Originally posted by Jonas Drieghe:

'm still having trouble ruling missed trigger for a trigger that was clearly announced and for which a choice was made upon resolution.

I had no problem calling this a missed trigger initially, but after reading your reply I'm entirely not sure now. I'll be very interested to see how this discussion goes.

I re-read the new changes to the trigger policy… and I'm not entirely convinced it falls under that. I don't see anywhere in the rules compendium that explicitly states that the marker or counter must be represented by something physical. So question, do things such as Monstrous or a 1/1 Goblin Token or +1/+1 counters need to be represented by some sort of physical object to be considered there? What if you don't have any, but still acknowledge their presence?

Is saying that my Stormbreath Dragon attacks for 7 damage despite not having anything physical on the card enough to say it was remembered? Is attacking for 6 with a Rabblemaster Goblin and two Goblin Tokens okay if the only physical thing on the table is the Rabblemaster Goblin card himself? Is it okay to attack for 2 with a Skullbriar, the Walking Grave if it hit a player the previous turn but nothing was put onto it?

Originally posted by Sal Cortez:

So question, do things need to be represented by some sort of physical object to be considered there?

The IPG has this to say at the end of the introduction to Game Play Errors:

IPG Section 2
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.

If both players agree on what the current game state is - not what it should be, but what the game state actually is - then you should clear up any ambiguities, and let them continue playing with no penalty. The question, to me, then reduces down to “Do both players know there's a +1/+1 counter on the creature?”

Since the new clarification we have on IPG it's a GPE-MT, but we do not issue a warning because it's not a detrimental trigger.
the clarification is written 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. Note that casting an instant spell or activating an ability doesn’t mean a triggered ability has been forgotten, as it could still be on the stack. ”
As no counter was put on the permanent and the controler of the triggered abilitie changed the game phase, the mmissed trigger is clear.
the opponent now may to choose to put the trigger on the stack or ignore it, but even if he chooses to add the trigger to the stack it can only be added at the end of the first strike/ double strike combat damage step, and the damage dealt will be 8 or 9, depending on that choice, but never 10.

Why, hello there new IPG!

As other judges have noted, the new IPG includes “taking the appropriate physical action” as a new requirement for acknowledgment of certain triggers - verbal acknowledgment alone is no longer enough. By Anna's own acknowledgment, she forgot to take a physical action here.

The question is whether or not adding a +1/+1 counter is an effect that requires a “physical action” or not. I'm willing to say adding +1/+1 counters (or counters of any type) is indeed something that requires a physical action - those counters can be interacted with and moved around as objects by themselves, and so their existence needs to be acknowledged by physical actions (just like with tokens).

Anna has therefore committed GPE-GRV, though no penalty is issued (as Anafenza's ability isn't detrimental), and Nalick has the option to decide whether or not to put it on the stack now.

We then get to explain why “both triggers on champion” covered the Arashin Foremost trigger, but not the Anafenza trigger. Whee!

I'm still not convinced that A) the new policy change is relevant here and B) that the creature getting a +1/+1 counter is a physical action.

Now if AP has, in previous turns, used die for counters consistently and this time has not, should this trigger be considered missed? Hmm…

In the appendix of the new IPG the intent for the change to section 2.1 is clear: “Triggers with physical effects that are highlighted, but then forgotten, are still forgotten.”

With the context from the appendix, it is my view the bold in "The controller must take the appropriate physical action or make it clear what the action taken“ means the controller must literally state the outcome, such as, ”I am putting a 1/1 counter on my Champion" in order to qualify as not missing the trigger, if they do not physically apply a visible counter.

Result: GPE - Miss Trigger, with no Warning. 8 damage apply to N (assuming here that N does not choose to add the trigger to the stack.)

Edit to add the assumption of N

Edited Christopher Melson (March 27, 2015 01:54:59 AM)

The way I see it is that the new IPG says that the player must acknowledge a trigger that takes an action (like putting a +1/+1 counter) by actually going ahead and taking that action. Since Anna didn't, this is a GPE - Missed Trigger. However, this trigger is not detrimental, so there is no penalty.

So I read the article on the new policy changes by Toby Elliott, and this was the definitive text I was looking for:

“…simply saying “trigger” isn't sufficient; you have to actually add the counters.”

I had only read the “For Judges” article, I should have read both e_e silly me! I suggest you read them both as well :)

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2015/03/23/dtk-policy-changes-for-players/
http://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2015/03/23/dtk-policy-changes-for-judges/

So adding counters is a physical action covered under the new policy change. Therefore missed trigger and, if NP declines to put it onto the stack, no counter.

My thought process on issues like this has always been that the counter physically affects the board/game state upon resolution. Anne did announce the trigger, but then took no further action to acknowledge the impact on board state (i.e. put a +1/+1 counter on her creature) that the trigger resolution has (moving your Scavenging Ooze out of Lightning Bolt range is one of my favorite ways of remembering this), and therefore it is missed. As the bolster trigger is most likely never going to be detrimental, no penalty should be awarded, have the players continue their match.

TL/DR: GPE-MT with no penalty issued. Announcing your trigger is great, until you don't show awareness of any physical changes immediately upon resolution. Then it's a bad, bad forgotten trigger.

I have trouble reconciling the appendix in the IPG and the text in 2.1


Anafenza's ability triggers, but bolster involves no target. Instead, the choice is made upon resolution. By stating that both triggers were on the Champion, I would rule that she has proposed a shortcut to the point where both triggers have resolved and that her choice was Arashin Champion.
This means that she has made it clear what her choice will be, as per 2.1.
However, the appendix (March 23) says that “triggers with physical effects that are highlighted, but then forgotten, are still forgotten” - GPE-MT but no penalty issued (beneficial trigger)

What part of 2.1 supports this?

Originally posted by Jon Lipscombe:

Anafenza's ability triggers, but bolster involves no target. Instead, the choice is made upon resolution. By stating that both triggers were on the Champion, I would rule that she has proposed a shortcut to the point where both triggers have resolved and that her choice was Arashin Champion.

Note that Bolster requires both a choice (which creature to put counters on to) and a physical action (actually putting the counter on). While it seems like Anna indicated the choice she was making, she still didn't acknowledge the physical change to the game state.

Originally posted by Chuck Pierce:

Jon Lipscombe
Anafenza's ability triggers, but bolster involves no target. Instead, the choice is made upon resolution. By stating that both triggers were on the Champion, I would rule that she has proposed a shortcut to the point where both triggers have resolved and that her choice was Arashin Champion.

Note that Bolster requires both a choice (which creature to put counters on to) and a physical action (actually putting the counter on). While it seems like Anna indicated the choice she was making, she still didn't acknowledge the physical change to the game state.

Oh, I agree with this - the issue I am raising is that 2.1 seems to say that taking the action is not necessary if the player “makes it clear what the… choice made is before taking any game actions”

I'm going to go ahead and take a crack at this. According to the IPG, under missed triggers, it states the trigger is missed if the following isn't met (depending on the impact on the game):

A triggered ability that requires its controller to choose targets (other than ‘target opponent’),
modes, or other choices made when the ability is put onto the stack: The controller must announce those choices before they next pass priority.

This one is done for targets. Anna is short cutting here for each ability here as the Foremost targets but bolster doesn't. It's implied as they say “Both triggers on the Champion.”

Next:
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. Note that casting an instant spell or activating an ability doesn't mean a triggered ability has been forgotten, as it could still be on the stack.

This seems to be the hard part. Appropriate action or make it clear what the action taken or choice made is. I would have to say the defending player is taking 10 because the “or” means either one is fine. The player made it clear what action was being taken and where each ability would go through the short cut used.

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.

While there is an ‘or’ clause the first part is a ‘must’. I read this to mean that the second clause only applies if the first is not relevant. The second clause seems to be there primarily for changes that your opponent needs to take. The fact that my opponent hasn't yet put their card in the graveyard / updated their lifetotal / put a +1/+1 on their creature etc. shouldn't result in a missed trigger infraction for me if I've made it clear what the choice was.