Anne is playing Nathan who is at 3 life. Anne has a Mage-Ring Bully in play.
In her first main phase she casts a Divination. Moving to attackers she declare the Bully as an attacker.
Nathan asks Anne what the P/T of her Bully is. Anne answers "The base P/T is 2/2".
Nathan declares no blocks believing that he will go to 1. Anne argues that Nathan is dead.

The question is what happened. Let's look at the MTR under Player Communication regarding free and derived information:

Free information is information to which all players are entitled access without contamination or omissions made by their opponents.

Details of current game actions and past game actions that still affect the game state.

Derived information is information to which all players are entitled access, but opponents are not obliged to assist
in determining and may require some skill or calculation to determine.

All characteristics of objects in public zones that are not defined as free information.

The question is if the prowess trigger happening is a previous game action that the player must be truthful about. An answer like “It's a 2/2 with one prowess trigger” would fulfill this. With the text from Missed Trigger in the IPG saying that

If an opponent requires information about the precise timing of a triggered ability or needs details
about a game object that may be affected by a resolved triggered ability, that player may need to
acknowledge that ability’s existence before its controller does.

I would say that Nathan is trying to inquire about the triggered abilities existence and is confirmed that the trigger was missed.

Edited Jonas Breindahl (June 16, 2016 08:46:26 AM)

1) Anne stated a true fact that the base value is 2/2
2) If we are still in Declare Attackers step, then the trigger hasn't even
had a chance to be missed yet. Nothing has happened to indicate that the
trigger isn't still on the stack or that it hasn't resolved.

Either way, the trigger has not been missed.

Originally posted by Shawn Doherty:

2) If we are still in Declare Attackers step, then the trigger hasn't even
had a chance to be missed yet.

This is Prowess, not exalted–the sorcery was cast Main 1 :-)

It does Not matter if it is prowess or exalted.
Triggers are not missed, when the player pointed it when it become important.
(or if they need a target or change visible stats).
The P/T of a creature ist Not relevant up to dealing/receiving damage.

So the trigger is Not missed

The problem that I have with using “base power and toughness” is that it wouldn't be hard to miss the word “base” and think that the player was confirming the actual power and toughness and therefore had missed the trigger.

The other problem is that the default assumption by players should be that triggers are not missed, until there is evidence of it being missed. Nathan is trying to be clever and get the information on the trigger earlier than Anne is required to indicate if a trigger has resolved or not.

I would try and work out whether it was likely to be very clear that the phrase was “base power and toughness” which if there were a lot of background noise unless Nathan were very honest I would probably believe him if he said he hadn't heard the word base.

If Nathan hadn't heard the word base I think I would back up the game to the point of confusion and let Nathan choose to block or not. If Nathan were honest and admitted to hearing the word “base” I would rule no missed trigger and not back up.

What Mark said. Plus also consider any player not native to English and situations where the players do not understand each other at all… (probably relevant for big premium tournaments only).

Anne didn't forget about this trigger, as IPG says:

IPG 2.1
A triggered ability that affects the game state in non-visible ways: The controller must make the change known by the first time the change has an effect on the visible game state.

So, if Anne said that Nathan is dead, she hasn't missed the trigger.

As Mark said:

If Nathan hadn't heard the word base I think I would back up the game to the point of confusion and let Nathan choose to block or not. If Nathan were honest and admitted to hearing the word “base” I would rule no missed trigger and not back up.

Edited Gregory Farias (June 17, 2016 10:36:34 PM)

I'm sitting here puzzling how this differs from a situation like a foreign copy of Vampire Nighthawk and being told “It's a 2/3 with flying” and intentionally neglecting to mention it also has deathtouch; this is technically allowed and would not warrant any sort of backup if acted upon, instead reminding the player that they're entitled to the Oracle text of the card, but their opponent is not obliged to present it to them - only that they cannot speak incorrectly if they do. If we can assert that Anne spoke correctly, what does it matter if Nathan misinterpreted it? Should we not instead insist that the policy is that triggers are assumed remembered until demonstrated as missed at the point of no return (e.g. when combat damage is being dealt)?

I'm not against the solution that we ought to back up in case there was confusion - moreover that I wonder about the precedent that already exists, or perhaps whether my understanding of that precedent is incorrect.

Originally posted by Nathaniel Lawrence:

I'm sitting here puzzling how this differs from a situation like a foreign copy of Vampire Nighthawk and being told “It's a 2/3 with flying” and intentionally neglecting to mention it also has deathtouch; this is technically allowed and would not warrant any sort of backup if acted upon, instead reminding the player that they're entitled to the Oracle text of the card, but their opponent is not obliged to present it to them - only that they cannot speak incorrectly if they do. If we can assert that Anne spoke correctly, what does it matter if Nathan misinterpreted it? Should we not instead insist that the policy is that triggers are assumed remembered until demonstrated as missed at the point of no return (e.g. when combat damage is being dealt)?

I'm not against the solution that we ought to back up in case there was confusion - moreover that I wonder about the precedent that already exists, or perhaps whether my understanding of that precedent is incorrect.

True, but there is also the other side of the coin… Do we want the players to open the kind of mindgames?

BUT I see that this is just a case of “someone knows the rules a little bit better then the other” and would not backup. Even if this seems like some kind of mindgame its also clear enough what everyone was communicating and someone just “misunderstood” and kinda “fell” for it.

Im very interested of the outcome of this… ;)

I don't believe that there is any question as to whether the trigger was missed or not, so that is not what we should focus on in this case. Anne said Nathan was dead, therefore the power must be 3, therefore the trigger was not missed. The crux of this issue is: did Anne answer the question that Nathan asked appropriately?

I'm inclined to say “no”.

As for the reason, I'd like to look at another instance where wordplay leads to issues: the combat shortcut. For reference: Kevin's recent article on it here. What is the concern with the way different words can be used? It's because there is a possibility of creating confusion as to where exactly we are in the turn to prompt our opponent to make an incorrect or less than ideal play based on that confusion. This seems very similar to this in my mind.

The question asked was very clear, though perhaps could have been clearer. What Nathan was really asking was “am I dead if I don't block this”. This is pretty obvious to us, is very obvious to him, and is also very obvious to Anne. Answering the question with information that is not relevant is similar to if I were to ask you, “Is the sky blue?,” and you respond with “The grass is green.” It's even more muddled in this case as it's very easy for that one little word “base” to be missed, especially in a noisy room.

This differs from omitting relevant text on a card in that, while both are derived information, you are not required to answer fully. In this case the real question is trying to determine if the prowess trigger was missed or not, at which point the only real answers are “It's a 3/3” or some variation of “figure it out”. Trying to use clever wordplay to confuse your opponent seems to be against the philosophy behind the rules, if not necessarily the policy as written.

Originally posted by Christopher Wendelboe:

The question asked was very clear, though perhaps could have been clearer. What Nathan was really asking was “am I dead if I don't block this”. This is pretty obvious to us, is very obvious to him, and is also very obvious to Anne. Answering the question with information that is not relevant is similar to if I were to ask you, “Is the sky blue?,” and you respond with “The grass is green.” It's even more muddled in this case as it's very easy for that one little word “base” to be missed, especially in a noisy room.

Actually, this reminds me of a classic example.

AP: "If I attack with my flying creature, can you block with your Giant Mantis?“
NAP: ”well, my creature doesn't fly“
AP: ”I attack“
NAP: ”I block"

This trick is considered legal. AP has attacked, NAP can block, no step back.

Doesn't a triggered ability that causes a change in the visible game state have to be acknowledged before any game action that can only be taken after the ability has resolved?

Prowess triggered in main 1. My read is that Anne can't go into combat without that trigger resolving, and so by going into combat and declare attackers without acknowledging the trigger, it has been missed.

Originally posted by Daniel Ruffolo:

Doesn't a triggered ability that causes a change in the visible game state have to be acknowledged before any game action that can only be taken after the ability has resolved?

Sure.

Originally posted by Daniel Ruffolo:

Prowess triggered in main 1. My read is that Anne can't go into combat without that trigger resolving, and so by going into combat and declare attackers without acknowledging the trigger, it has been missed.

+1/+1 from Prowess or Exalted isn't considered “a change in visible game state”.
we have a change in visible game state when creature actually deals damage to opponent (life points are changing) or kills an opponent creature in combat.

Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:

Christopher Wendelboe
The question asked was very clear, though perhaps could have been clearer. What Nathan was really asking was “am I dead if I don't block this”. This is pretty obvious to us, is very obvious to him, and is also very obvious to Anne. Answering the question with information that is not relevant is similar to if I were to ask you, “Is the sky blue?,” and you respond with “The grass is green.” It's even more muddled in this case as it's very easy for that one little word “base” to be missed, especially in a noisy room.

Actually, this reminds me of a classic example.

AP: "If I attack with my flying creature, can you block with your Giant Mantis?“
NAP: ”well, my creature doesn't fly“
AP: ”I attack“
NAP: ”I block"

This trick is considered legal. AP has attacked, NAP can block, no step back.

Yet the game state would be very clear to AP if they took the time to verify, rather than ask. The same verification cannot be done with the current power/toughness of the Mage-Ring Bully.

Granted, the player should assume it's a 3/3 and act accordingly….

This, more than anything else:

Originally posted by Christopher Wendelboe:

Granted, the player should assume it's a 3/3 and act accordingly…

While I'm not happy about Anne's verbal trickery, and agree with Mark and others that - esp. with any language barrier - miscommunication must be considered, the bottom line for me is “Check your assumptions, don't act on them.” (I even made that exact announcement, midway through day 2 of Grand Prix Charlotte, because I'd refereed so many disagreements based on assumptions.)

d:^D