Hm, I find this in the IPG:
Triggered abilities that do nothing except create delayed triggered abilities automatically resolve without requiring acknowledgment. Awareness of the resulting delayed trigger must be demonstrated at the appropriate point. …If the triggered ability creates an effect whose duration has already expired or the ability was missed prior to the current phase in the previous player's turn, instruct the players to continue playing.
So think there's a good case that Art earned GPE: MT — Warning (upgrade) as Dash appears to be detrimental to Art; the elapsed time indicates no fix. 
I really really don't like what Nin is doing, but policy seems to support no penalty for Nin based on IPG 2.6. As it turns out, my personal feelings on policy don't generate new policy. 

+++++++++++++
Matt Sauers
ingsvin@gmail.com

Matt, if you go further on the first paragraph of the additional remedy,
you may find this sentence regarding delayed triggers that change zones:

“ These abilities do not expire and should be remedied no matter how much
time has passed since they should have triggered.”

Does that make you change your answer?
El sep 4, 2015 11:51 AM, “Matt Sauers” <

Before Reading:
So the issue we have here is that we have a lightning berserker in play, tapped pumped and attacking, that should have been returned to the players hand two turns ago.
Dash creates a delayed trigger that is triggered at the end of the turn that it was cast. So AP has forgotten their trigger and has left the creature in play. So it seems to me that this is an instance of Missed Trigger. Because returning a creature back to your hand is generally detrimental, we give AP a missed trigger warning. Because players are not required to point out triggers for their opponent, NAP will not be receiving FtMGS.
Per the IPG, we ask the opponent if they would like to put the trigger on the stack (either where appropriate, or at the bottom of the stack) the next time a player would get priority, or next time they get priority at the beginning of the next phase.
I think I would be safe in making the assumption that NAP would like to put the trigger on the stack now. So the trigger will resolve and the creature will be returned to the players hand.

Now what I think makes this question unique is that NAP noticed the creature was still in play on their turn and specifically didn't call attention to it until they could “game” their opponent on the next turn. While it may feel bad as a judge NAP has not broken any rules and is not deserving of a penalty in this scenario.

After Reading:
No changes.

Edit:
After doing some thinking I see people quoting FtMGS saying that a player cannot wait to point out another player's illegal action. So my question is this. Is forgetting a trigger an illegal action? My answer to that is no. I don't think that not taking an action, here in the form of missing a trigger, can be classified as taking an illegal action.

Edited Elliot Garner (Sept. 4, 2015 06:25:53 PM)

As everyone pointed out, the infraction by Art is pretty clear and easy to deal with. Art receives a GPE: Missed Trigger for missing a detrimental trigger. The missed trigger was a delayed triggered ability that changes the zone of an object, so we will resolve it no matter how much time has passed. Nin gets to choose whether to resolve the ability the next time a player would get priority or when a player would get priority at the start of the next phase. (I think we all know which Nin will choose.)

Again, as has been pointed out, Nin's actions are really the interesting part of this scenario. As I am new and L1, I defer to the other answers, but wanted to explain my train of thought while interpreting this scenario and welcome input/discussion.

My first reaction is that I remember a phrase from the IPG that states a player may not delay pointing out an error to wait for a more strategic time. It turns out at I am remembering the language from FtMGS.

“If a judge believes a player is intentionally not pointing out other players’ illegal actions, either for his or her own advantage, or in the hope of bringing it up at a more strategically advantageous time, they should consider an Unsporting Conduct — Cheating infraction. Not reminding an opponent about his or her triggered abilities is never Failure to Maintain Game State nor Cheating.”

Interestingly enough the same phrase states that it is never a problem to not remind your opponent of a missed trigger. Many have used this phrase to say that no penalty can be issued to Nin. I would agree that if Nin had never mentioned the missed trigger, there could be no FtMGS issued. This situation, however, does not exactly fit the criteria of the final sentence. Nin did remind Art of his missed trigger, but waited for a strategically advantageous time to gain an advantage. As someone relatively new to the IPG, this leaves me somewhat unsure of how to proceed. Is waiting to bring something up cheating, even if never mentioning it would be completely acceptable?

I started this response intending to explain that, although I see the ambiguity, I would rule that Nin's actions fit the letter of the first half of this statement, so I would proceed to investigate USC: Cheating. Nin was clearly doing this to gain an advantage, so if she also knew it was illegal (unlikely) it would result in a ruling of USC: Cheating.

As I have thought more about it, however, I have revised my thinking to see this as no penalty. At the heart of it, penalizing someone for bringing something up late is basically penalizing them for not mentioning it earlier, which of course is specifically excluded here. Also interesting is that the wording of the first half discusses the situation that the opponent is not pointing out an error (present tense) in order to bring it up later. In our situation we could never issue a penalty when Nin has not mentioned the missed trigger even if we know she intends to point it out at a strategically advantageous time, which mirrors the templating of the IPG wording. If we can't issue it as it is happening, can we really issue it after the fact?

As you may guess from my waffling, I am not entirely confident in my ruling here.

I am also not particularly comfortable with the outcome. It encourages players to delay pointing out missed triggers until the most opportune time. What if Nin had waited until she drew a thoughtseize to point out the trigger so she could force Art to discard this card? Seems like there are a lot of ways a player could misuse this to their advantage if it is acceptable.

TLDR:
GPE: MT for Art. Resolve the zone change.
No penalty for Nin.

Originally posted by Jonas Drieghe:

Absolutely. However, feeling something is off might warrant a discussion about said policy :)

Scolding a player for having gained an advantage through displaying a clear knowledge of the rules is something I avoid, generally.

EDIT: for spelling

Edited Jeremy Fain (Sept. 4, 2015 07:10:54 PM)

Originally posted by Jeremy Fain:

Scolding a player for having gained an advantage through displaying a clear knowledge of the rules is something I avoid, generally.

I think he meant discuss the policy with the responsible people for it, rather than with the player in question.

Originally posted by Andre Tepedino:

I think he meant discuss the policy with the responsible people for it, rather than with the player in question.

If that's the case, then I apologize–I'd thought he'd meant discuss with the player about the policy.

Indeed it does, Julio. Maybe I should read better. ;)

+++++++++++++
Matt Sauers
ingsvin@gmail.com




On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 7:59 AM -0700, “Julio Sosa” <forum-21035-8304@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:












Matt, if you go further on the first paragraph of the additional
remedy,
you may find this sentence regarding delayed triggers that
change zones:

“ These abilities do not expire and
should be remedied no matter how much
time has passed since they
should have triggered.”

Does that make you change your
answer?
El sep 4, 2015 11:51 AM, “Matt Sauers”
<

——————————————————————————–
If
you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or
view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/136382/

Disable
all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/21035/
Receive
on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/21035/?onsite=yes

You
can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/

I don't believe that it was a point about talking to the player, and more
talking in the judge community how much we want a match of Magic determined
by “Magic: the Gathering” play vs “IPG: the Infractioning” play. The recent
change to DEC helped to shift the needle more towards MtG rather than IPG
play. I think that there is a similar unwritten question here. We reward
good strategic play, metagame familiarity, and knowledge of tournament
rules. But how much do we want players to be using the IPG for strategic
benefit and having the IPG determining the match?

As many have pointed out, Nin has done nothing particularly wrong per IPG
and as the policy stands. The Lightning Berserker will go back in Art's
hand, mana remains spent, and life suddenly got very sad for Art. Putting
myself in the place of the judge taking this call, I would feel like I had
been used by Nin as a weapon against Art. There may be a teaching moment
with Art about minding his trigger, but the situation as a whole wouldn't
leave a good feeling in me.

Before reading other responses:

When Art forgot to return the Berserker to hand, he committed a Game Play Error - Missed Trigger. Since this trigger would usually be considered detrimental, he will receive a Warning.

Nin's actions seem a bit more problematic - Judges might assume that this constitutes cheating. However, players explicitly do not need to remind their opponents of their opponents' triggers - holding off on reminding Art is not an infraction, and it's not allowing an infraction to happen. Nin may be doing it intentionally, to gain an advantage, and it might be an angle-shoot, but it's not illegal. Nin has committed no infraction.

Now, the question is, what's the appropriate fix, now that the trigger has been remembered?

Dash creates a delayed trigger, that changes the zone of an object - it moves Lightning Berserker from battlefield to hand. The IPG instructs us that we will resolve this trigger, no matter the amount of time that has passed, and the opponent chooses whether the trigger will be resolved at the next priority, or at the next priority at the start of the next phase. Nin will almost certainly choose to have the trigger resolve immediately - the Berserker will be returned to hand before combat damage is dealt.

While this is the correct ruling, this is certainly going to be a feel-bad situation for Art, as it's a pretty big swing in advantage, due to a particular application of tournament rules. When explaining the ruling, we need to be sure to be sensitive and empathetic, and explain our reasoning clearly. I would try something like the following:

“As part of casting a creature for its Dash cost, you need to return the creature to your hand at the end of your turn. This trigger is an important part of how Dash works - even if you forget the trigger completely honestly and accidentally, forgetting to return the creature to your hand can give you a pretty big advantage. I believe you when you say that you missed this one accidentally. However, since it's a trigger that's usually considered detrimental - a.k.a, usually advantageous when forgotten, I'm going to assess a Warning. This Warning by itself is not a huge deal, just play carefully for the remainder of the tournament, don't forget any more Dash triggers, and you'll have no problem.

With regards to Nin - it's your responsibility, and only yours, to remember your triggers - your opponent doesn't have to point out when you forget your own trigger, though they certainly can choose to do so. Nin's actions are completely within the rules. That said, Nin, you should be aware that while this situation is working out as you expect, that won't necessarily always be the case when working near the edges of tournament rules, so you should understand that, in the future, a similar play may or may not work out to a similar advantage. If you ever have a question about the legality of reminding, or not reminding, you opponent - just call a judge and ask to speak away from the table.

Now as for the fix - at this point, your opponent has reminded you of the trigger that you forgot. Because of the type of trigger it is - a trigger that moves a card from where it is to somewhere else, the prescribed fix is to resolve the trigger now. So, before we move to combat damage, we'll be returning Lightning Berserker to your hand.

I'm applying a time extension of <x>, please play carefully, and continue the game”.




After reading other responses:

There is a surprising amount of consensus for a Gold scenario. I must be missing something. :P

Regarding the concern raised by Mark McGovern and Jeremy Fain about not “scolding” or giving “stern chat” to Nin, I think that it is important to educate players when they come close to a problem, but don't quite get there.

Imagine for a moment that Nin goes to her next tournament, notices that her opponent drew an extra card, but again waits to call a judge until it becomes more strategically advantageous for her to do so. She gets DQ'ed and is confused and angry at the head judge because at my tournament, I said a very similar situation was okay.

If I am issuing this ruling, I would definitely say something to Nin like, “I just want to make sure that you are clear about the fact that, often, waiting until a more advantageous time to point out an opponent's illegal action is Cheating. Missed triggers are an exception. But be very careful about doing this kind of thing because if the opponent's error is not a missed trigger you could easily find yourself in very hot water.”

I think we owe it to players to let them know when small changes in a scenario might lead to drastically different outcomes. It seems to me that if they know the rules and are actually just carefully angle-shooting, no harm is done. On the other hand, if Nin did not understand distinction about Missed Triggers vs. other illegal actions, she stands a much smaller chance of messing up and getting herself in trouble.

Edited Nathen Millbank (Sept. 4, 2015 11:46:33 PM)

While the rulings by previous posters are correct, I too generally operate in the mode of “If it seems bad, it probably is bad.”

As mentioned, the IPG is a guide for us to govern and resolves errors in competitive play, not a strategic tool for players to allow their opponents to cause the board-state to degenerate until it's extremely advantageous for them to call the judge. We're there to guide and help players, not to inform someone that they now don't have an attacking creature AND have no mana because the IPG says you're not allowed to let your opponent commit GPEs to gain advantage, unless the GPE is a Missed Trigger. Then you absolutely can let them make errors until calling a judge is advantageous for you. Simply going to the table and saying “Okay we resolve this trigger now, your mana stays tapped. Here's a warning, keep playing.” is a massive disservice to the players. Saying something along the lines of what Nathen suggested is absolutely necessary. This behavior should not be encourage because it's “technically” not illegal.

Shady magic is bad. Education and mandatory fun are good.

I think, so far, I like Nathan Millbank's example on how he could confuse a GRV with a MT and all that.

With that in mind, I don't understand why people think this is a behavior that shouldn't be encouraged. Magic is won through many ways: analyzing the meta, choosing the right deck, luck, endurance (I will never ever play a GP again because I cannot handle 9 rounds of playing). However, right now, we're discouraging a player that used a valid weapon, his superior knowledge of the rules, to gain advantage.

“The philosophy of the DCI is that a player should have an advantage due to better understanding of the rules of a game, greater awareness of the interactions in the current game state, and superior tactical planning.”

By discouraging that, you are going against a base philosophy of the DCI. While I understand you may not agree with the rules as it is right now - and THAT IS FINE! Many of our rules changed because people raised their voices and said “that doesn't feel right” - It is extremely important that you treat the players with consistency, with the rules as they are.

So, let's say that, after the game, you go talk to the player and they answer with “Well, I studied with my judge pal, learned the rules and know I can use that to my benefit. Why are you telling me to not do something that I am clearly encouraged to do by the philosophy?”

Originally posted by Andre Tepedino:

I think, so far, I like Nathan Millbank's example on how he could confuse a GRV with a MT and all that.

With that in mind, I don't understand why people think this is a behavior that shouldn't be encouraged. Magic is won through many ways: analyzing the meta, choosing the right deck, luck, endurance (I will never ever play a GP again because I cannot handle 9 rounds of playing). However, right now, we're discouraging a player that used a valid weapon, his superior knowledge of the rules, to gain advantage.

From the introduction of the IPG:
"The Magic Infraction Procedure Guide provides judges the appropriate penalties and procedures to handle rules violations that occur during a tournament held at Competitive or Professional Rules Enforcement Level (REL), as well as the underlying philosophy that guides their implementation. It exists to protect players from potential misconduct and to protect the integrity of the tournament itself."

The IPG is NOT the CR. It is not intended to be a rule-book for a player to use strategically against their opponent. Whether a player knows the IPG or not, it should in no way be considered a weapon to use against your opponent. Angle-shooters use the IPG to set up perfect scenarios to cause their opponent to get a GL for DEC (before the change), or to spin a likely story to get a favorable backup ruling, or to otherwise argue with the judge to ensure they come out ahead, or at least to not come out behind, a ruling. If you're using the IPG to beat your opponent at magic, something has gone wrong. Understanding the CR, greater awareness of card interactions, and superior use of your cards, have NOTHING to do with the IPG.

The point is for players to use their cards to win, not the judge.

Edited Justin Murphy (Sept. 5, 2015 04:28:06 AM)

Originally posted by Justin Murphy:

When the statement in the MTR says “Game Rules”, it says ALL the rules. IPG knowledge is not strictly for judges. There is nothing wrong with using an opponent's mistake to your advantage.

While it may not be intended to (and that's a WHOLE different argument), it is how it is - there is a situation in the MTR that says they can use the knowledge of the IPG to their advantage.