I would almost suggest breaking this down into three elements…

(1) What is the ideal?
(2) What is it that the community is willing to accept?
(3) What is it that the community is unwilling to accept?

The ideal is a standard we clearly can't expect, so we discard any notion of policy that expects or enforces that. Otherwise it becomes extremely byzantine and difficult to enforce. As well as something that can be readily grasped by the community at large.

What are we willing to accept? Well we are okay with technically imprecise play, as long as we understand what the other person is dining. I don't need to be exact, just communicate what I'm doing. Hence why we have shortcuts, OOS, and other policies that acknowledge that, for the most part, our standards aren't exceedingly high. Can you play a game against another player in a reasonable fashion.

What are we unwilling to accept? Here is where opinions differ… and I suspect is where we see the lines being drawn by players and judges as to when a trigger is missed, and how triggers are acknowledged. Especially in very tight games, where I do hope my opponent misses something or makes a misplay. Even if I “push” that issue.

I would be cautious with the grey area on “willing to accept” and “unwilling to accept”, especially when it comes to communication or behavior. Especially when people want that area to shift, and why they want it to shift. Because I've seen where in game 2 a trigger was clearly understood to have happened, but in game 3 the opponent wanted the trigger missed despite circumstances being exactly the same.

Let me preface this my saying I'm going to go into excessive detail discussing rules theory. Consider this post a thought exercise much more than actual rules guidance.

This particular case ultimately comes down to rules lawyering.

So what does the rule say?

“A trigger is considered missed once the controller of the trigger has taken an action after the point at which a trigger should have resolved or, in the case of a trigger controlled by the non-active player, after that player has taken an action that indicates they have actively passed priority…”

Note that the responsibility is different based on whether the controller is the active player (taken an action) or non-active player (actively passed priority).

Now let's evaluate the scenario: “Player A attacks with Pyreheart Wolf onto an empty board. Player B casts Restoration Angel. Player A says “you know…”

If we want to ~actually~ rules lawyer this case, then we measure the Pyreheart Wolf player against the AP criterion. Has the player “ taken an action after the point at which a trigger should have resolved”? According to the scenario, the player took no action between announcing the attack and saying the angel couldn't block. Given that, the player has not failed the awareness test. If the AP were measured versus the NAP criterion (actively passed priority), then not interrupting the casting of Restoration Angel to clarify the trigger could have been enough to fail the awareness test.


Recognize that I'm looking at this case with a very liberal eye and pursuing a path I would not have actually considered prior to thinking about the situation and the replies in this forum. In other words, I'm speaking very much from a theory standpoint and testing a thought process rather than suggesting an answer.

Here's why I say that… The natural evolution of the “took no action” argument gets slippery. The NAP confirming that the stack is empty would be enough to “lock in” the missing of the trigger (“I'll play Restoration Angel on an empty stack” with no AP objection, for example). But how do we evaluate non-action over time? Note that the NAP criterion uses the phrase “actively passed priority”? Why “actively”? Isn't that phrase oxymoronic? If a player actively passed priority, then any subsequent action would be irrelevant since the priority passing was active as opposed to passive priority passing (which I interpret as passing priority through inference rather than explicitly saying so).

So if we look at the Craterhoof scenario (swing with dorks but don't indicate the trigger until claiming the opponent is dead), when did the AP take an action? NAP talks about both action and (actively) passing priority? Can we assert then than passing priority is not enough to qualify as action taking which is why it was included for NAP? Wouldn't that mean that by saying and doing nothing after turning dorks sideways I have taken no action? And the first thing I do is say my opponent is dead at which point I ~am taking~ (present, not “has taken” which is past) an action which indicates that I am aware of the trigger.

I'm reasonably certain that regardless of how we want the rule to function, we don't want to get into that level of micro-detail.

If that's true, then the rule seems to warrant revision. I don't see a lot of need in having different criteria for AP and NAP, nor do I see value in being unclear about when priority passing matters or not. Thus, I'd go with wording something more like this:
“A trigger is considered missed once the controller of the trigger has taken an action or indicated passing priority after the point at which a trigger should have resolved…”

I believe that is a simpler version that produces the result we want–if you do something or other people do stuff and you don't interject to clarify, and then you've missed it. I'll note that lack of clarity in the original Pyreheart scenario still means the AP gets the trigger because the Restoration Angel's flash could put the angel on top of the point where the trigger should have resolved.

At least that's my thoughts on the matter. For right now. ;)

On Thu Dec 13 17:55, John Carter wrote:
> So if we look at the Craterhoof scenario (swing with dorks but don't indicate the trigger until claiming the opponent is dead), when did the AP take an action? NAP talks about both action and (actively) passing priority? Can we assert then than passing priority is not enough to qualify as action taking which is why it was included for NAP? Wouldn't that mean that by saying and doing nothing after turning dorks sideways I have taken no action? And the first thing I do is say my opponent is dead at which point I ~am taking~ (present, not “has taken” which is past) an action which indicates that I am aware of the trigger.

Actually, Craterhoof triggers on ETB, not on attack, so by attacking you have moved past that point. That's not the point I want to make.

The problem that I have (as a player) with the current situation is that the game state can be ambiguous where a no-visual-effect trigger is concerned. Before I could be sure it's resolved. Now, I can't be sure whether or not its resolved _without adversely effecting my game_. In effect I have to either make a suboptimal play, or I have to have an unclear game state. Now, you may say (as people have) ‘tough, we don’t guarantee you can take advantage of your opponent missing a trigger', but that's not really the point. It's a feel-bad moment for gamers. And gamers are (unfortunately) most of our audience. If NVE triggers were assumed to have resolved then I think the number of situations where the gamestate is unclear *for a player who knows what's going on* are reduced. I think most people are willing to accept that if they have forgotten about something they shouldn't be surprised if they were correspondingly mistaken about the game state. If I've gone to great lengths to make sure I know everything that's going on it's very annoying to _still_ have ambiguity. Particularly since I should be (and as a general rule I think people agree about this) rewarded for the fact that I understand how everything works and my opponent doesn't. (If this isn't true more than just triggers need changing…)

Matt

@ CJ: “Obvious” isn't the same as “w/o visual representation.”

@ CJ+Adam: For me it's not “gotcha,” but it's rewarding the player w/ better understanding and awareness, something I want to see at REL Comp+.

@ Matt: I think I do appreciate your concern, but, as just mentioned, if it were just me I'm not willing to make too many sacrifices just to appease the less skilled player.

@ Brian: As far as I'm concerned, flow charts and lapsing both had their learning curve but I could live w/ their outcomes (= willing to accept) while I'm very unhappy w/ the current policy (unwilling to accept). This is why I suggested something else which is close to what we have right now (not another u-turn) but preserves some of the good stuff from previous versions.

@ John: D'accord!

I'm a fan of the idea that, when you're doing something that has an effect on the game or that your opponent might want to respond to or at least know is happening, the burden's on you to initiate the communication about it. You have to announce or otherwise point out spells you're casting and abilities you're activating, after all, no matter how “obvious” they might be. And I don't see why triggers – why *any* triggers – need to be different.

I also think that “you didn't acknowledge it, you don't get it” is where we have to end up, sooner or later. Poor communication, which is really what we're talking about here, tends to get messier the longer it goes on without being noticed. Putting the burden for initiating good communication on the trigger's controller (i.e., the player most likely to care about seeing things happen correctly) is the right way to incentivize it. “You didn't acknowledge it, but we'll let you have it” feels too much like rewarding poor communication, and also encourages “jerk” behavior of a different sort (i.e., it leads to people hiding their Noble Hierarchs among their lands and other such shenanigans, since now their goal is to resolve the trigger without the opponent being aware of it).

Could the definition of where the “missed it” line is be cleaned up? Probably, though historically the IPG hasn't been big on the kinds of really technical and precise definitions we seem to be getting into here. But the core of the policy (announce or acknowledge your triggers, or you don't get them) seems solid to me.

“Actually, Craterhoof triggers on ETB…”

RTFC is a good rule no matter how long we've done this. *blush*sigh*

Let's look at the current “problem case” with “resolve automatically”:
Player A attacks with Pyreheart Wolf onto an empty board. Player B
casts Restoration Angel. Player A says “you know that can't block,
right?”

B is basically in a Gotcha situation. There is no way he can know if
the trigger has been missed or not because asking “block?” would be
too late and asking “passing priority?” or “you done, stack is empty?”
would be a huge hint…

==> The state of the game is undefined and clearly favor A.

Let's look at the current “problem case” as the rules are now written:

Player A attacks with Pyreheart Wolf onto an empty board. Player B
casts Restoration Angel. Player A says “you know that can't block,
right?”

As John said, we could interpret it so that A hasn't taken an action
and thus, didn't miss the trigger. B can't block with his angel…. B
is also basically in a Gotcha situation. There is no way he can know
if the trigger has been missed or not because asking “block?” would be
too late and asking “passing priority?” or “you done, stack is empty?”
would be a huge hint… If the angel had been there already, we could
have “rewinded” the game to the right step (because we are still in
declare attacker, the trigger is resolving) and B would have been able
to block differently… but still:

==> The state of the game is undefined and clearly favor A.

I think what Scott proposed (and everyone seem to ignore) would leave
the game in a very defined and clear state without favoring either
player. Of course, now, if you want your trigger, you have to show
awareness of it… But if you want mana, you have to tap your land as
well (I know, not really the same)!

Again for those who don't want to scroll upwards:
“Once you've passed priority, or given the clear impression that
you're passing priority, you've missed the opportunity to acknowledge
triggers.”

So you want the Wolf trigger? They make a noise or point to it and
grunt or do SOMETHING!

+1 for Scott's Proposal from me :)

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:25 PM, James Bennett
<forum-2235@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

I'm a fan of the idea that, when you're doing something that has an effect on the game or that your opponent might want to respond to or at least know is happening, the burden's on you to initiate the communication about it.

So, our next step along that road will be to make it mandatory to announce all evasion abilities when we declare attackers?

Originally posted by John Carter:

RTFC is a good rule no matter how long we've done this.

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

I would almost suggest breaking this down into three elements…

(1) What is the ideal?
(2) What is it that the community is willing to accept?
(3) What is it that the community is unwilling to accept?

I think this is an elegant way of stating the general issue at hand.

Is the community willing to accept a missed Pyreheart wolf trigger in this scenario?

What about the player that turns Craterhoof sideways, and looks at his opponent expecting a scoop?

Both of these scenarios, if ruled against the AP, would result in some ‘Feel bad times’ where they player clearly should have won if they said the magic words.

Do we place the burden of the magic words on the player, with the idea that they are expected to perform at a certain level at competitive and above, and call it a day? It's something I'm still thinking about…

Keep in mind that we do not always expect or require “the magic words”. That is a communication issue, and I would not like to see the MIPG become the means to expect dictating the precise way of how players talk to each other to play a game. It is too blunt a hammer in that respect.

Instead, I would encourage that both players and judges think about what it takes to play a game, and not get caught up on trying to angle shoot the definition of MT with tactical goals in mind. The policy isn't meant as a free Stifle that any one take advantage of. And I'd be loath to see “long pause = pass priority” become the rule of law. That may be well intended, but I can see that produce terrible outcomes as well.

What if we apply Schrodinger's Cat logic to invisible triggers? That is, the trigger has neither resolved nor been missed until the controller has taken an action or communicated something that specifically acknowledges or misses it.

1. AP attacks with Pyreheart Wolf, NAP blocks with one creature. At this point, AP says “You need to block with two or more creatures.” - Trigger has not been missed, since nothing has happened to say the trigger was missed until NAP tried to do something to invalidate it.
2. AP attacks with the Wolf, NAP blocks with one creature. They move to damage, AP says “Oh wait, you couldn't have blocked, because of the Wolf trigger.” - Trigger has been missed, since AP's responsibility was to catch the trigger during Declare Blockers step.
3. AP reanimates Craterhoof Behemoth as the only creature on the board (because he's a bad player), and attacks with it. NAP says “I take 5?” AP says “No, he's a 6/6.” - Trigger not missed.
4. AP attacks with Noble Hierarch, with a hidden Cathedral of War. NAP says “How big is it?” AP says “1/2” - One Exalted trigger was missed, one was not.

There's probably some way of hacking this system but it seems as close to how players play the game as possible.

I think many of the perceived problems with the current trigger policy aren't an inherent result of the policy itself, but instead spring from the transition from the previous policy to the current one. Going from “things resolve with or without acknowledgement” to “you have to acknowledge everything” is a very big change that's going to take time to become routine; players are going to trip up along the way, and when they do they're going to get burned. There's no way around that.

In the long run, I think that players will internalize the current policy well enough that announcing your triggers will become automatic in the same way that announcing your activated abilities is.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the bar for what you have to do to
“acknowledge” a trigger is currently ambiguous. Some judges are going to be
stricter than others.

For example, a player cast a Craterhoof, said “Boom!” and turned all his
guys sideways, and his opponent said the trigger had never been announced.
To me, “Boom!” is obviously demonstrating awareness of the trigger. Another
judge might not see it that way.

Regarding the Pyreheart scenario, I don't see any reason to gotcha either
player. If defending player wants the trigger to be missed when he has no
creatures in play, he probably should have to say something. If he asks if
the stack is empty, and player A says “yes” after being prompted, then he
forgot fair and square. Otherwise, it's still on the stack prior to the
declare blockers step and player A is within his rights to point out the
trigger now.

I think players will just have to accept that it's not always possible to
weasel an opponent out of a trigger.

I would like to say that I like the triggers policy as it is. Yes, I think the wording could be clarified, but from what I've seen, the people that are complaining are the people that haven't adjusted to the new policy (the people who want to win through subterfuge and deception not game play). Requiring players to announce ALL triggers is not that hard a learning curve, and not unintuitive, but as Joshua says above;

To me, “Boom!” is obviously demonstrating awareness of the trigger. Another judge might not see it that way.

With this scenario, we put the onus of the player with the trigger. Is “BOOM!” indicating that you know about the trigger? If the Judge is going to rule no, then you probably need to use clearer communication next time.
I believe that we have something that works as is. I like that the game state has to be clearer and I myself have always tried to play this way because I feel that winning should be because I have the better deck and the better play skills, not because I left the game state unclear to trick you (hoping you would forget something - which is still applicable to anthem effects).
As far as I am concerned, ‘If you want it to happen, you need to acknowledge that it is there’ is a great way of dealing with triggers. It is the skill testing aspect of Magic that we’re working with here and that skill is “Do you remember your triggers?” If you forget them, you obviously need more practice before your next competitive event. I like how Joshua phrased it;

Regarding the Pyreheart scenario, I don't see any reason to gotcha either player. If defending player wants the trigger to be missed when he has no creatures in play, he probably should have to say something. If he asks if the stack is empty, and player A says “yes” after being prompted, then he forgot fair and square. Otherwise, it's still on the stack prior to the declare blockers step and player A is within his rights to point out the trigger now.
I think players will just have to accept that it's not always possible to weasel an opponent out of a trigger.

And I am going to emphasise that last part; I think players will just have to accept that it's not always possible to weasel an opponent out of a trigger.