Hi,

I want to discuss two scenario regarding Missed Trigger. The cite from IPG is here to direct topic into good path.
I will describe it first, and give my opinions later. Of course please exclude any cheating, and use actual IPG as reference. In both Ap is playing against Nap.

1. Ap has 1/2 with Prowless. He plays a sorcery, then declares it as an attacker. Nap asks: “how big is your creature”, and Ap answers: “it is 1/2”. no blocks, and Ap said: “oh… my creature has Prowless. So you take 2, I assume”. “Juduuge!” - what's your ruling?

2. Nap plays Vendilion Clique in Ap upkeep. When it resolves, he targets Ap with ability. Then Ap answers, a lot of spells and abilities are played, and when the dust settles, Ap ask: “ok, can I draw now”, which Nap agreed. After that, Nap discovers his Vendilion Clique so he calls out a judge (you). When you ask Ap if he remembered VC trigger he would answer: “yes, I was hoping Nap will missed it”. What's your rulling?

For scenario 1 the trigger was imho missed. AP's answer implies that he missed his trigger- if his answer is the exact P/T of the creature and he fails to demonstrate awareness of the trigger by saying the unmodified P/T… well too bad so sad.

Scenario 2 though, i don't think we have a missed trigger here. The trigger of Vendilion Clique requires to choose a target once the ability goes on the stack. NAP therefore remembered his trigger the first time it would affect the game in a visible fashion (choosing the target). So we have a GRV here.

Edit: NAP played Clique, not AP

Edited Auzmyn Oberweger (Oct. 14, 2015 12:30:05 PM)

Hello, Adam!
1) While having to answer the question is not “affecting game state in a visual way” as per IPG, I believe that if an opponent asks about details of the current game state it is close enough. Resolving these triggers like Prowess, that do not affect the game in a visible way, means that there is no non-verbal way to communicate its effect to the opponent. Now when the opponent asks about it, it is time to mention its effect.
I'm probably trying to read your thoughts here, but if you are thinking CPV for misrepresenting derived information vs MT, I'd rule MT. Further communication, the “ohh…” part, also feels like the trigger (even its existence) was not acknowledged in time.

2) Vendillion Clique's trigger doesn't actually fall under the “affecting the game in non-visible way” category. It requires a target that was specified. So, as IPG states, it was not missed and further problems with it are considered GRV.

LK

Originally posted by Lev Kotlyar:

So, as IPG states, it was not missed and further problems with it are considered GRV

So you think AP is coming close to cheating area by knowing that the ability should resolve and not pointing it out?

Originally posted by Christian Genz:

Lev Kotlyar
So, as IPG states, it was not missed and further problems with it are considered GRV

So you think AP is coming close to cheating area by knowing that the ability should resolve and not pointing it out?

I think this would certainly be worth an investigation, but most likely it is not cheating. Many players have an incomplete understanding of MT policy, and it is more likely that AP thought the trigger could be missed, and didn't know he was doing anything wrong. I would give GRV/FTMGS, put a random card back, and resolve the trigger.

Originally posted by Christian Genz:

Lev Kotlyar
So, as IPG states, it was not missed and further problems with it are considered GRV

So you think AP is coming close to cheating area by knowing that the ability should resolve and not pointing it out?

Christian,
While I agree that this case is worth investigating, Adam asked us to exclude cheating :)
What is important here is I think that while Nap is clearly breaking the rules to gain advantage, it is unclear if he knows he is breaking the rules. The baseline philosophy regarding triggers that was delivered to players is, after all, “you don't need to remind your opponent about the triggers unless you want too”.

I totally agree, with “worth investigating, but not cheating per se”. I just wanted to see what others think on that matter when it's clear that it's not MT and still somehow on purpose… :D