So, a replacement effect with an optional decision from the opponent. Should be fun. Let's throw in a scenario:

Albus plays against Nymphadora in a Competitive tournament. In his second main phase, Albus casts Flame-Wreathed Phoenix, not saying anything about Tribute. At the end of turn, Nymphadora casts Hero's Downfall, Albus realizes that the Tribute has not been payed, and calls you. What do you do ?

My instinct would be to say that forgetting Tribute necessarily implies forgetting the triggered ability (since nothing happens between the two), but I'd like an official answer (the rules about “demonstrating awareness” more or less allow a player to forget triggered abilities until they become relevant).

Moved to competitive REL.

Daniel Kitachewsky
L3, Paris, France
Rules NetRep

*Post deleted as this is not to be a discussion thread. Mea culpa.*

Edited Brian Schenck (Jan. 28, 2014 05:17:16 PM)

Locked awaiting an Official answer; this isn't a discussion topic.

OK, here's an ‘O’fficial answer; I'm leaving the topic open, as I anticipate there may be clarifying questions.

This is analogous to things like Frost Titan or Rhystic Study - if you want the benefit, you have to say something. However, this isn't a Missed Trigger, it's a GRV for mishandling the EtB replacement effect.
And, the remedy is fairly straight-forward, using existing policy:

Originally posted by IPG 2.5:

If a player made an illegal choice or failed to make a required choice for a permanent on the battlefield, that player makes a legal choice.

Now, don't get lost in thinking that implies that the opponent gets the GRV, for failing to make the choice; while it's true that they could (should!) pay attention and make the choice, even when the caster doesn't mention it, they aren't committing an infraction by not doing so.

The opponent almost always comes out ahead by getting to make the choice later - after all, that EtB trigger isn't going to fire now, after the choice is made. And that's incentive enough for players to point out the choice on their own Tribute cards - it won't take long for word to spread, announce it & get the choice, or you get almost nothing … except for a GRV. (I'd say that fits the “educational” aspect of the IPG quite neatly!)

Another slight variation is likely. AP will cast a Tribute spell (saying nothing about Tribute), wait for the opponent to respond (something like ‘OK’ or ‘sure, resolves’, often), and then try to gain the benefit of the EtB trigger for not paying Tribute. I would back that up in every scenario I can imagine, have the opponent actually make the choice (albeit with some additional knowledge, based on any targets named for the trigger) - and then see if anything triggers. Again, the burden is on the caster of the Tribute spell - and now we've circled back around, to the beginning of my post: it really is analogous to Frost Titan or Rhystic Study.

Uncle Scott,

Why shouldn't the opponent also receive a GRV in this case? We have an
effect that is instructing one player to make a choice and that effect is
controlled by another player. How is this different from the classic Path
to Exile double GRV scenario?

-George FitzGerald
L2, Sarasota, FL

I am paying close attention to this thread as I am running a GPT on Feb 8th that will be Sealed and thus this is going to be very relevant info to know. As George points out, why is it not a double GRV or a GRV for caster of spell that has Tribute and a FtMGS for the opponent?

Your creature takes lethal damage, you don't notice and don't put it in the graveyard; we figure that out later and call a judge. I don't get a GRV, even though I *should* notice that at the time.

The Judge would give me Failure to Maintain Game State in that scenario, you'd get a GRV. There's certainly policy support for giving FtMGS to an NAP who doesn't choose for Tribute when the AP (caster of the Tribute spell) fails to mention the choice.

d:^D

What is the distinction between the example you provide and the Path to Exile example from the IPG? Is it that the player passively failed to acknowledge a game event (lethal damage dealt -> creature destroyed), versus incorrectly handling the event (actively putting it in the graveyard instead of putting it in exile)?

In that Path to Exile example, the opponent takes an action - the wrong one.

In this example, the opponent takes no action - presumably because the player didn't tell him to (i.e., didn't fulfill his obligations).

Just like with the Frost Titan or Rhystic Study examples, if you want the benefit of Tribute, you have to call attention to it. Not doing so should not get your opponent in trouble.

Thanks for the answer, Uncle Scott !

So, if I understood correctly, the end result is usually that the AP gets neither the counters nor the trigger, and a GRV to boot. That will teach Tribute players to be cautious :-)

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Another slight variation is likely. AP will cast a Tribute spell (saying nothing about Tribute), wait for the opponent to respond (something like ‘OK’ or ‘sure, resolves’, often), and then try to gain the benefit of the EtB trigger for not paying Tribute. I would back that up in every scenario I can imagine, have the opponent actually make the choice (albeit with some additional knowledge, based on any targets named for the trigger) - and then see if anything triggers. Again, the burden is on the caster of the Tribute spell

According to the FAQ released by Wizards, Tribute in and of itself isn't a triggered ability but a static ability as defined by the rules, it operates similarly to “Devour” (as far as I have come to understand the language). The trigger happens only after the creature has entered and it checks whether or not Tribute was paid.

So in this case it's all on the AP to choose their opponent to then have them choose between payment or non-payment and then announce and resolve the trigger when the creature does hit the table.

^ Slight sequencing picky-ness but we get the idea.

In the case you mentioned Scott, don't we back it up to the point prior to resolution but after priority of NAP has passed and then the Tribute choice is announced and given to the NAP? Before Tribute can even be considered, announced or in any way enter the game the opponent does have to pass on resolving a counter of any kind.

(Maybe I'm clarifying something that doesn't need to be, and if so I apologize. I just want to ensure I understand everything as I more seriously begin my judging in my community)

Originally posted by Shane Horton:

So in this case it's all on the AP to choose their opponent to then have them choose between payment or non-payment and then announce and resolve the trigger when the creature does hit the table.

Since Tribute is not a trigger, a NAP CAN NOT just sit there and hope the AP doesn't say anything or misses the Tribute ability. At Comp. REL this would indeed be GRV on AP and FtMGS on NAP.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

while it's true that they could (should!) pay attention and make the choice, even when the caster doesn't mention it, they aren't committing an infraction by not doing so

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

There's certainly policy support for giving FtMGS to an NAP who doesn't choose for Tribute when the AP (caster of the Tribute spell) fails to mention the choice.

Now I am confused. Is the offical answer “It's the judges choice, there is policy support for and against a FTMGS”?

It's referred to multiple times in this thread; what is the ‘Path to Exile’ issue?