Hey everyone. First I want to thank Kevin for the report on Pro Tour DC, It's a great read.

I have a question regarding one of the rullings he mentions, I'll copy the text below:

Originally posted by Kevin Desprez:

AP has suspended two Lotus Bloom on the same turn. In his following upkeep, he says “Triggers” but removes the die from only one of the Lotus Bloom. On the following turn, he says “Triggers” again then says “Hold on, that die should be a 2, not a 3.”
The question was: Did he clearly announce his two triggers? Triggers can be the plural form of “Trigger” but also the verb ( triggers).
Indeed, if a trigger is announced but its resolution is forgotten, then that is not a Missed Trigger but a GRV (this is meant to incentivize players to announce their triggers clearly).

I did not have a lot of information to make a decision. A word had been pronounced, but its meaning was unclear. I therefore looked for other elements and felt that AP’s board was so clear that it was unlikely he would forget one of the two lotus Blooms. They were not one on top of the other, but neatly next to each other, on the way to the library. Also, the fact the player actually said something played in his favor. I therefore moved the second die down to 2.

If I understand correctly, this was rulled as a “no infraction, no penalty” situation and simply that the physical dice orientation did not actually represent the number of counters on the Bloom.

My question is if this is covered in policy and how. My first instinct while reading the report was that it should be a GRV with a potential backup. Maybe this is what happened and Kevin is keeping the article short for readers' sake.

Another interpretation I could see is that Kevin decided to backup but because the gamestate was really so simple (maybe it was turn one) he “shortcut” through the backup just changing what players would do different. If this is the case then I don't see support for that on policy.

I don't mean to put Kevin on the spot, on the contrary, I want to understand policy subtleties that I'm evidently overlooking.

Thanks!

Edited Federico Donner (March 24, 2015 03:24:13 PM)

I suspect this situation might be (at least in part) the reason for the wording change to Missed Trigger, where if the trigger requires a physical action on resolution, you must take that physical action, regardless of how you previously acknowledged it.

———————————————
This space intentionally left blank.

Bryan suspects correctly - that was one of the instances that provoked discussion, and policy change. But also, consider this (often-overlooked) paragraph, from the IPG, Section 2 (Game Play Errors):

If the players are playing in a way that is clear to both players, but might cause confusion to an external observer, judges are encouraged to request that the players make the situation clear, but not issue any penalty.

In a situation like this, you can simply say “please note the correct status/number of ___” and not issue an infraction.

d:^D

I don't understand. This seems like a textbook example where the new policy applies and thus this would be Missed Trigger and the die would stay at 3. I don't see how the Section 2 paragraph applies here.

I believe the incident in question occurred before the new trigger policy came into effect.