Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Paralysis by Over-Analysis, part 313… (heh)

It's much simpler; please read it more like an activation cost & effect.
A triggered ability that … : The controller must do A or B (before progressing the game state)

d:^D

But then (unless I'm reading this completely incorrectly) the ‘or’ is incorrect in the new policy.

Since ‘or’ implies you only have to meet one of the two conditions to make the statement true, thus “A triggered ability that causes a change in the visible game state (including life totals) or requires a choice upon resolution: The controller must make it clear what the action taken or choice made is before taking any game actions.” would be a true statement.

Thus “I will put a +1/+1 counter on this creature” (making clear the action) or in this case “I will put a 4/4 Angel in play” covers the direct reading of the rules. The interpretation notes contradict this - you HAVE to do A (in this case “make the appropriate physical action”) and thus the policy should read:

A triggered ability that causes a change in the visible game state (including life totals) or requires a choice upon resolution: The controller must take the appropriate physical action AND make it clear what the action taken or choice made is before taking any game actions

Or

A triggered ability that causes a change in the visible game state (including life totals): The controller must take the appropriate physical action OR a triggered ability that requires a choice upon resolution: The controller must make it clear what the action taken or choice made is before taking any game actions

Depending on what the intended reading is supposed to be. (I'm guessing the second option and kind of what is hinted by Toby earlier in the thread)

Edited Edward Bell (April 10, 2015 02:24:59 PM)

Originally posted by Chuck Pierce:

I believe that refers to the fact that before you could simply acknowledge the existence of the trigger and it wouldn't be considered missed, even if you never say anything about what the trigger is going to do. It used to create an awkward situation because just by saying “Triggers,” your opponent was partially responsible for making sure that you resolve your own triggers correctly, even though they might not be sure what action is needed or what your choice is going to be.

Now, you either have to actually do the action (which is straightforward), or describe what that action will be. This makes it much more clear that you are aware of the triggers, and it promotes communication with the opponent so that they know what is happening and that the trigger is resolving. If, after you say “This guy gets a +1/+1 counter” you forget to actually put that counter on, it's much easier for your opponent to point out that you didn't do the action, because you actually told them specifically what you are going to do.

Would just saying “counter” still be enough to describe the action?

So basically we are differentiating MT and GRV here based on the exact words said.

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

Chuck Pierce
I believe that refers to the fact that before you could simply acknowledge the existence of the trigger and it wouldn't be considered missed, even if you never say anything about what the trigger is going to do. It used to create an awkward situation because just by saying “Triggers,” your opponent was partially responsible for making sure that you resolve your own triggers correctly, even though they might not be sure what action is needed or what your choice is going to be.

Now, you either have to actually do the action (which is straightforward), or describe what that action will be. This makes it much more clear that you are aware of the triggers, and it promotes communication with the opponent so that they know what is happening and that the trigger is resolving. If, after you say “This guy gets a +1/+1 counter” you forget to actually put that counter on, it's much easier for your opponent to point out that you didn't do the action, because you actually told them specifically what you are going to do.

Would just saying “counter” still be enough to describe the action?

So basically we are differentiating MT and GRV here based on the exact words said.

I'm guessing both players would be clear what ‘counter’ meant, and I'm guessing even ‘trigger’ would be fine if they were clear what trigger it was referring to. “Triggers” isn't clear as to what triggers are being discussed so I'd argue that as long as the communication was clear then there is no issue.

I mean to even take this to its most absurd conclusion - how does a Splinter Twin player make a billionty Pestermite tokens? This new interpretation suggests that unless a player is able to actually put a token down we can't progress to making the second/third token. Maybe we get a dice with a billionty written on it and perhaps some homemade tokens?

Keep in mind that with bolster triggers resolving, there are two things happening:
1) Choose which smallest creature.
2) Placing the counter on it.

If they've indicated a choice of the creature, then they've started to resolve the trigger. (have to factor in OOoS and shortcuts as well, but none of that mattered in the Kin-Tree/Carp question)

Geist has no such choice. Saying something like “Swing for 6” indicates pretty clearly what's happening, so I wouldn't rule missed trigger. If it goes “attacks are declared”, “no blocks, I take 2?”, “no, you take 6”… We're looking at missed trigger.

Originally posted by Edward Bell:

I'm guessing both players would be clear what 'counter' meant, and I'm guessing even 'trigger' would be fine if they were clear what trigger it was referring to. “Triggers” isn't clear as to what triggers are being discussed so I'd argue that as long as the communication was clear then there is no issue.

Well as for ‘trigger’ we know that isn't enough:

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2015/03/23/dtk-policy-changes-for-players/

“So, for example, you have a trigger that says “At the beginning of your upkeep, put a +1/+1 counter on each creature you control.” Under the old rules, you could move to your turn, say “trigger” (or, for even more ambiguity, “triggers”) then forget to actually do anything and when this was realized later on (say, in the middle of combat), it would be a mess to sort out. Now, simply saying “trigger” isn’t sufficient; you have to actually add the counters.”

Originally posted by Edward Bell:

I mean to even take this to its most absurd conclusion - how does a Splinter Twin player make a billionty Pestermite tokens? This new interpretation suggests that unless a player is able to actually put a token down we can't progress to making the second/third token. Maybe we get a dice with a billionty written on it and perhaps some homemade tokens?

Well, those tokens are made by an activated ability, so that seems unaffected (and even if it was affected, the current Geist discussion shows it's no problem). As for the triggered untap ability, that can be looped.