Edited Florian Horn (Jan. 28, 2015 12:14:11 PM)
Edited Patrick Cool (Jan. 28, 2015 12:22:57 PM)
Originally posted by Eric Shukan:
I couldn't say about the first part because I don't understand what you mean, but as for the “…but any other triggers may or may not be forgotten depending on if they have an immediately visible effect on the game state.”, that should always apply because that is the MT rule.
Edited Lyle Waldman (Jan. 28, 2015 12:53:38 PM)
Originally posted by Scott Marshall:
I do agree that ”attack for 2“ … ’no blocks, I'll take 2' … ”hah! Exalted says you take 3!“ feels very scummy. (Maybe it's the tone of voice I hear when I read that - heh!)
I think that ”attack for N“ is generally meant as a shortcut to Declare Blockers, not to damage. I also know that some players might use it to shortcut straight to damage. And, I suspect some players move quickly between the two, depending on circumstance. I don't think we can settle on a standard shorcut, because of the different assumptions we're seeing just in this small sample size.
Originally posted by Scott Marshall:
Consider a slight variant on your example:
AP: Attack for 2
NAP: no blocks … take 2?
AP: uhh, wait - Exalted! take 3!
That's a very clearly forgotten-but-remembered-in-time trigger, not a Missed Trigger, and they've demonstrated awareness when it would affect the visible game state.
Originally posted by Edward Bell:
I'm very uncomfortable though with AP saying ‘attack for 2’ (with a 2/2 and an exalted trigger lying around) and then NAP blocking with a 2/2 and us allowing AP to ‘remember’ his exalted trigger at that stage. NAP could reasonably have assumed AP to have forgotten his trigger. (i.e. in your second example, would you change your mind if NAP blocked with a 2/2 or a 3/3 - or even a x/6 (putting it in Bolt range))
Originally posted by Edward Bell:Nope. The first quote is an example of someone who intentionally - but legally! - misleads their opponent into thinking they've forgotten their Exalted trigger. The second quote is someone who does forget, but remembers and demonstrates awareness of it before it affects the visible game state.
I'm not sure if you've changed your mind on this
Originally posted by René Oberweger:Edward Bell
I'm very uncomfortable though with AP saying ‘attack for 2’ (with a 2/2 and an exalted trigger lying around) and then NAP blocking with a 2/2 and us allowing AP to ‘remember’ his exalted trigger at that stage. NAP could reasonably have assumed AP to have forgotten his trigger. (i.e. in your second example, would you change your mind if NAP blocked with a 2/2 or a 3/3 - or even a x/6 (putting it in Bolt range))
Under the current Missed Trigger policy, a trigger is considered to be missed when the player doesn't show awareness the first time the trigger has an visible affect on the game state. This means, the first time it “matters” in this scenario is once combat damage is dealt.
NAP has the option to either play the game of “oh, i'm sure my opponent did miss the exalted trigger, so let's block this bear with my bear”, which could create a feel bad moment for him. Or, he asks his opponent about any effects that change the power/toughness of the opponents bear. NAP has to answer this question, and if he replies “it's a 2/2”… well now the creatures can trade with each other. Asking the player about any effects that changes P/T might remind his opponent that there is indeed a exalted trigger, even if he had forgoten about it before. But it's AP's decision to play the guessing game of “did my opponent forgot about his Trigger or not?”, and the outcome could potentially create a disadvantage for him.
Attacking with a creature and telling your opponent the value without acknowledging the changed power because of, for example, exhalted isn't the best example of clear communication. But NAP has more then enough opportunitys to clearify before making any suboptimal decisions.
Edited Lyle Waldman (Jan. 29, 2015 11:03:04 AM)
Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:
Furthermore, even if N begins to move cards around, unless N declaratively moves to blocks, A is allowed to pretend to not know that N is positioning blockers.
Originally posted by Sean Hunt:and most of those only ever happen in these Forums… ;)
there's always going to be a corner case to every policy