When an opponent's creature with undying dies, both the Mimic Vat and the Undying trigger will go on the stack, and which one resolves first depends on who's turn it is.

But what if the opponent is not aware of how this works exactly?

If it's my turn, and my opponent's undying creature dies, and I state “Mimic Vat trigger” and my opponent hands me the creature to put under it, have I committed an infraction? Under Game Play Error — Missed Trigger it says:

Players may not cause triggered abilities controlled by an opponent to be missed by taking game actions or otherwise prematurely advancing the game.

But I wasn't the one advancing the game. I just stated that a trigger would go on the stack. Can him handing me the creature be interpreted as him not resolving the undying trigger and allowing me to imprint the creature on Mimic Vat?

This sounds to me like the opponent did not acknowledge their trigger yet, by handing his creature to be placed under the Vat, has acknowledged that yours has resolved. Since we are now beyond the point that the trigger should have had a result on the visible game state, I would rule that your opponent missed their trigger. No infraction, no penalty, but your opponent doesn't get their trigger.

Edited Darcy Alemany (Feb. 28, 2013 11:23:32 PM)

I think the line between calling this a Missed Trigger, and calling this a
Game Rule Violation is pretty narrow. It's definitely worthy of some extra
investigation should a judge witness it.

Paul Smith

paul@pollyandpaul.co.uk

Paul, what about this is a GRV? One player has acknowledged his trigger
and the other player has not acknowledged their trigger.


On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 6:28 AM, Paul Smith
<forum-3118@apps.magicjudges.org>wrote:

Originally posted by Paul Smith:

It's definitely worthy of some extra
investigation should a judge witness it.

Greetings…

I am curious to understand exactly what should be investigated here. To me, this seems pretty clear that the Mimic Vat player is giving due acknowledgement of his trigger, but the other player is not. Are you suggesting that by acknowledging this trigger that the Mimic Vat player is forcing the game to advance? Couldn't the Undying player simply acknowledge his trigger, indicate the order that the triggers are going on the stack (acknowledge the order of events?), then resolve the stack properly?

I am unsure how this could really be GPE; would you be willing to clarify?

Until that time…

Has the player with the undying trigger forgotten his trigger? Or has he
misunderstood APNAP?

Has the Vat player misrepresented APNAP?

The line here seems very easy to cross.

Paul Smith

paul@pollyandpaul.co.uk

I'd ask: what would the active player do differently if he had (honestly) forgotten the undying trigger. Since the answer is ‘about the same’, I see no infraction here. Purposely not pointing out your opponents triggers is fair game, and I don't see Player A do anything illegal here. It is not a misrepresentation of the APNAP rule, since player A is only concerned with his own trigger. He can (and does) act as if the other trigger simply doesn't exist.

There's a line in the IPG to protect you against players rushing through triggers to deny you one - For example, if Player A controls both the Mimic Vat and has taken control of the undying creature owned by player B. In that case, Player A can't put it from the battlefield directly under the Mimic Vat and then say the opportunity to claim the Undying trigger has passed.