This was happened in a game of PPTQ last week. AP crew Smuggler's Copter and attack, NAP said OK, then AP cut NAP's life first and try to looter. When AP drew a card and did not discard yet, NAP called judge and said since AP had cut life that mean go into damage step, AP missed triggered and should not looter.

According to the Myth Realized and Dragon Fodder scenario in this article, http://blogs.magicjudges.org/whatsupdocs/2016/11/07/out-of-order-sequencing/.
I thought this is also a OooS situation since this didn't grant any strategical advantage and everything was done as a single block of actions without any break. However, two of senior judge said they would give it a MissTriggered. Did I do anything wrong?

Main question for me would be how board state look like. If there are no blockers available, no open mana for NAP, and AP made all of this in one smooth sequence “I will crew Copter, attack, you take 3 and I loot” then I would be fine with OOOS. However if any of that isn't meet I would investigate further.

From technical point of view this is missed trigger. Was there any verbal exchange about going into blockers or damage steps?

Originally posted by Bartłomiej Wieszok:

NAP had open mana and one card in hand which is a land. AP just crewed Copter then attacked, then NAP said OK so AP cut his life. There are no more verbal exchange about what step it was.

If AP gave NAP an opportunity to stop the damage, which is how I interpret the “OK” pause, and also stopped to record the new life total. I'd be ruling missed trigger here.

Could you tell me what is the difference between my situation and the Myth Realized and Dragon Fodder scenario in this article, http://blogs.magicjudges.org/whatsupdocs/2016/11/07/out-of-order-sequencing/.

For the scenario with Myth Realized and Dragon Fodder, all actions were taken in a single block of actions. There was no interaction with the opponent inbetween. The “ok” here means “okay, it resolves” and this can be said before the trigger resolves so that is no problem.

For you scenario, NAP was involved, making it not a single block of action. Here, I'd interpret the “ok” as “ok I am not going to deal with your attacker, it hits me in the face”. You could argue that NAP said okay to the trigger resolving or simply that NAP was too quick and that both is fair. The trigger is not forgotten until AP actually allows the game state to go past the point where it can still be remembered. By dealing the damage first, it has become a missed trigger however.

Edited to make my statement a bit more complete.

Edited Harm Tacoma (Dec. 2, 2016 04:05:22 PM)

The NAP player can't dictate the pace of the game, in this situation due to there being a trigger on the stack it doesn't matter what the NAP meant with “OK”, even if they mean “I have no response and no desire to block and would like to move to combat damage” it can't mean that due to the trigger on the stack. I don't think it's reasonable to say that the damage and loot isn't in a single block here, we go from NAP passing priority in Declare Attackers with a trigger on the stack to after combat damage the player looting and damage being dealt, I personally ask NAP do they have a response, if yes back up the damage and let them respond but otherwise I'd leave the game as it is.

Originally posted by Gareth Tanner:

The NAP player can't dictate the pace of the game, in this situation due to there being a trigger on the stack it doesn't matter what the NAP meant with “OK”, even if they mean “I have no response and no desire to block and would like to move to combat damage” it can't mean that due to the trigger on the stack. I don't think it's reasonable to say that the damage and loot isn't in a single block here, we go from NAP passing priority in Declare Attackers with a trigger on the stack to after combat damage the player looting and damage being dealt, I personally ask NAP do they have a response, if yes back up the damage and let them respond but otherwise I'd leave the game as it is.

NAP is not dictating the pace, NAP just said OK and AP dictate the pace by taking the damage it's copter made
I would grant a Missed Trigger and keep playing the turn (no loot), and remind AP that he/she is responsable for the trigger

Then why is this not OoOS? No information has been gained, if taken in the correct order the actions result in a clear legal game state. The only reason any of these wouldn't be true is if OK moves the game beyond the current point it's in.

It can be argued that, by learning that NAP not only won't block, but that he has nothing to prevent the damage, AP has gained strategic information that could influence his looting.

Originally posted by MTR:

An out-of-order sequence must not result in a player prematurely gaining information which could reasonably affect decisions made later in that sequence.

d:^D

This is something I realised the moment I hit Submit

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

It can be argued that, by learning that NAP not only won't block, but that he has nothing to prevent the damage, AP has gained strategic information that could influence his looting.

But couldn't the same be said if NAP immediately declared a blocker without giving AP a chance to resolve the trigger? NAP isn't allowed to progress the game state too far and make AP miss his trigger. By saying “OK”, NAP has allowed the trigger to resolve. AP took it a little further and assumed that the damage would occur as well, so he did the physical actions out of order. I don't see any information gained here.

Originally posted by Isaac King:

NAP isn't allowed to progress the game state too far and make AP miss his trigger.

Agree NAP can't force the game to move forward, and NAP saying “ok” after AP turns Copter sideways doesn't mean AP has now missed their trigger.

Originally posted by Isaac King:

By saying “OK”, NAP has allowed the trigger to resolve. AP took it a little further and assumed that the damage would occur as well, so he did the physical actions out of order. I don't see any information gained here.

But I disagree that there's no potential for information to be gained here. I've seen several times players chose to destroy their opponent's Copter after letting them have the trigger. In the case of one semi-commonly played card, Immolating Glare, it's not possible to destroy the Copter before AP gets their trigger, so it's better to let them complete the trigger before acting, rather than letting AP know they're about to lose their Copter before they decide what to discard.

Depending on exactly what was said at the table and how time passed, I could see ruling either way on this, which makes it hard to give a satisfactory response based on text, but it is certainly possible and reasonable AP gained information.

Saying “OK” doesn't mean anything. It's not a priority pass - it literally means nothing.
So NAP saying “OK” means that AP should say “Copter trigger.” and loot. Or “Any blocks?” if he's opting to skip the loot.

I'd rule it as a Missed Trigger. It can't be Out of Order Sequencing because:

Originally posted by AIPG/MTR:

An out-of-order sequence must not result in a player prematurely gaining information which could reasonably affect decisions made later in that sequence.

Knowing there's no blockers could reasonably affect decisions made during looting.

AP takes two actions which are legal to take after the point the game is at, but out of order. They do not involve the opponent in them, and gain no information that they wouldn't normally have. The opponent has to pass priority before they can loot.

“OK” from NAP cannot pull the game ahead. It's a priority pass, but there's a trigger on the stack. As long as there isn't a substantial break between the declaration of damage and the loot, it looks like OOOS to me.