Rules Change?

[Mulletus]

I was recently at an event where a judge was spectating. My opponent made an error with the stack/priority. Both I and the judge picked up on said error. I called the person on their error and proceeded to reap the benifits. However the judge claims that it is to be assumed that the player meant to say the right thing, and although just spectating, ruled that play was to back up. This was the difference in the game, and against an accomplished foe. (not some noob)

I guess my question is, is this a planket rule change? Am I supposed to let all opponents take back mistakes? Or are all misstakes backed up to be made into the right play? Maybe I just need to see the change in rules in writing.

[Nihil Credo]

The procedure usually followed is not to let people "take back mistakes", but to interpret ambiguous plays in the sensible way.

A common example (which I suspect is similar to what happened in your case) is when a player says "I sacrifice five lands to Arcbound Ravager and attack" - now, this could mean either 1) activate the Ravager five times, in response to each other, or 2) activate the Ravager, let the ability resolve, and repeat this process five times.
Since any halfway competent player knows that the 1) play is practically always worse than 2), it is assumed he plays 2), hence his opponent wouldn't be allowed to kill the Ravager with a Lightning Bolt and make him lose five lands in the process. Conversely, if he wants to just trigger Disciple of the Vault five times while playing around Sudden Shock, the player had better state clearly that he is not passing priority between each activation.

That's how such situations have been ruled in my experience, and I think it makes sense. Now let's wait for Akki, or anothe judge, to provide a more formal answer.

[on1y0ne]

The situation involved tapping creatures before combat. Although the opponent should know better than to tap creatures during the pre-combat main phase, he did not explicitly say that he was doing it during combat, prior to attackers. One of the issues at hand is a ruling by intent and the other would be the use of short cuts.
A better picture of the scenario:
Player A has Timbermare in hand and Player B is at 5 life. Player B is playing slivers. For a few turns prior, when Player A declared an attack, Player B tapped several slivers to tap Player A's creatures so that they could not attack. On one particular turn, Player A announces that he wants to move to attack step. Player B says that in response he taps the slivers to tap Player A's men. It was the same as before. Player A then says that it is still his main phase, due to the wording that Player B used, so he played the Timbermare and said he was attacking for 5, which would have been for the win.
The ruling was that Player B's intention was to tap the creatures within combat. Player B had been using a shortcut for several turns that was accepted by Player A. It was not technically a play error.
The "backing up" was because the Timbermare could not be played during combat. Player A was told to "back up a second" and the reasoning was that either he was attempting to play the Timbermare during combat, or it was his post-combat main phase, and there needed to be a clarification.
After Player A left, a full explanation was given to Player B. Unfortunately, Player A did not stick around to hear the entire explanation. Player A was upset by the ruling, which meant the game, so I can understand. What made matters worse was that Player A is a much better player than was Player B, and Player B had made several play mistakes throughout the match, many of which were blantantly obvious.
The discussion was that even though Player B worded his intention ambiguously, it is a generally accepted shortcut that tapping of creatures happens inside of combat and since Player A had no quams about similar and identical phrases on previous attempts to tap the creatures, it is assumed that Player B was doing so inside of combat this time, as well as other the other times. Player B was also told about the use of ambiguous terms, such as "In response" when in comes to combat, which caused much of the confusion.
Also, Player B was informed that both players have to agree that the phases change by passing priority on an empty stack, and that it is not just the active player who decides when the phases change. Had there not been a witness, the situation would have gotten ugly, I am sure.
I agree that Player B did not clarify when he was tapping the creatures, yet he did not do so on any previous turn either.

[gnurbel2000]

The situation involved tapping creatures before combat. Although the opponent should know better than to tap creatures during the pre-combat main phase, he did not explicitly say that he was doing it during combat, prior to attackers. One of the issues at hand is a ruling by intent and the other would be the use of short cuts.
A better picture of the scenario:
Player A has Timbermare in hand and Player B is at 5 life. Player B is playing slivers. For a few turns prior, when Player A declared an attack, Player B tapped several slivers to tap Player A's creatures so that they could not attack. On one particular turn, Player A announces that he wants to move to attack step. Player B says that in response he taps the slivers to tap Player A's men. It was the same as before. Player A then says that it is still his main phase, due to the wording that Player B used, so he played the Timbermare and said he was attacking for 5, which would have been for the win.
(...)

When he announces that he want to move to the attack step he indirectly says he is in the beginning of the combat step, because thats the step before the Declare Attacker step, so he passes priority on an empty stack.
Player B "reacts" although the stack is empty he can't respond to something, but he clearly says he want to do something and don't want to pass priority too.

[tivadar]

A common example (which I suspect is similar to what happened in your case) is when a player says "I sacrifice five lands to Arcbound Ravager and attack" - now, this could mean either 1) activate the Ravager five times, in response to each other, or 2) activate the Ravager, let the ability resolve, and repeat this process five times.
Since any halfway competent player knows that the 1) play is practically always worse than 2), it is assumed he plays 2).

I'd really like some sort of ruling to back this up. This is rather different from activating something during main vs. during attack before attackers are declared. Your opponent is obligated to pass priority to you at some point, and I would interpret the above as stacking 5 triggers on the stack and attempting to pass priority to shift to the attack phase.

I had the ravager situation come up recently and it was ruled I COULD use a jitte counter to kill the creature with the abilities on the stack.

[on1y0ne]

I'd really like some sort of ruling to back this up. This is rather different from activating something during main vs. during attack before attackers are declared. Your opponent is obligated to pass priority to you at some point, and I would interpret the above as stacking 5 triggers on the stack and attempting to pass priority to shift to the attack phase.

I had the ravager situation come up recently and it was ruled I COULD use a jitte counter to kill the creature with the abilities on the stack.

If the scenario was as stated above, then I would have ruled in your favor, as well. The player announced 5 activations then chose to pass priority by going into the attack phase. Non-active player gets to respond to the triggers so there are five triggers on the stack, lightning bolt fries the Ravager, and since the sacrifice is the cost of the ability, the 5 lands are in the graveyard.

This is not a ruling by intent, it is using the stack properly. A ruling by intent does not reward a player for sloppy play, which is the case with the Ravager.

[Bryant Cook]

The situation involved tapping creatures before combat. Although the opponent should know better than to tap creatures during the pre-combat main phase, he did not explicitly say that he was doing it during combat, prior to attackers. One of the issues at hand is a ruling by intent and the other would be the use of short cuts.
A better picture of the scenario:
Player A has Timbermare in hand and Player B is at 5 life. Player B is playing slivers. For a few turns prior, when Player A declared an attack, Player B tapped several slivers to tap Player A's creatures so that they could not attack. On one particular turn, Player A announces that he wants to move to attack step. Player B says that in response he taps the slivers to tap Player A's men. It was the same as before. Player A then says that it is still his main phase, due to the wording that Player B used, so he played the Timbermare and said he was attacking for 5, which would have been for the win.
The ruling was that Player B's intention was to tap the creatures within combat. Player B had been using a shortcut for several turns that was accepted by Player A. It was not technically a play error.
The "backing up" was because the Timbermare could not be played during combat. Player A was told to "back up a second" and the reasoning was that either he was attempting to play the Timbermare during combat, or it was his post-combat main phase, and there needed to be a clarification.
After Player A left, a full explanation was given to Player B. Unfortunately, Player A did not stick around to hear the entire explanation. Player A was upset by the ruling, which meant the game, so I can understand. What made matters worse was that Player A is a much better player than was Player B, and Player B had made several play mistakes throughout the match, many of which were blantantly obvious.
The discussion was that even though Player B worded his intention ambiguously, it is a generally accepted shortcut that tapping of creatures happens inside of combat and since Player A had no quams about similar and identical phrases on previous attempts to tap the creatures, it is assumed that Player B was doing so inside of combat this time, as well as other the other times. Player B was also told about the use of ambiguous terms, such as "In response" when in comes to combat, which caused much of the confusion.
Also, Player B was informed that both players have to agree that the phases change by passing priority on an empty stack, and that it is not just the active player who decides when the phases change. Had there not been a witness, the situation would have gotten ugly, I am sure.
I agree that Player B did not clarify when he was tapping the creatures, yet he did not do so on any previous turn either.


What you failed to mention was player B said "In response" the magic words, when saying "In response" it doesn't allow a phase or step change. Player A's opponent said "In responce" which means he's still in his first main phase, so player A could've played Timbermare and won the game.

[Ewokslayer]

What you failed to mention was player B said "In response" the magic words, when saying "In response" it doesn't allow a phase or step change. Player A's opponent said "In responce" which means he's still in his first main phase, so player A could've played Timbermare and won the game.

He mentioned the use of the Phrase "In Response" twice in his description of events, so I don't understand why you say he doesn't.
The major point of the incident was that it doesn't really matter.
Both players were using a shortcut that they both agreed on. However, when Player A found it to be advantageous to himself he tried to use that short cut against Player B, which the judge didn't allow.

And technically if the following is true

On one particular turn, Player A announces that he wants to move to attack step
then they were already in the combat phase since you can't move directly from the main phase to the attack step without first passing into the combat phase and the beginning of combat step.

[tivadar]

Also, the "in response" mentioned was probably intended to mean "in response to you declaring attackers" rather than "in response to you moving to the attack phase". While this isn't technically the correct phrasing, I do hear it a lot. That seems perfectly reasonable in this situation and I can understand the judges siding with Player B here.

Really, the only thing Player B did was be a bit ambiguous about his timing (but since this had happened for a few turns, assuming that it was intended to mean before declaring attackers is fair). However, he also didn't give Player A priority at the start of combat, which he needed to do. My guess is that he figured that since this had gone on for a few turns, rather than asking every time, he'd just say what he was doing.

[Bryant Cook]

He mentioned the use of the Phrase "In Response" twice in his description of events, so I don't understand why you say he doesn't.
The major point of the incident was that it doesn't really matter.
Both players were using a shortcut that they both agreed on. However, when Player A found it to be advantageous to himself he tried to use that short cut against Player B, which the judge didn't allow.

And technically if the following is true

then they were already in the combat phase since you can't move directly from the main phase to the attack step without first passing into the combat phase and the beginning of combat step.


What I meant was player B didn't say "Back up a second" player B said "In response"

[bigbear102]

The point is he didn't want to 'back up a second', he wanted priority before declaring attackers.

[Bryant Cook]

The point is he didn't want to 'back up a second', he wanted priority before declaring attackers.

Yes, I understand but saying "In response" changes that. So if I make a mistake from now on I'm just going to say I wanted to do whatever is correct. Automatically correcting every mistake I should make, there should be no spell check for Magic.

[bigbear102]

It isn't a spell check. There is no way that if you were in that situation you would ever let your opponent play the timbermare. Unless John specifically asked "During my main phase?" when his opponent said 'in response' then it should be assumed to be already in the combat step.

If his opponent said, "yes, during your main phase i tap your men," then playing timbermare would be fine. Both players should be more careful about the details of the game, but it sounds like Rich got it right on this one.

[on1y0ne]

Yes, I understand but saying "In response" changes that. So if I make a mistake from now on I'm just going to say I wanted to do whatever is correct. Automatically correcting every mistake I should make, there should be no spell check for Magic.

The game of Magic, in and of itself is perfect. It is because of the inperfections that we as players have that make it so that there are judges and rulings by intent. Sometimes there are no right or wrong answers. You cannot use the rules to correct a bad play, but the rules of the game are there in the cases of ambiguity, disagreement, and miscommunication.

By saying, "in response," nothing was changed in this situation because it was accepted at earlier points in the match that the tapping was not during Main Phase but during Combat. Even had it been the first time he had said that, the game will not allow him to respond to a phase change. And the intent is clearly to tap creatures during combat so that the opponent cannot attack. Never was there a question of "when are you tapping them?"

Again, because of the use of short cuts throughout the match and ruling by intent, the player who was tapping the creature received the benefit of the ruling. Ruling by intent does not stop you from making a play error or a bad play. However, it does help you, sometimes, when there is an ambiguity or miscommunication as to what was going on.

[Mulletus]

I dont see how you think this was previously agreed upon. Every other time he tapped things, any other spell I played was still in the first main phase. I just didnt have any desire to attack, because the creatures I cast didnt have haste.

What sickens me most is that the only reason I know not to respond to the declaration of attack the attack step is from you calling me on that, costing me the game. So you can call people on the rules but I can't? When did the rules change? Or do you make them up as you go? Or just change them to meet your own needs?

[Ewokslayer]

I dont see how you think this was previously agreed upon. Every other time he tapped things, any other spell I played was still in the first main phase. I just didnt have any desire to attack, because the creatures I cast didnt have haste.

Was that clear to both players or was that just happening in your head?

After you cast things in your first main phase, after he tapped your creatures, did you verbally tell him you were "moving into your attack step" again or did you just say "go"?

[Nihil Credo]

This article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=judge/article/20050204a) seems to explain the stuff we're discussing pretty well. I urge you to read it all, but the ruling is summed up as:
So why would the meaning of a word ("Combat?") change according to the cards on the table?
There is no reason behind this, and we should always consider that “combat?” means “I’m in my main phase and I pass priority; I consider you have nothing to play now and enter my combat phase. I pass priority in my beginning of combat step, if you have nothing to play, I’ll declare my attackers”.
Therefore, in order not to have A gain an advantage by using a shortcut, we have to rule that B used his Icy Manipulator in A’s beginning of combat step.


It also offers a ruling that contradicts what I suggested in the Ravager example, which goes along with other people's experiences; I guess that means the ruling I witnessed was misguided. Too bad, I thought it made sense.

[Mulletus]

Was that clear to both players or was that just happening in your head?

After you cast things in your first main phase, after he tapped your creatures, did you verbally tell him you were "moving into your attack step" again or did you just say "go"?

I think he only tapped defensively once. But yes I did pass like before, the difference is I only had walls and an enchanted birds. He 'cotrol magic'ed the birds and used all the other taps as an offensive move to tap my blockers. I naturalized his enchantment and got my birds back on my turn. So they were still tapped. Next turn I draw the Timbermare and thats when all this happened. So I really dont know what he's talking about regarding the previous taps, I dont think the judge was even there.

My real gripe here is the same situation happened with the judge as my opponent in the past. And the rule was that we go back to the main phase. It burned me then and it burned me now. I want to know if there was a rules change or is this judge biased? Did he twist the rules then to be in his favor, and this time in his friend's favor? Or was there a change in the rules that he can show here.

[cdr]

This thread is a mess. People are throwing around theories and terminology without any idea of what they mean.

First, judges who are not officially judging a tournament cannot interfere with matches. If he sees a problem, he should go get the actual judge.

That aside, based on on1y0ne's description, this appears to be a case of shortcut confusion, and maybe an attempt to abuse the shortcut on the part of "Player B".

"In response" is a vague phrase, not a "magic phrase" - it has no meaning in the rules.

By default, all combat shortcuts are assumed to happen in the Beginning of Combat step. Player B only made his case worse if he said "Declare attack step" - that would mean, in more precise terms "pass priority in the Beginning of Combat step", indicating again that the game was in the Beginning of Combat step.

"Backing up" and Ruling By Intent have nothing to do with this particular situation.

I don't know what happened in the past, but situations are always different and rules and policies do change, so I would suggest not lumping them together so easily.

In Nihil's "pump" situation, as the article explains, it's assumed that you did all the activations without passing priority unless you specifically resolve them one at a time.