While I personally agree that the trigger should be missed, I don't understand the argument that the spell being countered vs resolving are different visible game states. When the IPG talks about a change in the “visible game state”, it means it quite literally. A die being placed on a creature, the status of a permanent changing, etc. While countering a spell and resolving a spell are very different game actions, they involve exactly the same physical actions in this case, so I don't see how we can call them different visible game states.

Consider the similar scenario of AP casting a Soul Rend on NAP's Phantasmal Image. If NAP puts the Image straight into his graveyard, has he missed his trigger? What happens when AP tries to draw a card at the next upkeep?

Unexperienced level 1 here, but I would like to add my interpretation of the situation.

I think it does not matter that countering the spell with the triggered ability versus resolving the spell cause the same change in the visible game state, at a different moment. All that matters is that the trigger does cause a change to the visible game state.

The point by which the player needs to demonstrate this awareness depends on the impact that the trigger would have on the game:
• A triggered ability that causes a change in the visible game state (including life totals) or requires a
choice upon resolution: 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) that can be taken only after the triggered ability should have resolved.
Note that casting an instant spell or activating an ability doesn’t mean a triggered ability has been forgotten,
as it could still be on the stack.

To counter a spell, the owner of the counter removes it from the stack at which point it goes to the graveyard. This is a clear visible change.

Okay may not mean “Okay it resolves” there is no way it could mean “Okay but it is countered by my triggered ability”. However, trying to switch phases is a clear pass of priority, and thus I would rule the trigger as missed.

As for Isaac King's example, it is more ambiguous. I am assuming the Phantasmal Image is white here, so that Soul Rend would actually destroy it if it were to stay on the battlefield. For any spell that wouldn't destroy the creature on it's own putting the creature into the graveyard is an acceptable way of displaying awareness. In this case it is not however, since in the case of a missed trigger, the creature would still go the graveyard, I would say that in this case it is the responsibility of the controller of the trigger to make it more clear. Therefore AP would be allowed to draw the card.

To answer Sandro:
I really don't think that Chalice of the Void is the best card to illustrate why the missed triggers are ruled the way they are :)

I believe that one of the points current MT philosophy is that triggers are NOT an ‘optional’ part of the game. Our policy does not support players that base their strategy and plays around the possibility that an opponent misses a trigger. On the contrary, as mentioned several times in this topic, IPG says that “triggered abilities are assumed to be remembered until otherwise indicated, and the impact on the game state may not be immediately apparent.”
This point is often iterated in various “forgotten vs missed” discussions.

Now do we have an explicit indication that the trigger was missed?
As mentioned by Mark and Emilien, “okay” may indeed mean lots of things. Even if it was previously used in the game to let the spells resolve you can't conclude that “okay” means “resolve”, it may still mean “pass priority”.

Let's face it, if the spell in question would put counters or gain life or was a permanent spell, this situation would never arise. So, I don't think it is worth arguing if countering the spell has a visual representation. For some spells it does, for some - not so much. For consistency reasons we can agree that it does. If we do, this leads us to the next question: “was it this action missed?”. In my opinion, nothing in this scenario indicates that it was, the card went straight to GY.

Originally posted by Isaac King:

While I personally agree that the trigger should be missed, I don't understand the argument that the spell being countered vs resolving are different visible game states

If there is no difference in the visible game state, what's your reasoning behind finding the trigger to be missed?

There is a card that says spells that cost 1 get countered. It's mandatory, so that should be the default scenario and hoping for a different outcome is pure angle shooting. The Comprehensive Rules 100% insist that the spell should get countered. It's only the IPG that says that just maybe it won't.

I feel that, philosophically, if it looks like the default scenario transpired, the controller of the Chalice should be free to assume that it did. However, the IPG definition of missed trigger requires “a change in the visible game state” and not “a visibly different outcome”. Countering a spell requires that card to be moved from the stack to the graveyard, and that is undeniably “a change in the visible game state”.

So, Rules-As-Intended I think the trigger should be considered remembered, but Rules-As-Written it is, unfortunately, missed.

One could perhaps argue that AP has a responsibility to clarify why he/she is putting the Angel's Grace into the graveyard. Otherwise AP gets to unilaterally decide that something happens that the Comprehensive Rules did not allow.

Originally posted by Jochem van 't Hull:

However, the IPG definition of missed trigger requires “a change in the visible game state” and not “a visibly different outcome”. Countering a spell requires that card to be moved from the stack to the graveyard, and that is undeniably “a change in the visible game state”.

You're over-thinking it a bit, here.

There is a card that says spells that cost 1 get countered. It's mandatory, so that should be the default scenario and hoping for a different outcome is pure angle shooting. The Comprehensive Rules 100% insist that the spell should get countered. It's only the IPG that says that just maybe it won't.

You started out great - that's spot-on.

As others have noted, and as Jochem began, the Angel's Grace player can't assume the trigger is missed - they have to assume it wasn't, until it becomes clear that it was missed. Assuming that you don't have to block lethal damage seems like a risky play, at best - and, in this example, it failed.

It would be better if NAP asked “resolves?”, and even better if AP said “OK, that's countered”. However, policy doesn't require Best Practices, it just rewards them.

As a quick aside to Sandro, and his original question: forcing triggers to be acknowledged before the phase or step ends would, in my opinion, be horrible. It could create a lot more “he said - she said” puzzles for us to sort out, not fewer; also, it destroys the strategic advantage of invisible triggers - like Prowess.

d:^D

we could use dry erase markers to keep track of what they represent. :)

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

It would be better if NAP asked “resolves?”, and even better if AP said “OK, that's countered”. However, policy doesn't require Best Practices, it just rewards them.

But if he asks he reminds his opponent. So the trigger won't have a chance to be missed.

Correct :)!

As the IPG states:

“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”

You can assume the trigger was missed and not remind your opponent but the
rules won't help you if it turns out you're wrong :)

Den 14 jul 2016 13:07 skrev “Johannes Wagner” <

Originally posted by Eskil Myrenberg:

You can assume the trigger was missed and not remind your opponent but the
rules won't help you if it turns out you're wrong :)

However, in the example the player that controls the trigger said okay and then went to combat. This means that he himself went past the moment of resolving the trigger without acknowledging it. Since it is a trigger that causes a change in the visible game state he had the acknowledge it before moving to the combat phase.

Quoting from the IPG:

The point by which the player needs to demonstrate this awareness depends on the impact that the trigger would have on the game:
• A triggered ability that causes a change in the visible game state (including life totals) or requires a
choice upon resolution: 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) that can be taken only after the triggered ability should have resolved.
Note that casting an instant spell or activating an ability doesn’t mean a triggered ability has been forgotten,
as it could still be on the stack.

Originally posted by Harm Tacoma:

Eskil Myrenberg
You can assume the trigger was missed and not remind your opponent but the
rules won't help you if it turns out you're wrong :)

However, in the example the player that controls the trigger said okay and then went to combat. This means that he himself went past the moment of resolving the trigger without acknowledging it. Since it is a trigger that causes a change in the visible game state he had the acknowledge it before moving to the combat phase.

While I think it would be easy to make an assessment in that fashion, I think it overlooks one element of Angel's Grace itself. That is, Angel's Grace doesn't do much as it resolves aside from being put into the graveyard.

Yes, it sets up some continuous effects, but much like a prowess trigger, those effects don't visibly affect the game until after Angel's Grace has resolved. In that respect, we kind of have Shrödinger's spell. AP could naturally presume the spell was countered and NAP could naturally presume it resolved. Because the moment the physical card was put into the graveyard, it could have been from either process. Both outcomes produce the same result.

But once combat damage would be dealt, we know the reason why. And given policy tells us to presume the trigger was resolved correctly absent evidence otherwise… I think we know at this point based on the players interaction. NAP may claim the spell resolved at the point its effect would matter, and AP points out otherwise.

No evidence the trigger was missed, as the only evidence is of assumption that works to AP's favor here.

I believe the entire discussion has been regarding whether to count this as
causing a change to the visual game state.

Scott's premise seems to be that it does not. With that premise in mind, my
reply to Johannes might make more sense :).

Den 14 jul 2016 13:57 skrev “Harm Tacoma” <

From what I can see, there seems to be two similar but different views on what constitutes ‘visible game state’

Firstly there is the physical. This is tangible, easily represented, and can be understood by nearly everyone. Counters being placed on permanents, object changing zones, creatures being tapped.

Secondly, there is the actual (couldn't think of a better word for it). This includes the physical, but also represents the game state that you cannot see, but is none the less there. Continuous effects from spells are the primary source of these.

In the example of the Chalice Vs. Angels Grace, we can see these coming into effect.
If the spell is countered, there is a change to the game state in that a spell has entered the GY.
If it is not countered, the spell still enters the GY, but the ‘actual’ visual game state will have a continuous effect running that was not there before.

Personally, I fall into the camp that there is a change to the game state, and would also say that there is an ‘actual’ visible change, although this is not something I would propose trying to explain to AP and NAP as it would waste everyone's time and it is just my own observations :D

As I said before, I still think it is a missed trigger.

Changing zone is a change in the game state, independent of the physical representation of those zones. There is nothing in the documents describing zone as physical spaces, where and how big they are. Some players put exiled cards underneath the graveyard turned 90°, others have the Stack in the middle of the battlefield. There is also nothing in the rules that says the timing of missed trigger is a transitive relationship and that it depends on the effect or object the trigger is affecting.

Of course we must assume a trigger is not forgotten until proven otherwise BUT the owner of the trigger still has the responsibility to aknowledge his trigger before it is too late. It is not the responsability of the other player to remind him of it. The latest possible moment for the Chalice player to aknowledge his trigger, in this case, is just before he moves to the attack phase (or in general before playing a spell). After this point, we have to assume the trigger has been forgotten and the spell resolved correctly. It just doesn't matter if the resolution of the spell would do the same physical things as the trigger because the rules just don't care about that!

Originally posted by Jeremie Granat:

It just doesn't matter if the resolution of the spell would do the same physical things as the trigger because the rules just don't care about that!

I completely agree. What I was trying to do was establish what I think are the two schools of thought on visible game state going on in this thread.

Although to be fair, I may be massively over thinking the whole scenario :)

Edited Declan Doherty (July 14, 2016 09:35:50 AM)