If you want to know whether the Angel's Grace resolved or not without reminding the opponent of the Chalice of the Void, you could create a physical representation of the effect. For example, write down “Angel's grace prevent+cannot die” on a piece of paper and put it on the battlefield. If the opponent let's that happen without mentioning the Chalice, it seems clear to me that the spell resolved.

Originally posted by Jeremie Granat:

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!

While I agree that is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to this situation, I also think we need to weigh the various bits of evidence to policy.

If we all agree that Chalice of the Void's trigger falls under the second bullet of MIPG 2.1, then we have to evaluate how the “change in visible game state” occurs in this interaction. As you aptly point out, the rules don't describe exactly how zones work… But Section 4 of the CR does talk a lot about how zones are handled. Including some physical aspects, like “single face-down pile” or “area between the players”. So, we do have some elements of physicality and visibility to consider.

However, I suspect that “visibility” may be a problematic standard here. Which is why I was attempting to draw out the ambiguity in what is present visibly here… That the card visibly moved to the graveyard. By the bullet, AP can easily believe the trigger resolved.

I think the standard we really want is “the player must ensure the instruction was performed”, which is the standard I feel you are apply and one I agree with, but it is only something one can infer from policy, as it is not what the bullet actually says.

The root problem is the same with Path to Exile… It is your creature, but I need to make sure you move it to the right zone. The problem here is that Angel's Grace is moving to the right zone, but there is ambiguity as to the reason why.

Still, I don't know that we can require verbal confirmation here, which is probably the only way to ensure that the card moved for an unambiguous reason. If only because of the reality of unclear communication or language barriers.

But, when a player can reasonably represent an attack via physical movement of cards… I see every reason to believe AP's view. Just as much as I can see NAP's view here. It just happens I think that philosophically, policy favors AP here.

Are you really ok to let a game progress in a direction where I am the player playing my spell, and don't know that my spell is countered?

I am sorry but if I am a player, if you do not tell me to remove my spell from the stack, I have all the right to assume that you let it resolve. If I need to remove my spell from the stack before its resolution, I kind of see it like a visible thing in the game that I need to be aware of.

Originally posted by Théo CHENG:

I have all the right to assume that you let it resolve

Uncle Scott
Always check your assumptions.

All the Angel's Grace player needs to do is say “resolves?” as he puts in the graveyard. Problem solved. He didn't; instead, he assumed something - and in this specific example, the opposite of what policy says he should have assumed.

Yes, I'm OK with that player being punished for bad assumptions.

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

All the Angel's Grace player needs to do is say “resolves?” as he puts in the graveyard. Problem solved. He didn't; instead, he assumed something - and in this specific example, the opposite of what policy says he should have assumed.

Yes, I'm OK with that player being punished for bad assumptions.

And AP assumes that NAP resolved his Trigger and removed the spell from the Stack. He assumed he didn't have to aknowledge a Trigger that had been resolved by his opponent…

Scott, I agree with you about punishing a player for a bad assumption but I'll punish AP here :-)

Jeremie,

Except that AP's assumption is explicitly called out in the IPG:
“Triggered abilities are assumed to be remembered until otherwise
indicated, and the impact on the game state may not be immediately
apparent.” Are we going to not let him get his trigger despite him
following the explicit language of the IPG? This is the assumption we are
told to make, and you are directly ignoring that assumption.


—
Rob McKenzie
Magic Judge Level III
Judge Regional Coordinator USA-North
Minnesota

Originally posted by Rob McKenzie:

Jeremie,

Except that AP's assumption is explicitly called out in the IPG:
“Triggered abilities are assumed to be remembered until otherwise
indicated, and the impact on the game state may not be immediately
apparent.” Are we going to not let him get his trigger despite him
following the explicit language of the IPG? This is the assumption we are
told to make, and you are directly ignoring that assumption.

I think you are it out of context here because the impact on the game state is not immediately apparent (or we would not have this long a discussion…

I could also point out that this is also part of the IPG : “Even if an opponent is involved in the announcement or resolution of the ability, the controller is still responsible for ensuring the opponents make the appropriate choices and take the appropriate actions.”

For me, it means it is the controller's responsibility to disambiguate the situation.

This is how I interpret the situation…

How is he supposed to do so? The opponent took the literal correct action,
of putting the card in his graveyard. What should he correct if his
opponent behaves in the correct way, but might, in theory, believe
something different about the game from him? He demonstrated that the
trigger countered it the first time the spell would have had an impact on
the game. He disambiguated as soon as he was aware it was ambiguous, and
now is missing his trigger that he was perfectly aware of?


—
Rob McKenzie
Magic Judge Level III
Judge Regional Coordinator USA-North
Minnesota

Originally posted by Théo CHENG:

I have all the right to assume that you let it resolve.

The default assumption can only be that it did not resolve, because there is a card on the battlefield that very plainly says it gets countered. Only through the magic of an IPG loophole can it resolve.

Originally posted by Rob McKenzie:

How is he supposed to do so? The opponent took the literal correct action,
of putting the card in his graveyard. What should he correct if his
opponent behaves in the correct way, but might, in theory, believe
something different about the game from him? He demonstrated that the
trigger countered it the first time the spell would have had an impact on
the game. He disambiguated as soon as he was aware it was ambiguous, and
now is missing his trigger that he was perfectly aware of?

He disambiguated the situation as soon as he was aware of it, which was somewhere during combat. From NAP's view, this is the first time he acknowledged the trigger. This the first moment the effect of the spell would have a visible influence on the game state. However, this is the wrong moment for the controller of the trigger. He would have had to acknowledge it when the trigger itself would have a visible influence on the game state. This is the moment the Angel's Grace would go the graveyard.

If the spell were to put a creature token onto the battlefield, AP would notice right away that NAP was taking an action where he would have to correct the situation by displaying awareness. The AP would then correct right away by saying “Hold up, that didn't resolve, that was countered.”. This would be a correct way and moment of acknowledging his trigger. As the game was about to advance to a point past where the trigger had resolved, he corrected it and it is fine. Now, this example might be an easy situation but I use it for a reason. In the situation with Angel's grace, the trigger is exactly the same. Therefore the behavior of the AP should be the same. The IPG cares about the moment the trigger would have a visible influence on the game state, not about when the spell that is being countered would have that influence. When NAP puts the Angel's Grace in the graveyard, that is the last chance the AP has to acknowledge the trigger.

Jochem van 't Hull
The default assumption can only be that it did not resolve, because there is a card on the battlefield that very plainly says it gets countered. Only through the magic of an IPG loophole can it resolve.

This is completely true, but unfortunately it is no reason to make a call in favor of AP. On competitive, rulings that judges make have to be based on the IPG. This is important for consistency and for justifiability of the ruling.

Edited Harm Tacoma (July 15, 2016 06:55:04 AM)

I would contend that the actions of AP are exactly the same in the “makes
tokens” case and Angel's Grace. Once the NAP was trying to do something
illegal based on his view of the game, he corrected it. This is the
standard we have in the IPG:

A player who makes a play that may or may not be legal depending on whether
an uncommunicated trigger has been remembered has not committed an
infraction; their play either succeeds, confirming that the trigger has
been missed, or is rewound.

NAP has done nothing *wrong, *his spell was countered. But he could not
know that until either he asked or he tried to make a play based on it
resolving.

The default assumption is “triggers resolve”, and AP saw NAP do actions
wholly consistent with the trigger resolving up until the point where NAP
tried to not die. Expecting AP to clarify before NAP does the effects of
the spell is expecting him to read NAP's mind - there is no difference in
physical outcomes for him, so no way for him to know what NAP believes
about the game until the time NAP tries to survive this combat.


—
Rob McKenzie
Magic Judge Level III
Judge Regional Coordinator USA-North
Minnesota

The assumption that triggers resolve only lasts until the moment the IPG states that awareness must be demonstrated. This demonstration must cause the other player to be aware of the trigger and it's resolving as well. For this particular trigger, the moment awareness has to be demonstrated is not when damage is dealt. This trigger counters a spell. This results in a card going to the graveyard. This is a change in the visible game state. Therefore the following rule applies for the moment when awareness has to be displayed:

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.

The fact that the same change in the visible game state would also occur on resolution of the spell cannot be taken into consideration. The trigger causes a change and therefore the IPG demands that the controller displays awareness. AP failed to do so and thus the trigger has become missed the moment Angel's Grace hit the graveyard and AP allowed that to happen and moved on.

How can AP know that NAP took the wrong action when NAP took the correct
one? The only difference at all is based on NAP's mind. The visible game
made the change AP was expecting. He can't correct the misunderstanding,
because from his perspective everything behaved exactly as it should. We
don't expect people to guess what their opponent might be thinking about
the game to determine what happened, we rely on the physical things and the
actual content communicated.


—
Rob McKenzie
Magic Judge Level III
Judge Regional Coordinator USA-North
Minnesota

Originally posted by Harm Tacoma:

The fact that the same change in the visible game state would also occur on resolution of the spell cannot be taken into consideration. The trigger causes a change and therefore the IPG demands that the controller displays awareness. AP failed to do so and thus the trigger has become missed the moment Angel's Grace hit the graveyard and AP allowed that to happen and moved on.

Two questions:

(1) Why can't we take this visible event into consideration?
(2) Why is it that “demonstrates awareness” requires verbal acknowledgement from AP here?

Because it seems like we're really backing ourselves into a tight corner when it comes to handling this situation. The policy right now presents a pretty low bar, and an argument could be made that we should adjust it slightly higher, but it seems like the suggestion is NAP requires more protection. That AP be held to a higher standard of play.

I fear this might make comparable “Chalice versus Bolt” or “Chalice versus Braintstorm” interactions more problematic. Because it isn't unheard of to see the following…

NAP: Brainstorm *taps and reveals Brainstorm, then puts it into graveyard"
AP: Umm, no response.
NAP: *reaches for library*
AP: No, Chalice got that.

…as players often put the physical card into the graveyard just after casting. Others may hold it in front of them, but I see many just shortcut and put the physical card into their graveyard before the opponent says anything. Even when the opponent has open mana.

In fact, while the original scenario had NAP cast the spell before combat, I suspect that had NAP cast Angel's Grace right before combat damage, we wouldn't have an issue with AP clarifying that NAP was getting dealt damage. Because we wouldn't get hung up on the technicality here. (Split second makes it impossible to respond, which makes it even weird to cast it so early.)

And the timing of that is questionable to me.

I dont see why the policy isnt that you have to announce every trigger, e.g. "Attack, Exalted trigger(s). I can't even imagine a scenarion where this would cause problems because you can still shortcut things like infinite combos and such.
This would in my opinion stop this discussions because they would boil down to 1 thing: Did he announce his trigger or did he not?