The OK didn't pull the game ahead.

The AP marked damage (with the NAP accepting that shortcut by not saying “Hang on, I'm blocking”) and then went to loot with the information that there was not going to be a blocker.
“No blocks.” to me is information that could absolutely reasonably affect decisions made during looting.

This assumes a block was even possible - if it wasn't then I could see OOOS.

Originally posted by Rob Marti:

The AP marked damage (with the NAP accepting that shortcut by not saying “Hang on, I'm blocking”) and then went to loot with the information that there was not going to be a blocker.

I don't see why marking of damage is relevant. They did two things out of order that they could legally do in the correct order. That's the point of OOOS. Note that if NAP wished to block at this point, they would be able to do so.

If you are not willing to let them mark damage and then loot in one action, then that presumes you are also unwilling to let them loot and then mark damage in one action. If this isn't the case, they get no new information during this sequence so what is the difference?

They do get new information.

The information is that they weren't blocked and their opponent had nothing to stop the damage.
Maybe during their loot they can toss that Blossoming Defense and keep the Gideon they just drew - but they might not do that if they did things in order.

This feels like a “you had to be there” to me. This is how I'd rule with the information I have, although I'm only about 60% convinced that this is correct:

Since AP is recording life totals, AP thinks the game is in the combat damage step. This is a full 2 steps ahead of where he's supposed to loot. Therefore I'd rule missed trigger.

Factors I'd have to be there to see:

1) If AP said something like “Attack with Copter, you take 3, I loot” where NAP clearly had no effects (he was tapped out and had no creatures with flying, that sort of thing), then I'd rule ooos.

2) If NAP was thinking after saying “ok”, then it's possible AP rushed to damage too quickly, and NAP's “ok” simply meant “I acknowledge your attack”, and I'd rule ooos.

3) If a previous game play style/shortcut had been established, I could rule ooos.

There are many factors that could change my mind, but as presented here I'd rule missed trigger.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

This feels like a “you had to be there” to me.

The scenario in this case appears to be:

NAP had open mana and one card in hand which is a land. AP just crewed Copter then attacked, then NAP said OK so AP cut his life. There are no more verbal exchange about what step it was.

Seems like OooS. In this particular case, even if AP gained knowledge that NAP wasn't doing anything to prevent damage, AP probably would have assumed as much while looting.

In a general case, I don't see any problem with ruling OooS, putting us back in BoC, finishing the loot, then allowing NAP to act or not act based on the loot decision before proceeding to combat damage.

Originally posted by David Poon:

Lyle Waldman
This feels like a “you had to be there” to me.

The scenario in this case appears to be:

NAP had open mana and one card in hand which is a land. AP just crewed Copter then attacked, then NAP said OK so AP cut his life. There are no more verbal exchange about what step it was.

Seems like OooS. In this particular case, even if AP gained knowledge that NAP wasn't doing anything to prevent damage, AP probably would have assumed as much while looting.

In a general case, I don't see any problem with ruling OooS, putting us back in BoC, finishing the loot, then allowing NAP to act or not act based on the loot decision before proceeding to combat damage.

Sure, but I think this is a deviation. While I can't copy paste well on my phone:

1) Missed Trigger policy states that a player must remember their trigger at the point at which it would become visibly relevant to the game, not 2 steps later.

2) OooS philosophy requires the out of order actions to be done as a block of actions, not as separate actions. Thus “you take 3” *writes on paper* “oh yeah, I'll loot too” is not OooS. As I said, if the actions were phrased as “you take 3 and I'll loot”, then I'd be cool with that, but that doesn't appear to be part of the situation given.

I would call this similarly to an upkeep trigger that got missed until the first main phase. If you go “untap, draw and pay for my Tabernacle trigger” (first example I thought of“, that would be fine. However, ”untap, draw“ *draw a card* ”and I'll pay for my Tabernacle trigger" is not.

By the way, when making a call, I would encourage you to not include hidden information in your handling of the call. You mentioned that player had a land in hand and a land untapped, so you think he could have done nothing. Would your call have changed if his open land was an Island and his card in hand was Select for Inspection? If so, you have now just given the opponent the information that the card in his opponent's hand is not Select for Inspection, that's OA. When making a call, if the result of the call depends on whether or not interaction can happen, make the call as though interaction is possible, unless it is very obviously not possible (e.g. tapped out, no possible blockers).

Thus “you take 3” *writes on paper* “oh yeah, I'll loot too” is not OooS.

Lyle, you are just manipulating the scenario to fit your world view, adding pauses and words to fit your needs. This is what the OP said:

“AP crew Smuggler's Copter and attack, NAP said OK, then AP cut NAP's life first and try to looter.”

Originally posted by Che Wei Sung:

When AP drew a card and did not discard yet, NAP called judge and said since AP had cut life that mean go into damage step, AP missed triggered and should not looter.

I want to ask about this scenario, if i'd rule missed trigger here.. Since AP already draw a card.. What best remedy we should give?

Originally posted by Rob Marti:

They do get new information.

The information is that they weren't blocked and their opponent had nothing to stop the damage.

No, they got that information *before they were allowed to loot*. NAP gave it to them before they needed to.

Getting new information refers to getting it while executing the OOOS. No new information was gained during that process. To argue otherwise is to argue that AP missed their chance to loot as soon as NAP said “no blocks”. That seems problematic.

(Actually, looking at the original scenario, NAP didn't even indicate that! They just said “OK”. AP made an assumption that they weren't blocking and shortcut a bit, but there isn't even information being gained prematurely here.)

Edited Toby Elliott (Dec. 21, 2016 12:37:09 PM)

To avoid making a new thread, AP casts Ishkanah, Grafwidow with Delirium, resolves enters the battlefield, plays a swamp and says “I put the spider tokens in play” while reaching for his tokens. At that moment NAP calls for a judge HJ arrives and then he tells him that since his opponent didn't announced his trigger before playing the land he missed it, HJ agreed with him so no tokens were made.

Was that the right call? I thought the time between the play of Iskanah-Land-reaching for tokens was fast enough for me to think that AP didn't forgot his trigger but after talking with the HJ he told me he ruled that way since by playing a land he took an action that could only be taken after the trigger was resolved thus it was missed

Out of Order Sequencing doesn't translate well to forum posts, since its intended to reflect how players play magic in person. Without the nuances you'll get from interviewing the players it is incredibly difficult to convey those in text.

One big thing to understand is that, like Toby mentioned earlier, there are major differences between AP *attempting* to get information and NAP providing it. This nuance is incredibly important; policy can't attempt to stop NAP from going too fast.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Since AP is recording life totals, AP thinks the game is in the combat damage step.

While this is sometimes true, I don't think it's true often enough to be a consistent basis for making a determination or ruling. The rules require that each player maintains track of life totals, but does not require that the numbers on a life pad are that track (only that the player is able to explain what the totals are and what the life pad means to a judge when asked). I personally have marked life total changes a full turn cycle in advance at competitive events because the upcoming actions were all very predictable (After this Lava Spike resolves I'm going to attack you, you have no blockers. You'll fetch on your end step. On my next upkeep I'll Rift Bolt you), and because I'm lazy and only want to pick up a pen once.

In this scenario, I think it equally likely that the player was marking what the life total would eventually become rather than what the life total currently was, and as such has not moved beyond the trigger.