Dies to Removal

Well, shit.

I'm the #1 guy on this job. There's supposed to be a #2 on his way in January. I need the help.

Problem is, the guy just broke his left leg.

The femur.

Six month recovery.

http://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/commen ... or/clxwctr

Know your Rabblemaster tricks people.

Well, shit.

I'm the #1 guy on this job. There's supposed to be a #2 on his way in January. I need the help.

Problem is, the guy just broke his left leg.

The femur.

Six month recovery.

More info:

The femur is broken clean through, up near his hip. There's a rod now that runs the whole length of the bone, screwed in at both ends. This guy may never get to work at the site now.

Rough for both of you.

Rabble trick sounds scummy, should likely avoid it.

For what it's worth, I'd rather be me than him for sure.

Why doesn't this guy get it? He keeps referring to his "End of Main Phase 1" point.

I want to use the RULES ADVISOR card but I'm not a douche.

You aren't wrong, Christen. If one player requests a shortcut and the other takes an action, the first is not required to continue passing priority. The game state has changed and may be reevaluated. What cannot be done is suggesting a shortcut, the opponent agreeing, and then trying to back out of it. Personally, I prefer suggesting a move to the beginning of combat step instead of declare attackers for better clarity, especially with things like Rabblemasters or Mutavaults on the board (I tend not to animate until beginning of combat). LD, it isn't scummy at all. From a tactical standpoint, it just means that he wants a Rabblemaster on the board when combat starts. He isn't trying to be deceptive in the slightest. When his opponent takes an action, he gets to decide if he wants to continue with the shortcut or not.

Playing rabblemaster before combat is playing without honor. If you win without honor, did you really win at all? If you are playing red, are you really playing mtg at all?

You aren't wrong, Christen. If one player requests a shortcut and the other takes an action, the first is not required to continue passing priority. The game state has changed and may be reevaluated. What cannot be done is suggesting a shortcut, the opponent agreeing, and then trying to back out of it. Personally, I prefer suggesting a move to the beginning of combat step instead of declare attackers for better clarity, especially with things like Rabblemasters or Mutavaults on the board (I tend not to animate until beginning of combat). LD, it isn't scummy at all. From a tactical standpoint, it just means that he wants a Rabblemaster on the board when combat starts. He isn't trying to be deceptive in the slightest. When his opponent takes an action, he gets to decide if he wants to continue with the shortcut or not.

Except the shortcut for declaring attackers according to the MTR is "offer to pass priority until opponent gets it in the beginning of combat step". I think most players only know "go to declare attackers step" and not the intricacies of the shortcut.

Fuck it, I'll just revert back to actually asking if the opponent is okay with us ending the main phase and going to combat whenever Rabblemaster is involved.

The problem is one of common conception. If you're in your main 1 and say go to declare attackers most people will take that to mean end main 1 and go to combat. Using it otherwise to create confusion could be seen as angling and could get you a violation.

The entire premise of that post is based on a complete misunderstanding of Magic rules. This is the one upside to MODO - it gives you a much greater awareness of the proper flow of the game.

As soon as you say "declare attackers", you have passed priority in your main phase to the opponent. You cannot make any other action at sorcery speed until your second main phase. It's not complicated.

It is not angle shooting at all. You are stating that, unless your opponent takes an action, you are going to pass priority until you get to that step. Once your opponent does something, that declaration is void and you play on from the point where they took that action. This is how it is done at nearly every level of play. The "angle shooting" version where you declare a shortcut, your opponent agrees, and then you try to back up will never stand up to a judge call.

Vald, that is true unless your opponent makes an action during your main phase. The moment they do that, you regain priority and have to actively declare passing it again before the phase ends. I think this is the part that everyone arguing against this is missing. Once your opponent does something, the shortcut is null and void and you play on from that point as though the shortcut was never declared.

I get you. Yes, active player receives priority after the stack is clear.

Example: I pass priority during my main phase, opponent casts Force Away on my Rabblemaster. It resolves and I receive priority again, allowing me to recast Rabblemaster during my first main phase.

For anyone who wants further information about shortcutting, the topic is covered in section 4.2 of the Tournament Rules. The document can be found here.

Vald - Yes, that is exactly how it works.

Former judge, current rules advisor. I am used to having to explain all this. I still keep the comprehensive rules, tournament rules, infraction procedure guide, "judging at regular REL", and all set faqs for standard on my phone for reference out of habit.

Once your opponent does something, the shortcut is null and void and you play on from that point as though the shortcut was never declared.

I'll quote you on this in the future if there is an argument. However, I won't say it to that particular person I'm discussing with because he has this idea of a "end of main phase 1" period that I don't know where he got.

Goblin Shortcutter

I always say, "Go to attack?" when I am ready to move from main 1 to making a rabble token. I think that's what people should do. Either that or just play the second rabblemaster. I understand the slight tactical advantage, but if it sounds scummy and makes you feel scummy, it probably is scummy.

If you're playing at competitive REL, I will assume you know the rules and any issue you raise will have to fall on the judge's ears. Also, it's only scummy if you're confusing your opponent. As long as you communicate clearly what you're going to do, the judge will be always on your side (and have always been at my side whenever this issue comes up).

Also, it tilts them a little bit, so it's definitely advantage.

It depends on what you mean by "these tactics". There is nothing wrong with reevaluating what you do if your opponent does something after you pass priority, including recasting a Rabblemaster your opponent bounced after you passed priority during your first main phase. Any attempt to deceive or "go back", as it were, to first main if both sides pass is indeed scummy and something I have highly frowned upon in events that I have judged. I don't think Christen is saying we should do that at all but make sure we know exactly how the priority system works so we can both protect ourselves from sloppy/dirty players and get all the small advantages we can when playing competitively.

I'm not seeing what's scummy about that in the slightest.

Me - I'm ready to move on to Combat.
Opponent - Before Combat I'll bounce your Rabblemaster.
Me - Okay then, guess I'm not ready for Combat after all so I'll recast Rabblemaster and now I'm ready for Combat.
Opponent - What an asshole.

Pretty much exactly that, redthirst.

Just don't let people pass and then, after you pass (having taken no action) as well, cast something at sorcery speed. That doesn't fly at all.

I'm not seeing what's scummy about that in the slightest.

Me - I'm ready to move on to Combat.
Opponent - Before Combat I'll bounce your Rabblemaster.
Me - Okay then, guess I'm not ready for Combat after all so I'll recast Rabblemaster and now I'm ready for Combat.
Opponent - What an asshole.

I'm absolutely fine with this. That's how phases and priority work.

I initially thought he was trying to catch someone between beginning of combat and declare attacks then go back to main phase 1.

Hallow or hollow?

When I played paper, I used to deal with that stuff by announcing all my relevant phases quickly as I was playing. "Untap upkeep draw" then draw a card, then I start playing spells or move to combat with "combat? Declare attackers?"

That way, it was always clear where we were and an opponent could stop me if he had something he wanted to do.

When I played paper, I used to deal with that stuff by announcing all my relevant phases quickly as I was playing. "Untap upkeep draw" then draw a card, then I start playing spells or move to combat with "combat? Declare attackers?"

That way, it was always clear where we were and an opponent could stop me if he had something he wanted to do.

that's how it should be done.

I have to add that proper communication is key to avoid these misunderstandings. Whenever I come across this scenario, I will always confirm with the opponent when he is trying to cast the kill spell.

Me: Ok, moving to combat/declare attackers.
Him: I'll kill your Rabblemaster first.
Me: When are you doing this, before he is making the token in the main phase? Or during combat when his ability is on the stack?
Him: Before the token is produced.
Me: So it is still the main phase correct?
Him: Yes.
Me: Ok, so your spell resolves. It's still the main phase so I cast a Rabblemaster. Go to combat?
Him: Hey, isn't your combat done? You already entered combat.
Me: No, I didn't. You stopped me before we could enter combat. I even confirmed with you if it's still the main phase.

It's only scummy if you're not communicating your intentions properly.

Example 1:
Me: Declaring attackers?
Him: Kill your Goblin before it produces a token.
Me: Haha! The ability is on the stack so you can't stop it.
Him: No, I kill it before it's ability is even triggered.
Me: Sorry, you already let me go to the beginning of combat.

Example 2:
Me: Going to combat.
Him: Kill Rabble before his trigger.
Me: Hmn, ok. I'll cast another Rabblemaster then.
Him: But you're already entering combat.
Me: It's still main phase.

Example 1 is just wrong because you are making the opponent lose priority. Example 2, while technically correct, is demonstrating a lack of communication between players.

On same page now and agree.

A player at my LGS once had an opponent who routinely stepped all over the rules of priority and cast a bunch of stuff all in a row without waiting for responses.

After a rush "cast dude, cast dude, bolt your dude, attack with everything" hand vomit, the original player said "you have to give me a chance to respond to the first spell, undo all that" and the opponent got mad and called a judge.

His opponent was under the impression that he could only respond if he let him and playing faster would gain him an advantage.

I feel bad for anyone who needs to use these tactics.

Absolutely agreed. Playing Goblin Rabblemaster is literally the worst thing you can do in mtg.

I feel bad for anyone who needs to use these tactics.

Absolutely agreed. Playing Goblin Rabblemaster is literally the worst thing you can do in mtg.

Except for when it's the best thing you can do.

Which is all the time.

Literally.

> Opponent taps out
> I play Rabblemaster
> Opponent goes ughhhhh....
>

fwiw I can't even see this as an issue. It's way more tame than the "kill enemy coarser of kruphix on their draw phase" play which got maybe one objection in the history of mtg.

Correct, you must let your opponent respond unless you say you are holding priority. However, when holding priority, the spells will stay on the stack unresolved until each player has passed priority for each one. It is rare to hold priority unless you are doing something like "Infernal Tutor, crack Lion's Eye Diamond" or other degenerate combo shenanigans.

Reverberating your own spell was a thing, so there's that.

I don't use shady tactics during gameplay but I do shuffle lands to the top of my opponents deck

In my opinion sleight of hand is a part of the game, maybe the most skill intensive part

Zem if you're around, have you been testing with any Sultai Control lists?

Zem said he was going "full Kaze" - whatever that means