step. Once im done and priorities are ok, i go into defenders declaration step, then damage step. Then to end the battle phase and wrap it up. Also we use to say "before you go into xyz phase/step" to be clear we want to do something and use our priority.
If there is no triggered ability at the beginning of combat or at the beginning of end step, the active player has no incentive to cast spell in the combat phase before attackers or in the end step and the non-active player has no incentive to cast spells during the main phase
Hey dude, super gracious approach when talking about judges and players responsibility. Cudos 😊
reminded me of the scandal with Cesar Segovia
That entire incident was so scummy. If that was me, I'd stop using shortcuts entirely and make the opponent pass through every priority.
@@theoneandonlyflexo The worst part, he didn't want to use a shortcut.
At our table we have this kind of missundrstanding quite often as we play german, italien, french and english cards, while none of us are nativ english speakers.
But we are just kitchen table mtg and not a tournament. we just rollback and resume before the shortct, which I think in this scenario wouldn't have changed the board state at all.
I don't know why "go to combat" is an acceptable shortcut for "I pass priority through the beginning of combat step, assume you pass priority too, and then enter the declare attackers step." If you want to do that, you should say "go to attacks" or "go to declare attackers." Combat and attack are different words and Magic players clearly know the difference. Nobody is confused if Ohran Viper's proto-death touch ability triggers if it blocks or only if it attacks.
I would certainly not say that "players clearly know the difference". The first thing that happens in 99.9% of combats is to declare attackers, so I wouldn't fault someone who thought those two equated to the same thing.
If there is no triggered ability at the beginning of combat, why would the active player cast spells/activate abilities during the beginning of combat step? Conversely, why would the non-active player cast spells/activate abilities during the main phase?
"go to combat" meaning "skip from the main phase, past the first step of the combat phase, and onto the second?" was so dumb, glad they changed it. As a non-judge I'd call it an "angle shoot" every time someone ever used that backwards-ass rule to deprive someone of the beginning of combat step.
i really wish they could make this shortcut better by instead of saying 'go to combat' to not go to the beginning of combat, to simply say 'go to attackers' that way it is immediately clear where to the active player wants to shortcut, for any language.
It makes perfect sense. "Go to combat" means passing priority to end my main phase, but not yet ready to declare attacks. "Go to attacks" means passing priority to end main phase and to end the beginning of combat. Then the non-active player can either say or "Prior to combat." or "Prior to attacks." depending on when they want to respond, or just say "Ok, no response." That's more or less how my playgroup does it. "Go to combat" in our group does not mean "I'm declaring attackers."
This is such a great video and I'm so thankful for your clarity! My shop was hosting a Prerelease, and one of the players was fairly consternated by a how things played out:
- Player A is active player with 3+ creatures untapped. They announce that they are "going to combat."
- Player B casts an instant to effect the number of creatures attacking. They explicitly state they are doing this "At the end of your [precombat] main phase." The spell resolves normally.
- Player A then casts a sorcery to ensure their remaining available creatures can still connect for similar damage as if the other creature was not removed.
JUDGE!
Player B was under the impression that Player A, having said they were "going to combat," would no longer would be able to receive priority in their main phase. They learned the hard way, and it was great fodder for discussion between judges that night about how to better improve player expectations about shortcuts, let alone the wide range of intuitive leaps that fall short.
If Player B EXPLICITLY states that they are doing this at the beginning of precombat main phase, then it is assumed that they are still in main phase. Players receive another round of priority after the instant spell is cast and resolved. All player B had to say was "Hold priority at your beginning combat step". There's nothing unambiguous about this. Saying "go to combat" doesn't autoskip all your future actions after new actions are introduced.
There is a caveat to this: I play Marisi as one of my primary Commanders, so I let everyone know that if they want to stop me from attacking, they need to do it before combat, not before attackers...so that's a time where a main phase Cryptic Command would make sense.
Though it's good to know that tournament players are terrible at communicating. This is never something I've ever had as an issue, which is funny since I only play "casual" commander, but I guess I know the steps properly.
"combat?" everyone agrees, "attackers?" nobody stops me, then declare attackers.
Lots of tournament players are great at communicating. But if one player is great at communicating in English, and his opponent is great at communicating in Japanese, it's helpful to have effective shortcuts to minimize friction.
why is the assumption im using the shortcut instead of the otherway around?
Think of it this way: if the assumption was the other way around, that wouldn't mean there was no shortcut. It would just change what the shortcut was.
In cases where there is no communication one way or another, there needs to be an default assumption of what the player officially did. Otherwise the ruling just comes down to a he said/she said with no real basis for any sort of resolution. The combat shortcut (and all the other shortcuts described in the MTR) serves the purpose of being an officially spelled out default assumption in such cases. The policy writers do the best they can to make it so that the default is the strategically correct option in the most number of cases possible, but ultimately, "if a player wishes to deviate from these, they should be explicit about doing so" [MTR 4.2].
this could be fixed by having the "go to combat" shortcut go to the beginning of combat step instead of going to declare attackers
I always thought this shortcut was dumb and caused so many issues
just say "move to attackers" if you wanna go to declare attackers instead of "go to combat"
We now know Dave's modus operandi, but how long until we witness his Magnum Opus?!
shoutout to lilo and stitch
Wait, players are supposed to communicate in this game?
Great video. Would you mind boosting the audio a bit? Thanks!
So let me confirm. When the AP says they want to go to combat, this is seeking permission to _either_ a) immediately start declaring attackers, or b) take another action at the beginning of combat phase. In other words, NAP is asked to accept a shortcut that allows the AP to choose from two different endpoints for the shortcut. And this is the standard convention?
Unless I'm not reading the comments correctly, it feels like many people didn't watch until the end. You CAN interact when someone says "enter combat"
A lot of this falls under the "common sense" ruling in my opinion. No, the opponent would not cast Cryptic in response to the trigger instead of after. Common sense. At some points, I would be taking a player aside and having a talk with them about potential dirty / misleading play.
Too much assumptions. You will be seen as a judge that tries to bully a tournament oriented player, as thats exactly what you are trying to accomplish.
They are looking to be technical correct, and the rules should support to be technical correct on a competitive REL level, where the details matter increasingly more, as the game becomes very anti-competitive if its not strict enough about the rules.
I am, and i know a lot of competitive minded people and as the rules changed over time with the combat shortcut, and people are also used to digital play that clearly shows and goes trough the phases, its very important that as a judge to look out if someone is clearly in need of an Update on the rules, education is key.
If someone makes a "bad" play, you cant just assume they probably didnt want to do it, as they clearly DID do it. So that will very easily be seen as "assistance" by the judge to the player that in their mind made a bad play as it was technically wrong and in a competitive players mind, bad plays should not be "fixed" by the judge ... only rules infractions.
As a judge its important that you do not jump to the conclusion that a competitive player is somehow not "fair" to their potentially more casual oriented opponent.
Instead of opting for the dirty/misleading play, you should point out how they can more clearly communicate what they want to accomplish, so they play in a more fluent way that will serve them and their opponents.
If they cant do that, they simply lack rules knowledge, and you can support them with that.
Overall how players communicate during a game is a hot topic, and will never be perfect.
I have to agree in large part with @ThisNameIsBanned. People make poor plays all the time, even when they understand the rules/interactions involved. It is part of the game to make mistakes and to let your opponents do so then capitalize.
I especially agree when @ThisNameIsBanned says "bad plays should not be "fixed" by the judge ... only rules infractions."
I still have a problem with that Rabblemaster trigger-scenario, though. Let's assume Amy controls a team with the Rabblemaster and says "combat." Then what are Nick's options here?
1) Just cast the cryptic. It's assumed to be in Amy's Beginning of combat in response to the trigger. Not ideal.
2) Nick could point out the trigger, wait for it to resolve and cast Cryptic afterwards. This assumes Nick is fully aware of his opponents trigger (fair enough in a competetive setting I guess), but also needs to remind them of their trigger, which is not his responsibility, usually. Of course he wants Amy to forget her trigger if possible. That leads to number 3.
3) Nick could just say "ok" waiting for Amy to resolve the trigger and try to cast Cryptic then. And that WOULD work IF Amy remembers the trigger herself. If she does not and just turns her team sideways without an additional Goblin (the shortcut puts her into her declare attack step after all), then Nick is... just out of luck? He could call a judge at this point, but my understanding is that he would just get the choice of putting the Rabblemaster-trigger on the stack right then and there - in the declare attack step. There was no infraction that would allow a judge to rewind to the beginning of combat after all.
None of these possibilities are the optimal play from Nick's perspective. There's always something that could go really wrong in that case and the current shortcut does not have a great solution for situations like this, imho.
@@ThisNameIsBanned - I disagree. I didn't say I was going to penalize them, and I said "at some points." I said I was going to talk to them. A good judge when investigating can get a pretty solid idea whether this was miscommunication or intentional dirty play.
In your rush to judge me wrong and take the opportunity to write a lengthy essay, you jumped to a wrong conclusion. Do better.
@@dwpetrak - read my response to them. They ignored what I said so they could judge me wrong and take the opportunity to write a long essay. You did the same just so you could go "yeah, me too!"