Welcome back to the Knowledge Pool! Due to some delays this week, L2s should wait until Sunday to contribute.

The blog post for this scenario is here: http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/?p=1401

Ari and Ned are playing against each other in round 3 of a local GPT. On turn four, Ari untaps the Pain Seer he attacked with last turn and says ‘Seer trigger’. In response, Ned casts a Lightning Strike, killing the Seer. Once the spells resolve, Ari draws his card for turn, then realizes he didn't reveal it for the trigger. You're called over. What do you do?

Because Pain Seer ability is a beneficial trigger. I would simply rule it a missed trigger and ask the NAP if he wants to put the trigger on the stack. If the NAP chooses to put it on the stack then resolve the trigger. No penalties would be issued

GPE - GRV and warning for Ari
The trigger was aknowledged, therefore added to stack, responded, but Ari didn't remember to resolve it.

Verify that no other actions have taken place, check for previously issued penalties, then issue a GPE-GRV warning upgraded to a game loss since the opponent cannot identify which card was drawn and should have been revealed for the life loss.

I agree that it's a GRV, but I'm not sure that we should upgrade here. Had Ari drawn for the ‘trigger’ and then drawn for turn, I'd upgrade, but this feels more to me like improperly resolving the Pain Seer trigger, followed by a draw for turn. Upgrading a GRV is for when the opponent can't tell if the GRV actually happened or not, and here it's pretty clear that Ari didn't take the extra card for Pain Seer at all, and simply skipped right to the draw step.

This is a GPE-Missed Trigger - this trigger is beneficial so no penality would be issued, NAP chooses to put the trigger on the stack or not.

Edited Tomasz Ludkiewicz (May 23, 2015 09:17:04 AM)

I would agree to Thomasz, but first I would ask if the Top cards were known to any players.
If the drawn card was known (f.e. A last turn killed courser) I would Rewind.

If the Card was only known to A (f.e. Scry-Effects), It depends for me in the other circumstances for INDIZES, if it could be cheating.
(f.e. A knew drawn card was tasigur at a standing of low life).
The cheating Investigation would be in this case in my first priority. But this depends on more knowledge about the result of the investigation

Good point Kai - I was assuming that top card was not known to any player. But if scry effect would gave Ari knowledge of top card I would also start an investigation.

I wouldn't say Missed Trigger as Ari acknowledged it. Also, I wouldn't call this a strictly beneficial trigger: Ari can lose life to it.

If the card on top was known by Ari, then so begins an investigation into the situation.

If the top card wasn't known by any player, I'd issue a Warning to Ari for GRV and have him resolve the ability now.

There was a recent rules change. The only way to not miss a trigger is to take the physical action when it matters. By drawing a card without revealing it he has moved to his draw step and missed his trigger. It doesn't matter how many times he said pain seer trigger. If he draws a card without revealing, he missed the trigger.

Ari verbally acknowledged the trigger so it was on the stack prior to the lightning bolt. failing to resolve it would be a gpe-grv. For ari and a gpe-ftmgs for ned. Ari then correctly drew for the turn.

For fixing we can rewind to the original infraction. Or not make any changes to the game state, I think I would rewind to the original infraction putting the pain seer trigger on the stack.
If the identity of the card that was drawn was known by both players it would be returned to the top of the library if not a card at random should be returned from hand to the top of library.



In reference to earlier posts if Ari were cheating would it not make more sense not to acknowledge the trigger verbally so his opponent would be less likely to spot that it had been missed.

Just remember that KP Scenarios always rule out cheating (i.e.: it was an honest mistake. Really, it was).

From the list of detrimental/beneficial triggers from this week, seeing Bob as beneficial leads me to believe that pain seer is the same. The resolved trigger would change the visual boardstate, so it is considered missed unless the appropriate action was taken. Ask NAP if he wants the trigger added to the stack. No penalty.

Before: (Misread the question… This is something I seriously need to improve upon)
Okay, here is my reasoning:

The problem we have is that Ari has drawn the card, and has failed to reveal it. Considering he immediately called for a judge, we can assume cheating is out of the picture.

Since he demonstrated awareness for the trigger, by stating it and drawing, I do not think this is a missed trigger. Likewise, since he was allowed to draw the card, this is not ruled as a DEC either. Ned does not receive a FtMGS, as Ari immediately called for a judge.

This leaves a game-rule violation for failing to reveal the card. This penalty must also be upgraded as he cannot verify which card he drew. In this case Ari is awarded a game loss.

Beforeish (having re-read the question):

The problem we have here is that Ari has stated the trigger, but failed to reveal the card, draw it, and lose life equal to CMC. As he called a judge immediately, cheating and FtMGS is out of the picture.

Despite having stated the trigger, as he failed to resolve it I would rule it as a missed trigger. Considering that the trigger is beneficial to him, no warning shall be given. Ned will have the option to put the trigger on the stack.

After:

Having read the discussion and rechecked the IPG, I stand by my decision. However the discussion has considered some interesting points in terms of cheating, with scry effects and the like.

Edited Kai Clark (May 24, 2015 02:10:44 PM)

A note from the KP lead - while cheating is a rare infraction for us to cover, it isn't unilaterally ruled out for our scenarios. You can expect, though, that if an investigation would be needed to determine cheating, we would give you the relevant information for making the final decision.