Originally posted by Michael Warme:

we are in this situation the head judge of a much smaller tournament versus a floor judge at a larger event.

Well, I don't think I'm spoiling the answer for this KP scenario by addressing this “tangent”: nope, it really doesn't matter.

Yes, the Head Judge at a GP or Pro Tour is going to be a bit more formal and removed from the entire player base, and at a GPT (or even PTQ, PPTQ, etc) you'll get to interact with, and be friendly with, most or all of the players.

However, the REL is the REL is the REL, and we strive for consistent application of policy.

(Don't take this personally, I appreciate the opportunity to share this perspective with the thousands of other judges out there…)

d:^D

why then does it specify that you are the “head judge”? If it really doesn't come into play here, that's a part of the scenario that's different than previous KP questions. I'm genuinely curious why that was included in the question?

Michael, our scenarios are usually set up with you as the Head Judge - the idea is to test what YOU would do to resolve this. If you're not the Head Judge, you can just say “go get the Head Judge ;)” and we've accomplished nothing. (heh)

My point was that this scenario is a Comp REL event, and that Comp REL is Comp REL, whether that be a GPT, PTQ, Grand Prix day one, or whatever. Perhaps I misunderstood the previous post, but it seemed like a suggestion that Comp REL varied by event type - it doesn't, and that's my point.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled KP scenario!

d:^D

So, it's Friday now, time to ask some carefully-worded follow ups. Michael, it sounds like you would like to rewind the game to the beginning of the active player's first main phase. As far as I can remember, only two infractions allow us to rewind to the point of the error. What infraction was committed at the beginning of the main phase, causing us to consider rewinding to that moment?

Chase, you stated that you would consider a rewind if you found that the player had “rushed” through his turn and NAP didn't have a chance to call attention to the missed trigger. Would we be considering a different infraction in this case?

Originally posted by Marc DeArmond:

Kataki is not a card that will trigger. Technically the Birthing Pod is triggering with the ability given to it by Kataki.

Ernst Jan Plugge
True, of course, but just calling it “Kataki's ability” is going to make this scenario a *lot* easier to discuss…

Marc does bring up a critical point. Birthing Pod is the card with the triggered ability, not Kataki. If you read Kataki's ability carefully you will understand why.

Also, even if you do know this, it's still best practice to reference the Birthing Pod as the object with the, “Pay 1 or sacrifice me!” triggered ability for the sake of clarity and accuracy in explaining rulings. You don't want to accidentally give other people the false impression that Kataki itself has the triggered abilities and not the artifacts.

Edited Eric Paré (Sept. 5, 2014 04:35:17 PM)

Originally posted by Eric Paré:

Marc DeArmond
Kataki is not a card that will trigger. Technically the Birthing Pod is triggering with the ability given to it by Kataki.

Ernst Jan Plugge
True, of course, but just calling it “Kataki's ability” is going to make this scenario a *lot* easier to discuss…

Marc does bring up a critical point. Birthing Pod is the card with the triggered ability, not Kataki. If you read Kataki's ability carefully you will understand why.

Also, even if you do know this, it's still best practice to reference the Birthing Pod as the object with the, “Pay 1 or sacrifice me!” triggered ability for the sake of clarity and accuracy in explaining rulings. You don't want to accidentally give other people the false impression that Kataki itself has the triggered abilities and not the artifacts.

I wouldn't call it a critical point, only when delivering the ruling is it essential that you do not refer said trigger as Kataki's trigger. I'm sure everyone that has contributed to this KP is clear that the trigger belongs to Birthing Pod.

Originally posted by Robin Runesson:

I wouldn't call it a critical point, only when delivering the ruling is it essential that you do not refer said trigger as Kataki's trigger. I'm sure everyone that has contributed to this KP is clear that the trigger belongs to Birthing Pod.

I have found in my experience that falling into the habit of “shortcutting” technical terms just for the sake of it, and not as an educational aid tends to set in quite fast, and very soon we're just using the wrong words unconsciously. I'd rather get used to employ proper terminology at every possible occasion so as not to run the risk of confusing players by inadvertently using the wrong terms when giving my rulings.

That being said, I find that this scenario is a clear-cut Missed Trigger (detrimental) infraction that should carry a penalty of Warning for Andrew. Since it has a default action, Nathan gets to choose if the Birthing Pod's triggered ability would get put into the stack the next time a player would receive priority or at the beginning of the next phase. I would not rewind anything, and allow Andrew to complete the search for his Birthing Pod activation.

Nathan would never receive a penalty for a Missed Trigger, since he does not need to point out his opponent's missed triggers. Incidentally, if the controller of the Kataki was Nathan instead of Andrew, then the issue of the Pod triggering instead of Kataki would be important to determine which player committed the infraction.

Originally posted by Dan Collins:

So, it's Friday now, time to ask some carefully-worded follow ups. Michael, it sounds like you would like to rewind the game to the beginning of the active player's first main phase. As far as I can remember, only two infractions allow us to rewind to the point of the error. What infraction was committed at the beginning of the main phase, causing us to consider rewinding to that moment?

Chase, you stated that you would consider a rewind if you found that the player had “rushed” through his turn and NAP didn't have a chance to call attention to the missed trigger. Would we be considering a different infraction in this case?

I think provided that the active player was not rushing through his turn, the only correct action to take is to issue the warning for a missed detrimental trigger and handle it appropriately, and since, in the light of the missed trigger, the activation of pod was legal, it should resolve. Rules as Written. What I would *like* to do is back it up, as the potential for abuse is fairly high (I got to pod my useless mana wall into a kitchen finks, at the expense of a warning I won the game), and it's not disruptive to the gamestate as given, no player has necessarily made significant game choices because of it. I think I wasn't really clear about my meaning–the potential for abuse of letting the pod trigger resolve seems very, very high, and the warning for a missed kataki trigger is not going to be representative enough for future judge calls/infractions to establish a significant pattern if a player is abusing this type of ruling.

Is there any time a missed detrimental trigger doesn't have a high potential for abuse? I mean, by it's very definition the person is avoiding something bad from happening. If it is intentional it is cheating. If it isn't intentional you don't go back and undo stuff because of how big of an effect on game play it has had.
It has a high potential for abuse, but is really easy to do. Hence a police that discourages it and keeps the game moving forward.

Edited Marc DeArmond (Sept. 9, 2014 01:40:00 AM)

Before reading other responses:

Kataki gives Birthing Pod a triggered ability. Andrew would have had to either pay 1 or sacrifice his Pod, in the beginning of upkeep, to demonstrate awareness of the trigger. He didn't, so the trigger is missed. I would consider this trigger generally detrimental for Andrew - while Kataki's ability passes the vanilla test, the fact that it's added to Pod is a drawback, not a plus, in general. Andrew will receive a Warning for GPE - Missed Trigger.

While the trigger has a default action that should have occurred, and Nathan allowed the game state to advance without this having occurred, Nathan has not committed Failure to Maintain Game State. Opponents are under no obligation to remind players of their triggers at any time, and can bring it up later.

As an additional remedy, we'll resolve the trigger's default action, and Andrew will immediately sacrifice his Pod. Andrew will then continue with the resolution of Pod's ability.


After reading other responses:

I misread the additional remedy in the IPG. First Nathan will choose whether the sacrifice will resolve the next time a player would receive priority, or at the beginning of the next phase (combat). Andrew will resolve his Pod ability. Then the sacrifice will resolve (if Nathan chose ‘next priority’), or the main phase will continue.

Many judges want to rewind this scenario. As this is a straightforward GPE - MT, I don't believe that's justified.

Some judges want to give Nathan a GPE - FtMGS. It's worth remembering that opponents are *not* responsible for reminding players about their triggers. Nathan is allowed to remind the opponent about the trigger right away, or remind the opponent later, and even do so intentionally, attempting to gain an advantage.

Edited Talin Salway (Sept. 9, 2014 10:59:15 PM)

Hey everyone! We had some great discussion this week with a variety of answers. Some were better than others, but that just means that we have some Areas of Improvements to work on and get better at! This scenario happened in a match in the Top 4 of a PTQ I was judging and made me stop and think about the appropriate way to handle the situation. Here was the outcome.

The trigger that Kataki grants to Birthing Pod is a detrimental trigger as well as being a trigger that has a default action. Andrew will receive a Warning for Missed Trigger. Since it has a default action, we will give the opponent the choice of when to resolve it; the next time a player would receive priority or the first time a player would receive priority in the next phase. Either way, Andrew will finish resolving Birthing Pod as it has already been activated and is currently being resolved. It's very tempting to try to back-up the game to before the Birthing Pod activation because it “feels right” or “it's not fair that he still gets the Birthing Pod activation.” While Nathan isn't required to point out Andrew's triggers, it's still in his hands to point out Andrew's triggers that he wants to happen when they are supposed to happen. However, Game Rule Violation and Communication Policy Violation are the only infractions that would allow us to back-up the game and neither of those infractions have been committed. The infraction committed is Missed Trigger and the remedy for Missed Trigger does not allow for a back-up of the game state.

Hope everyone had fun with this scenario. Stick around and check out the next Knowledge Pool Scenario tomorrow!