Because she added the counter at the end of the sequence of actions, that does indicate that it may have been missed and only remembered when she read the card to activate the ability.

Body language and the flow of the actions is very important here - if this was a fluid sequence of actions with her drawing, tapping, and rolling the counter over the span of a couple seconds while looking at her hand - I'd rule out of order sequencing. If she was looking at the Myth Realized as she activated it and appeared to be acknowledging the trigger only after the text of the card reminded her, I would rule it as a missed trigger.

In either case, I would not assign a warning or other penalty and explain that the trigger goes on the stack once the non-creature spell is cast.

I'm not ruling OoOS in this case. Her play could have very easily changed if the cards she drew from the Divination were different. As such, I'd rule that she missed the trigger, issue no penalty and back the game up. The difficult decision point is how far to back up.

I'd back up only to the last legal game state, which is a 2/2 Monk that hasn't been declared as an attacker yet. I can see a rational argument for backing up to the point after Divination resolved, but before the Myth Realized was activated since Angela thought she was activating a permanent with 3 counters (I would back up to here if Nefertiti requested it though). What I'm not comfortable doing in this case is backing up through the Divination, since Angela already has the extra information that she needed to make the choice from there.

“No, she did not.”

That is out of order sequencing not a missed trigger as she has "take(n) the appropriate physical action or 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 they are correct that this should have happened before Divination resolved, without Nefertiti interrupting or Angela taking additional actions, it is not a strong case to consider it forgotten or missed.

All Angela did was resolve the stack in the wrong order, which in this case didn't cause any Game Rule Violations. Which seems to be the intent of our current out of order sequencing because we ”arrive at a legal and clearly understood game state once are complete."

The cards from the Divination are a new variable to her decision tree, but she would have had that information before moving to declare attackers either way as it would have resolved during her main phase. I don't think the cards from the Divination factor in here.

For me clearly it's OoOS - from the game flow we can deduce that Angela have remember about her trigger. I wold educate players that such actions are legal, but I would tell Angela to pay more attention making all the actions.

Edited Tomasz Ludkiewicz (April 3, 2015 12:45:49 PM)

As several others have mentioned, this looks like an out of order sequence. For me, it would be different if the trigger was a “may” trigger. But it is not.

Originally posted by Milan Majerčík:

As several others have mentioned, this looks like an out of order sequence. For me, it would be different if the trigger was a “may” trigger. But it is not.

Why would it be different if it was a may

Originally posted by Justin Valley:

I'm not ruling OoOS in this case. Her play could have very easily changed if the cards she drew from the Divination were different. As such, I'd rule that she missed the trigger, issue no penalty and back the game up. The difficult decision point is how far to back up.

I'd back up only to the last legal game state, which is a 2/2 Monk that hasn't been declared as an attacker yet. I can see a rational argument for backing up to the point after Divination resolved, but before the Myth Realized was activated since Angela thought she was activating a permanent with 3 counters (I would back up to here if Nefertiti requested it though). What I'm not comfortable doing in this case is backing up through the Divination, since Angela already has the extra information that she needed to make the choice from there.

I know it seems tempting to back up the game since the problem happened such a short time ago, but we shouldn't be doing that here. In the vast majority of cases, the only time where a backup is appropriate is when a player has committed a GRV. Then we have the option of backing up to just before the illegal action. None of the player's actions here are actually illegal. The crux of this discussion is whether or not Angela missed her Myth Realized trigger by resolving the Divination first. If it was missed (which I think it wasn't), then Nefertiti will get to decide whether the trigger goes on the stack and the game will stay where it is.

There was no much time between Angela drawing the cards an moving the die to 3.
Angela knew it triggered but made an OoOS play, which seems completely fine to me.

This seems like OOS to me. Since AP didn't (seem to, based on the situation explanation) give NAP any time to respond, I'd ask if NAP had any responses, and if they did I'd rewind to the point at which they'd like to have responded. Otherwise, the actions taken were all legal and the resulting game state is not broken, so I would ask the players to continue playing. No harm, no foul.

Originally posted by Gareth Tanner:

Milan Majerčík
As several others have mentioned, this looks like an out of order sequence. For me, it would be different if the trigger was a “may” trigger. But it is not.

Why would it be different if it was a may

Because then the decision whether to add the counter could have been influenced by the drawn cards.

Originally posted by Milan Majerčík:

Gareth Tanner

Originally posted by Milan Majerčík:

As several others have mentioned, this looks like an out of order sequence. For me, it would be different if the trigger was a “may” trigger. But it is not.

Why would it be different if it was a may

Because then the decision whether to add the counter could have been influenced by the drawn cards.

Is that any different to the out of order sequencing we're discussing?

Really hard to make any comment without having seen the play as how fluid the actions taken were would matter, but I think I'd rule OoOS here with no penalties.

The one problem with that I see is this on OoOS from the MTR:

An out-of-order sequence must not result in a player prematurely gaining information which could reasonably
affect decisions made later in that sequence.

Angela has seen the two cards from divination before ticking up the Myth Realized, but that in itself doesn't invalidate the OoOS. We have to think that information ‘could reasonably affect’ the decisions later in the chain. I'll be honest I'm struggling to think what she could draw that would have affected her decision to add that token… so I'm still at OoOS.

I'm ruling OoOS.

Originally posted by Marc Shotter:

I'll be honest I'm struggling to think what she could draw that would have affected her decision to add that token… so I'm still at OoOS.

Couldn't agree more. The “reasonably affect decisions” part of the OoOS clause is the most relevant part here.

This feels like OoOS to me - it sounds as if Angela did all the action smoothly and in order, and the final game state is legal and identical to that produced by the correct sequence of actions. No infraction, no penalty.