So, in proposed scenario, I would rule MT, according to new IPG, no warning since it wasn't detrimental trigger, and we resolve dmg step for 8.
However, it (new policy) made me very uncomfortable. It's a common practice to save some time, especially near EOR when players clearly indicate counters or tokens yet postpone psychical actions connected to that until opponent turns.

Edited Bartłomiej Wieszok (March 30, 2015 05:33:29 AM)

Originally posted by Bartłomiej Wieszok:

So, in proposed scenario, I would rule MT, according to new IPG, no warning since it wasn't detrimental trigger, and we resolve dmg step for 8.
However, it (new policy) made me very uncomfortable. It's a common practice to save some time, especially near EOR when players clearly indicate counters or tokens yet postpone psychical actions connected to that until opponent turns.

The “eight, no wait, ten” makes this pretty clear the counters are forgotten. The ruling could be different if the conversation went “You take ten” “Looks like eight to me.” “There's a bolster counter, I just haven't put a die on yet.”

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

Bartłomiej Wieszok
So, in proposed scenario, I would rule MT, according to new IPG, no warning since it wasn't detrimental trigger, and we resolve dmg step for 8.
However, it (new policy) made me very uncomfortable. It's a common practice to save some time, especially near EOR when players clearly indicate counters or tokens yet postpone psychical actions connected to that until opponent turns.

The “eight, no wait, ten” makes this pretty clear the counters are forgotten. The ruling could be different if the conversation went “You take ten” “Looks like eight to me.” “There's a bolster counter, I just haven't put a die on yet.”

Not necessarily, she may have been moving quickly, again, planing to put it down later and when went to damage quickly recalculated the damage momentarily forgetting the “invisible” counter. This is why it requires a physical action, however if it is treated as OoOS then not necessarily a missed trigger. Don't get me wrong, I still believe it to be a MT - No penalty, but that short bit doesn't confirm one way or another in my opinion.

This is GPE-MT with no warning. It falls very neatly under the new criteria for missing a physical action.

Out of order sequencing can only be happening if all the actions are taken in one smooth action. No pauses. The scenario makes it very clear that there was a pause of a few seconds after the attack. More than enough time to have got the counter. I don't actually feel if damage assignment had been stated as 10 they would have done 10 damage either. Too long has passed.

“Hey there guys, from what I've seen, this falls under the new IPG guidelines for a missed trigger. Whenever you have a trigger that requires you to take an action, even if you mention it, you must perform that action or it is considered missed. As there was a pause of a few seconds and you didn't explicitly state you were putting a counter on the creature, I'm going to rule this as a Game Play Error -Missed Trigger. You don't get to put a counter on the champion. Please be more careful to make sure this doesn't happen again, put your counters on straightaway”

(Level 2 - awaiting update)

Edited Guy Baldwin (March 30, 2015 03:20:18 PM)

Before reading other responses:

Anna controls two triggers when Arashin Foremost enters the battlefield - one that bolsters, and one that adds double-strike. In order to not be missed, these triggers need to be acknowledged at the first time they would have a visible impact on game state. In the case of the double-strike trigger, the first point it would be relevant is when the game moves to combat damage, where the Champion would deal first-strike damage. For the bolster trigger, the first point it would be relevant is when any other action (such as attacking) occurs - the +1/+1 counter would need to be on the Champion.

With the recent updates to the IPG, a trigger that requires a physical action does not count as acknowledged unless that action is actually taken. While Anna verbally stated that there were two triggers resolving on the Champion, she did not actually follow through on that acknowledgement.

Anna has committed GPE - Missed Trigger. Bolster is not generally considered detrimental, and so no warning is given. Nalick is under no obligation to remind Anna of her triggers, and has not committed an infraction. As a fix, Nalick can choose whether or not to add the Bolster trigger to the stack.


After reading other responses:

Originally posted by John Carespodi:

Previously we would have allowed Nalick to choose whether or not place the trigger on the stack, but due to recent policy update that is no longer the case and the trigger is simply missed. No penalty to either player.

I'm not sure where this is coming from. This still counts as a missed trigger, even though no penalty is issued, and we should still apply the fix. The error occurred within a turn cycle, and so it's still ok to give Nalick the choice.

Ernst Jan Plugge
Nalick gets to choose whether the trigger still goes on the stack. Considering the trigger in question, he is not very likely to allow this at a competitive event. If he does, then the counter is put on the champion after the first combat damage step's damage is dealt, since the players have already proceeded to that step and the trigger doesn't resolve until after combat damage is dealt. The counter will be present for the second combat damage step.

This is an interesting take, one I had not considered. I think, given the communication, I would give Nalick the choice before the first combat step, but I could see it going either way.

Nalick said “no blocks”, then Anna said, “ok, you take 8”. After Nalick declares blockers (none), Anna has priority in the Declare Blockers step. By saying “Take 8”, she's proposing a shortcut to combat damage, but Nalick still has a shot at priority before damage. Had he said “no blocks, no tricks”, I'd be more willing to say that first combat damage step will happen, and then players will get priority before the second combat step, and Nalick may or may not add the trigger.

Edit:
Also, it's worth remembering that Smite the Monstrous is a card in Standard. While we don't change our policy or fixes based on the strategic position of either player, it's a good way to remember that the choice for an opponent to add a trigger is important. Even though we wouldn't expect it, some opponents might have good reason to have the trigger resolve.

Edited Talin Salway (March 30, 2015 04:39:04 PM)

Thank you all for your thoughtful discourse, let's wrap this one up! This scenario appears at first to be a perfect fit for the newest change to trigger policy, which says that if a trigger causes a visible change to the board or requires a choice on resolution, that action or choice must be made before changing steps or casting something at sorcery speed, in order for the trigger not to have been missed. However, there's a very important detail to note about the bolster trigger: As it resolves, it requires a choice between creatures you control with the least toughness.

By indicating her choice of Champion of Arashin before attacking, Anna satisfied the conditions for acknowledging the trigger. However, she unfortunately did not finish resolving the trigger by placing the counter on to her creature. As such, she committed a Game Rule Violation and will receive a warning. Nalick, by not preventing this error, also has some responsibility for the error and as such receives a warning for Failure to Maintain the Game State. As relatively little time has passed since the error, and no partial fixes are applicable to this situation, we will rewind the situation to the point of the mistake. Anna's attacking creatures will be untapped, and the game resumes during her main phase when the bolster trigger is resolving.

Once again we appreciate all of your continued interest in the Knowledge Pool, be sure to check back soon for our next scenario!