Welcome back to the Knowledge Pool! As a reminder, Silver scenarios are designed for those who are working up to an L2 level of IPG understanding. As such, if you are L2 or higher please refrain from responding or guiding others until Friday. This gives those who are still growing in their IPG knowledge ample time to learn from each other and have a conversation.

The blog post for this scenario can be found here:
http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/?p=1011

Andrew and Nigel are playing in a PTQ. Andrew has a 4/4 Polis Crusher and Nigel controls a tapped 2/2 Staunch-Hearted Warrior. Andrew moves to his combat phase and attacks with his Polis Crusher. During the Declare Attackers Step, Nigel casts Savage Surge targetting his Staunch-Hearted Warrior, to which Andrew says ‘OK’. Nigel then untaps his creature, pushes it toward the Polis Crusher, looks around and finds a die, searches for the 2, and says ‘block’ as he puts the die on his card.

Andrew calls 'Judge!" and explains to you that he thinks that Nigel missed his chance to resolve the Heroic trigger on Staunch-Hearted Warrior.

What do you do? What is the appropriate infraction, penalty and fix?

This looks like out of order sequencing to me, as described in section 4.3 of the MTR. Nigel seems to have promptly indicated that he was recognizing the trigger by looking for the die immediately after indicating his blocker. He also didn't actually declare his blocks until after he placed the die on the card.

No penalty. Just have them keep playing. Give a time extension if I spend more than a minute at the table.

This is pretty clear Out-of-Order Sequencing, at worst. It compares almost identically with example number 5 of Out-of-Order Sequencing in the MTR. Nigel has gained no advantage by resolving the stack in a technically incorrect order, the batch of actions all happen without significant pauses, and it's not clear that he even attempts to block (from a rules standpoint) until after the stack resolves. I would explain to Andrew that he can request that Nigel rewind and do the sequence in correct order, but there has been no infraction committed, and therefore no need for a penalty or fix.

I'm also on the line of out-of-order sequencing. The blocking action is after he is looking around for a die. It's pretty obvious he was clearly aware of the heroic trigger. Yes, probably Nigel could have been more explicit, something like “Ok, trigger from heroic, resolve??” “Ok” (put two counters) “Now, Savage Surge resolves, ok??” “Ok” “Then I block…”, but I don't think that's an infraction. No penalty, no fix.

Nigel casts Savage Surge, which triggers immediately. He doesn't need to demonstrate awareness of that trigger until it would have a visible effect on the game state.

So, it's possible his trigger went onto the stack before his opponent said “OK” (whether OK meant “yeah, you cast it” or “yeah, I pass priority”). He hasn't missed his trigger until he starts resolving his spell. (because that can't happen until after the trigger resolved)

The way it's described here, it looks like he's resolving the spell, the trigger, and declaring blockers all as a single unbroken action. This is textbook Out-of-order sequencing.

I'd explain that I'm ruling this as Out-of-order sequencing because everything would have been legal if done in the right order, and there was no gaining or baiting of information. I'd explain that if Andrew would like to intercede somewhere, he can ask that things be done in the correct order so that he can respond appropriately.

No infraction, no penalty. If we're lucky, no time extension either, but I wouldn't be shy about throwing them a minute if it took close to a minute to handle. (or more it took longer) I'd ask Nigel to be more clear in his play in the future.

I'm in agreement with Out of Order Sequencing. The only possible advantage that could be gained is easily be stopped by Andrew if he wanted to throw in a Lightning Strike or something. But he already passed priority. Between the point where he passed priority back, the trigger has a visible effect after the priority pass. It sounds to me like Andrew is being overly picky.

No infraction, no penalty.

Although I agree with everybody above about the Out-of-Order Sequencing of Nigel's actions, I also agree with Andrew: Nigel missed his chance to resolve the Heroic trigger on Staunch-Hearted Warrior. Per the definition of the Missed Trigger infraction: Nigel "didn't demonstrate awareness of the trigger’s existence the first time that it would affect the game in a visible fashion“ because it is a ”triggered ability that causes a change in the visible game state (so Nigel) must (…) make it clear what the action taken (is) before taking any game actions (…) that can be taken only after the triggered ability should have resolved."

I would have allowed Nigel to perform the physical action for his trigger in Out-of-Order Sequencing, but only if he had "demonstrated awareness“ of that trigger before - or at the very least, while - resolving his spell, but not after. Just saying something like ”I gonna find a dice in a second“ before untapping the Hero would have been enough…

I note a GPE - Missed Trigger infraction for Nigel, without penalty since the ability is obviously not ”usually considered detrimental". Then I ask Andrew to choose whether the triggered ability is added to the stack. If he chooses not to add it (which is highly likely here) I remove the die from the Warrior, who is about to die gloriously in combat then.

Edited Loïc Hervier (March 13, 2014 12:32:00 AM)

Originally posted by Loïc Hervier:

Although I agree with everybody above about the Out-of-Order Sequencing of Nigel's actions, I also agree with Andrew: Nigel missed his chance to resolve the Heroic trigger on Staunch-Hearted Warrior. Per the definition of the Missed Trigger infraction: Nigel “didn't demonstrate awareness of the trigger’s existence the first time that it would affect the game in a visible fashion“ because it is a ”triggered ability that causes a change in the visible game state (so Nigel) must (…) make it clear what the action taken (is) before taking any game actions (…) that can be taken only after the triggered ability should have resolved.”

I would have allowed Nigel to perform the physical action for his trigger in Out-of-Order Sequencing, but only if he had "demonstrated awareness“ of that trigger before - or at the very least, while - resolving his spell, but not after. Just saying something like ”I gonna find a dice in a second“ before untapping the Hero would have been enough…

But the IPG explicitly mentions that OoOS is applicable to decide whether we have a missed trigger…

IPG 2.1 - Missed Triggers
The Out-of-Order Sequencing rules (MTR section 4.3)
may also be applicable, especially as they relate to batches of actions or resolving items on the stack in an improper
order.

Thank you Nathanaël for having drawn my attention to that sentence that, to speak honestly, I had missed. However my understanding of this sentence you quoted is that a player is allowed to resolve ‘physically’ his trigger in OoOS, but he is still required to demonstrate his awareness of that trigger at the ‘right’ time (here: before Nigel resolves his spell). Am I splitting hairs pointlessly, thus making an incorrect interpretation of this sentence?

Before reading other responses:

At first glance, this looks like an acceptable out-of-order sequencing. The correct order of events is:

1. Cast Savage Surge.
   
2. Heroic Trigger goes on the stack.
   
3. Heroic Trigger resolves, adding 2 +1/+1 counters. This is a visible change in the game state, and the last chance to acknowledge the trigger.
   
4. Savage Surge resolves, untapping the Warrior.
   
5. Priority passes to go to blocks
   
6. Warrior Blocks.
   

In this case, Nigel performed all the visible actions (adding counters, untapping, and blocking), and did them as a single block of actions. While they weren't technically legal in the order performed, they are a legal set of actions to perform in some order.

I'd rule that the trigger was not missed. No penalty for either player, Warrior is a 6/6 untapped creature blocking Polis Crusher.


After reading other responses:

It seems people are generally in agreement on this. In addition to the ruling, I'd be sure to inform Andrew that he can request the actions be taken in a legal order, if he wishes to respond at some point in the block of actions.

Edited Talin Salway (March 13, 2014 11:47:56 AM)

Thanks to everyone who participated in this week's Knowledge Pool! Everyone correctly identified that this is a textbook example of Out of Order Sequencing, but let's examine the situation (which may soon happen at a Sealed PTQ near you!) more closely.

The definition for missing a non-detrimental trigger is as follows:

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 or make it clear what the action taken or choice made is before taking any game actions (such as casting a sorcery spell or explicitly moving to the next step or phase) that can be taken only after the triggered ability should have resolved.

Here, Savage Surge untapping the card is clearly a game action that can only occur after the point when the heroic trigger should have resolved.
However Nigel, having clearly demonstrated awareness of the heroic trigger, is resolving the two different actions in an improper order. This fits the definition for OoOS:

The Out-of-Order Sequencing rules (MTR section 4.3) may also be applicable, especially as they relate to batches of actions or resolving items on the stack in an improper order.

Nigel is allowed to put the counters on his creature and no penalty is given. If Andrew still wishes to intervene (such as trying to tap the Warrior again before blockers are declared) then the whole stack should be resolved one effect at a time in the proper order.
Despite this appearing to be a missed trigger at first, OoOS means he isn't actually guilty of GPE- MT.
Nigel did not place his counters on at the exact moment he should, but whilst we expect players to play accurately, this level of detail can be frequently overlooked and should not be unduly penalised. Out of Order Sequencing allows a degree of leeway in resolving a series of actions as long as it is clear that the player had demonstrated awareness of all of them. OoOS should not used to retroactively resolve a forgotten trigger.

Thanks again for reading and we will have another KP scenario for you shortly!