You are the HJ of PPTQ.
Andrew control Westvale Abbey, four Bear Cubs, and a Spell Queller with Declaration in Stone exiled with it. Andrew announces and resolves second ability of Abbey sacrificing all his creatures, including Spell Queller, but forgets to announce LTB trigger.
After Ormendahl, Profane Prince shows up on the battlefield, Norman calls you to the table and says:
N: “Judge, my opponent forgot about LTB trigger, I would like to resolve it now.”
Norbert also says, that he was aware of this trigger at the appropriate time and he waited on purpose with calling a judge.
What do you do?

Edited Bartłomiej Wieszok (Jan. 7, 2017 04:36:22 AM)

Are there any other creatures on the battlefield at all (on either side)?

If no, this would fall under this exception in the IPG section on ‘missed trigger’

Originally posted by IPG:

If a triggered ability would have no impact on the game, it’s not an infraction to fail to
demonstrate awareness of it. For example, if the effect of a triggered ability instructs its
controller to sacrifice a creature, a player who controls no creatures isn’t required to demonstrate
awareness of the ability. Similarly, a player demonstrating awareness of an optional trigger with
no visible effect is assumed to have made the affirmative choice unless the opponent responds.

If Norbert is completely incapable of casting the Declaration in Stone at the time that the LTB trigger would resolve (due to there being no legal target), then the trigger has no impact on the game. No missed trigger, leave game as is. Declaration in Stone remains exiled.

If there are any other legal targets: it gets trickier.

Andrew receives a Warning for GPE: Missed trigger (Spell Queller's LTB trigger is detrimental). Norman has committed no infraction, as he is not responsible for pointing out his opponent's triggers.

For the additional remedy, put the trigger on the stack now. The interesting question is whether Norman will be able to target the Ormendahl with the exiled declaration in stone when the trigger resolves. I would argue that the answer is no.

Per the additional remedy section of IPG 2.1:

No player may make choices involving objects that would not have been legal choices when the ability should have triggered. For example, if the ability instructs a player to sacrifice a creature, that player can't sacrifice a creature that wasn't on the battlefield when the ability should have triggered.

The example given in the IPG makes it clear that this restriction applies not only to choices made when the trigger is put on the stack, but also to choices made upon resolution. Choosing a target for Declaration in Stone is a choice made as part of the process of casting it, which happens during of the resolution of Spell Queller's trigger, so I would argue that the IPG prohibits Norman from choosing Ormendahl as a target, because it would not have been on the battlefield (and therefore not a legal target) at the time the triggered ability should have resolved.

Does it matter that Spell Queller's triggered ability has no targetting restrictions ? One could flash a creature into battlefield in response to the (announced) Spell Queller trigger. I do not agree with “the trigger wouldnt have an effect on the game”, because that assumption takes more future into account.

Philip, let's focus on the specific example listed from my quote above

Originally posted by IPG:

if the effect of a triggered ability instructs its
controller to sacrifice a creature, a player who controls no creatures isn’t required to demonstrate awareness

The example is not a trigger with a target, the example is about how on resolution of the trigger, there will be no impact on the game. This is true despite there always being unexpected ways for the opponent to, at instant speed, cause creatures to enter the battlefield under either players control (Savage Summoning a Sleeper Agent perhaps).

If Norbert really wants to flash in a creature to target with Declaration in Stone, then it is Norbert's responsibility to make this clear to Andrew (and it's easy to back the players up, turn the Ormendahl back over).

But the effect of the triggered ability of the Queller doesnt require a target, nor does it make us sacrifice or exile any creature
It just let us cast the spell again.

Lets introduce additional bear cub on Norman side.
We know for sure, that if we would resolve trigger at appropriate time, Normans Bear Cub would be only legal target for Declaration.
Trigger itself have no targets. First question is, is casting Declaration a part of resolving that LTB ability and is yes, are we restricted by rules with choosing targets.
“No player may make choices involving objects that would not have been legal choices when the ability should have triggered.”

Then there is a second issue. Norman admits that he noticed MT on appropriate time but waited with calling a Judge until Ormendal shows up. He hopes, that we will apply regular MT there, ask him if he want to resolve LTB trigger, and then choose Ormendal as a target for Declaration (what would be impossible in correct resolving of effects). Are we OK with that situation?

Sounds like waiting out on an infraction to obtain an advantage to me?

Sent from my iPhone

On 8 Jan 2017, at 15:42, Bart?omiej Wieszok <forum-32586-9274@apps.magicjudges.org<mailto:forum-32586-9274@apps.magicjudges.org>> wrote:


Lets introduce additional bear cub on Norman side.
We know for sure, that if we would resolve trigger at appropriate time, Normans Bear Cub would be only legal target for Declaration.
Trigger itself have no targets. First question is, is casting Declaration a part of resolving that LTB ability and is yes, are we restricted by rules with choosing targets.
“No player may make choices involving objects that would not have been legal choices when the ability should have triggered.”

Then there is a second issue. Norman admits that he noticed MT on appropriate time but waited with calling a Judge until Ormendal shows up. He hopes, that we will apply regular MT there, ask him if he want to resolve LTB trigger, and then choose Ormendal as a target for Declaration (what would be impossible in correct resolving of effects). Are we OK with that situation?

—————————
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/206685/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/32586/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/32586/?onsite=yes

You can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/

Hello,

I am not quite sure about this situation and if we should applythat choice restriction clause .

However I am quite sure that even if it is taking advantage of the situation, the owner of the declaration in stone has totally the right to intervene when he wishes. He is not guilty of not announcing that an error was made. Players can miss triggered abilities and opponents do not have any obligation towards that.
He sure uses the policy at his advantage and he is not guilty of anything but using all the tools at his disposal to win this game.

I would say that in my opinion, the delaration in stone can trget Ormendahl, since the triggered ability is not the source that asks you to make a choice or chosing a target. I admit that both can be understood if we stretch things enough. In this case I do not feel that the “spirit of the law” is clear enough for me to deviate from what is strictly written today in the IPG.
I think however that there is grounds for clarification.

Second what Theo says.

Since all Spell Queller does is set up the ability to cast the Dec in Stone, I don't think it meets our currently defined criteria for “choices that existed when the trigger should have happened”.

+1 for clarification to see if this is intended, or simply Yet Another Quirk of Spell Queller ™.

Let's add a few things to this discussion:
1) Players almost never cast Declaration in Stone on their own creatures.
2) Players often keep the exiled spell (Declaration in Stone in this case) underneath the Spell Queller on the table.

One common sequence I would expect to happen is for Andrew to pick up 5 creatures and place them in the graveyard, pull West Vale Abbey out of its sleeve, put Ormendahl back into the sleeve, pick up the Declaration in Stone and hand it to Norbert (in order to place it with other exiled cards near Norbert's library), and then to attack. I would consider picking up and handing the Declaration in Stone to be sufficient for acknowledging the trigger, and I am fine with things being done slightly out of order (especially since Andrew is probably assuming that Norbert doesn't want to target Norbert's own creature). No Missed Trigger penalty, Norbert can't target Ormendahl.

If Andrew attacks or casts a spell without doing anything with the Declaration in Stone, then Missed Trigger might be reasonable.

If Norbert calls for a judge immediately after the Ormendahl is placed on the table, but before Andrew has had a chance to attack or cast something else or pick up the Declaration in Stone and hand it over, then I probably would still not issue Missed Trigger, and not allow Ormendahl to be targeted.

I don't feel as strongly about this, though, as I do about the previously discussed case of ‘No other creatures on the battlefield = can’t be Missed Trigger'.

I agree that in no scenario would Norbert receive any penalty. I agree that if we do treat this as Missed Trigger then Norbert can target Ormendahl with the Declaration in Stone.

Originally posted by Robert Hinrichsen:

The example given in the IPG makes it clear that this restriction applies not only to choices made when the trigger is put on the stack, but also to choices made upon resolution. Choosing a target for Declaration in Stone is a choice made as part of the process of casting it, which happens during of the resolution of Spell Queller's trigger, so I would argue that the IPG prohibits Norman from choosing Ormendahl as a target, because it would not have been on the battlefield (and therefore not a legal target) at the time the triggered ability should have resolved.

I want to echo this line of reasoning. Spell Queller's LTB ability doesn't just create the ability for Norman to cast Declaration in stone, it causes Declaration in stone to be cast when it resolves. This means that all the steps of casting Declaration in stone, including all choices made, are performed during the resolution of Spell Queller's ability. As such, I certainly would not allow Norman to make a targeting choice that was not an eligible choice when spell queller's ability should have resolved.

Edited Andrew Keeler (Jan. 9, 2017 09:02:47 AM)

Originally posted by Andrew Keeler:

I want to echo this line of reasoning. Spell Queller's LTB ability doesn't just create the ability for Norman to cast Declaration in stone, it causes Declaration in stone to be cast when it resolves. This means that all the steps of casting Declaration in stone, including all choices made, are performed during the resolution of Spell Queller's ability. As such, I certainly would not allow Norman to make a targeting choice that was not an eligible choice when spell queller's ability should have resolved.

I think you are stretching this line of the IPG:

Originally posted by IPG2.1:

No player may make choices involving objects that would not have been legal choices when the ability should have triggered.

On one hand we want lines of play to be as close as they would have been (Dec in Stone not being able to target Ormendahl).

However, the trigger (Spell Queller) isn't targeting. If it were intended to cover that case then the IPG would word it that way.

Originally posted by Jeff S Higgins:

I think you are stretching this line of the IPG:

Originally posted by IPG2.1:

No player may make choices involving objects that would not have been legal choices when the ability should have triggered.

On one hand we want lines of play to be as close as they would have been (Dec in Stone not being able to target Ormendahl).

However, the trigger (Spell Queller) isn't targeting. If it were intended to cover that case then the IPG would word it that way.

Would you say the IPG is worded specifying that the trigger must target? I feel your reasoning “the IPG would word it that way” might apply on your statement also.

It doesn't state anything about the trigger having to have targets and the one example in the IPG is actually a choice made upon resolution.

So right now I'm leaning in favour of “can't target Ormendahl”, simply because the IPG example supports that interpretation plus your own reasoning: We want things to play out as similarly as possible. I believe this interpretation will most often result in that :)

This feels a lot like UC - Cheating to me, on the part of the player with the DecStone. The interesting part is that, because Missed Trigger has been defined as something that is an “offense” (in the sense that it interrupts the “proper” flow of the game as defined by CR), it is not illegal to miss one's own (or an opponent's) triggers in the sense that one does not get an infraction for it (except for generally detrimental triggers), and in the latter case (as is the case in this scenario) it is not illegal to do so even on purpose, and even for generally detrimental triggers (generally detrimental for the opponent). Therefore, while a smell test of the situation smells a lot like UC - Cheating, it doesn't actually fit the criteria.

I got tripped up by this and was about to write a tirade on how this is UC - Cheating and how the player should be DQ'd, but then I noticed the 3rd point in the definition of UC - Cheating and thought about it, and realized it isn't actually UC - Cheating. Since I got tripped up, I thought it was noteworthy to point out to others.

That said, it is extremely sketchy. The letter of the law states that the player could target Ormendahl with DecStone (as has been written about elsewhere in this thread), but I'm not super comfortable with that ruling; if this is an intended consequence of how the rules are written then fine, but if it's not an intended consequence, or if the rules are unintentionally ambiguous on this and need tightening up, it might be worth looking into further by the Powers That Be (C), and for that reason I'm a fan of this situation being asked about.

Edited Lyle Waldman (Jan. 9, 2017 02:39:00 PM)