Another quick question, regarding this:

Judges should not intervene in a missed trigger situation unless they intend to issue a Warning or have reason to suspect that the controller is intentionally missing his or her triggered abilities.

As it interacts with this:

If the triggered ability is a delayed triggered ability that changes the zone of an object, resolve it.

I see a player exile his Obzedat, Ghost Council, then forget to return it on his upkeep. Do I intervene as soon as it's clear the trigger is missed? I feel like I should, but the policy isn't as supportive as it could be. I don't intend to issue a Warning for this delayed trigger that is obviously not usually detrimental to the controller, but I would be required to resolve the ability (now or at the start of the next phase, per opponent's choice) when a player notices and calls me. So what if I'm the one who notices?

Thanks for an [O]fficial answer, when you get a chance! :)

Josh - nope, don't confuse “here's a remedy” with “I need to get involved (to apply the remedy)”.

If it's detrimental, or you feel a need to investigate for UC-Cheating? Get involved.
If a player calls you? Get involved.
If you got involved, the remedies are your guide to a solution.

Scenario Question:

Hansel casts an Aven Squire (1/1 Flying Exalted) and Gretel casts an Suntail Hawk (1/1 Flying) and a Crusade.
Hansel attacks with his Squire without saying anything. Gretel blocks. Both players put their creature in the graveyard.
Then in the second main phase, Hansel says “Oh wait, your Crusade actually made my creature a 3/3, not a 2/2”. Gretel just assumed he had forgotten Exalted when her 2/2 apparently traded with the Squire.
What happens here?

And would it make a difference if the Aven Squire had been attacking for 2 consistently before the Crusade was cast?

Edited Toby Hazes (Feb. 28, 2013 05:13:38 PM)

I was only playing online during the first coming of Demigod of Revenge, but I was just reading an article suggesting it for modern, so I wanted to check if I'm interpreting how to judge it correctly. Lets take this example:

This trigger seems to fall into the category of “A triggered ability that causes a change in the visible game state (including life totals) or requires a choice upon resolution” which means that our burden of proof is “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)”.

Originally posted by Situation 1:

Aaa casts Demigod of Revenge and doesn't mention the trigger.
Nnn counters the Demigod without mentioning the trigger.
Aaa says “Cool beans, trigger resolves and brings Demigod of Revenge back”

Sounds to me like they met the burden of proof there, so they get the Demigod back, no infraction, no penalty.

Situation 2
Aaa casts Demigod of Revenge with another one in the graveyard. Nnn has no response. Aaa puts Demigod into play first, then brings the other one back.

That sounds like Out of Order Sequencing to me, similar to what would happen if I cast a creature while I have something with Extort on the board, and I put it down before announcing the extort.

Have I got all of this right?

Toby's question, re: Crusade…

I think Gretel made an assumption, as allowed during the rules - but, like so many assumptions, it was incorrect. We have a common GRV, but Gretel's explanation excuses her of the responsibility that would otherwise mean Failure to Maintain Game State for her. (Plus, it happened right away, so that time lapsed clause probably wouldn't apply, anyway.)
After further discussion, there's concern that Hansel has not communicated the trigger in a fashion where a rules-knowledgable opponent can verify they've remembered. It would be clearer if he said something like “Exalted, so our guys trade” … and then later realized Crusade affected his dudes, too. Of course, having said that, Gretel would be required to point out that Hansel's 3/3 doesn't die from the 2 damage. (Unless, of course, she also forgets how Crusade works…)

Kind of messy, huh? Well, it IS rather a “corner-case”…

Edited Scott Marshall (March 2, 2013 06:30:28 PM)

re: Michael's Demigod questions…

It sounds like you've got it right. In the firat case, the burden is on the opponent to know how the Demigod's trigger works. And in the second, it will probably fit OoOS - keep in mind that OoOS is usually a result from a brief investigation, once you're sure that's really what happened.

I have a question that concerns Legacy Dredge decks. Specifically, the Narcomoeba trigger.

Suppose that a player (Aaa, to denote that he's active) is using the ability of Cephalid Colosseum to draw three cards then discard three cards. He dredges for his first draw, revealing a Narcomoeba and explicitly stating “Narcomoeba triggers”. He then proceeds to replace the other two card draws with dredges, then discards the three cards as required by the ability. (as triggers can't go on the stack and resolve until the current ability has resolved and SBA's are checked)

Then our good friend Aaa proceeds on with his turn, cracking Lion's Eye Diamond for mana to flashback Faithless Looting. At this point, the trigger has been missed in the sense that the appropriate physical action has not been taken by the time a game action is taken (casting a Sorcery) that couldn't be done while the trigger is on the stack, and at the same time, the trigger has been previously acknowledged beyond a reasonable doubt.

By the definition of Missed Trigger: “A triggered ability triggers, but the player controlling the ability doesn’t demonstrate awareness of the trigger’s existence the first time that it would affect the game in a visible fashion (IPG 2.1)”

However, in the paragraph a bit later: "Once any of the above obligations has been fulfilled, or the trigger has been otherwise acknowledged, further problems are treated as a Game Play Error — Game Rule Violation. (IPG 2.1)“

So, I'm at a loss - is the penalty GRV or Missed Trigger? And what is the appropriate remedy? Does the player get to bring back the Narcomoeba, or is the trigger ”missed", despite being previously acknowledged, due to the fact that it wasn't acknowledged as required by the policy?



This question could be extended to Modern Eggs, where players will explicitly acknowledge an Elsewhere Flask ETB trigger, then do several things while the trigger is on the stack, and then possibly “missing” the trigger later when it comes time to resolve the trigger.

Edited Trey Cizek (March 4, 2013 10:11:41 PM)

Once the trigger has been acknowledged, it is not missed.

So, this case is either GRV (and possibly FtMGS if not caught quickly
enough) or more probably OoOS (if the player A put Narcomoeba onto the
battlefield right after resolving Looting).

2013/3/5 Trey Cizek <forum-2772@apps.magicjudges.org>

Aaa *did* demonstrate awareness of the trigger, but failed to resolve it correctly. GRV, handle as described in the IPG, and carry on.

Originally posted by David Zalesky:

Once the trigger has been acknowledged, it is not missed.

So, this case is either GRV (and possibly FtMGS if not caught quickly
enough) or more probably OoOS (if the player A put Narcomoeba onto the
battlefield right after resolving Looting).

I am extremely hesitant to call this OoOS here - there is the significant potential for advantage and a lot of cards have potentially been viewed in the context of the Dredge deck (probably 10-12 new cards are in the graveyard) and much strategic information has been gained (possibly more Bridge from Belows or Cabal Therapys in the graveyard, among other things). There's a lot of potential for abuse that can be realized, and it's my understanding that OoOS should never be applied across a card draw, even should that be replaced by a Dredge (since in either case, previously unknown cards are seen and information is gained, so the potential for abuse is far greater than it would be otherwise).

I also hesitate to invoke FtMGS here as this gets into the grey area of “I thought I wasn't required to help my opponent with his triggers” - even if there are technical nuances to distinguish, I don't like the idea of issuing warnings to players on a technicality, especially when it has been pretty consistently stated that players are not required to assist in acknowledging their opponent's triggers.

In the case of Narcomoeba, the answer may well be “it's a may trigger, Aaa chose not to use the ability as it resolved”. I also dislike this answer, although it's probably (in a strict sense) the correct one. Still leaves a bad taste in my mouth, since we've now got a case of punishing a player for remembering the trigger as it happens but failing to remember at the “correct” time as prescribed by the IPG.

The problem with calling it a GRV is that it carries a mandatory warning as the penalty, and there are perverse incentives in this case where having a player acknowledging his own triggers as they happen (a good thing) is now being punished with an official Warning (a not as good thing). And calling it a Missed Trigger doesn't really work, as the trigger was never missed (it was clearly acknowledged as the Narcomoeba's ability triggered).

Oh, I missed that it is a may trigger.
In that case, OoOS is really unapplicable. But for me it is not because of
the cards being drawn, but because of the choice that is made on
resolution. There are many situations where card draws are involved and
OoOS is still acceptable (like drawing card for turn before untapping
pemanents).

Regarding FtMGS, I think that if we rule GRV and it was not caught quickli
enough, it is only fair to rule FtMGS. Maintaining legal game state is both
players responsibility. I would maybe consider downgrading it to caution.
But even warning isn't really that harsh penalty and it would make that
player think about the line between Missed Trigger and GRV.

2013/3/5 Trey Cizek <forum-2772@apps.magicjudges.org>

Originally posted by Trey Cizek:

There's a lot of potential for abuse that can be realized, and it's my understanding that OoOS should never be applied across a card draw, even should that be replaced by a Dredge (since in either case, previously unknown cards are seen and information is gained, so the potential for abuse is far greater than it would be otherwise).

Is it really a lot of potential for abuse? OoOS doesn't apply if relevant informations have been gained. Which means that there is a choice to make, and you could realiticaly go both way, but because you got more information you can make a better decision.

I doubt that many Dredge players usualy hesitate to put their Narcomoeba onto the battlefield. The “may” was here as a provision for the old missed trigger policy, not as a relevant choice. You want to have your Narcomoeba onto the battlefield 99,9% of the times, which makes any situation were you would gain any advantage by dredging more cards before that a corner case.

For this reason, I'd be fine to allow OoOS, as long as everything is done as a batch of actions.

Player N has a permanent with extort and casts lightning bolt on player A.

Scenario A:
Player A casts counterspell
Player N pays for extort and buries the bolt.

Scenario A.1:
Player A says “in response to bolt” and casts counterspell
Player N pays for extort and buries the bolt.

Scenario A.2:
Player A says “ok, I let extort trigger resolve” and casts counterspell
Player N pays for extort and buries the bolt.

Would you allow player N to pay the extort in these scenarios?

In all 3 cases, Player N hasn't taken any game actions prior to paying for extort, so I don't see how he has missed the trigger.

It could be argued, imo, that in scenarion A.2 both players passed prio so the extort trigger has resolved.
Either player N missed his trigger or he's not aware of the prio system.