Originally posted by Isaac King:
I'm afraid I don't understand why this wouldn't fall under the “no impact” clause. The phrase from the IPG doesn't say that the trigger can't call for decisions made by the opponent, and in fact that seems to be a common usage for it (“each opponent sacrifices a creature”, when there are no creatures to sacrifice, etc). Now in this case the choices to be made are not a direct effect of the trigger, but the fact remains- the only possible outcome of the trigger resolving is for nothing to happen.
Moreover, not having this fall under the “no impact” clause leads us to allow the Declaration to target the Ormendahl, which should have been impossible if all the game rules were followed. While we generally aren't supposed to base our infractions on the later outcome on the game, it does provide a sanity-check to see if we're doing something that doesn't make sense. Norman is trying to rules-lawyer his way into a theoretically impossible situation, and allowing that to happen seems to go against a lot of general judging philosophy.
Edited Jacopo Strati (Jan. 14, 2017 01:31:47 AM)
Edited Florian Horn (Jan. 14, 2017 02:56:43 AM)
Originally posted by IPG 2.1:In this scenario, the triggered ability does have an impact on the game - it allows a spell to be cast. The spell itself might not have an impact, at the time the trigger should have resolved - but that's not relevant, here.
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.
Originally posted by Scott Marshall:
Keep in mind, we (judges) are not the ones enabling the “impossible” here; it's the player who forgot their trigger.
Edited Federico Verdini (Jan. 14, 2017 07:50:00 AM)
Originally posted by Benjamin McDole:
If you ask the player “Hey, why didn’t you have them cast it?” and they say “No targets” then we probably just walk away.
Originally posted by Iván R. Molia:
If I don't missunderstand… It's because the misstrigger itself don't have impact, even if it “triggers” (unleash) any future event with Impact on the game.
A >>>> B >>>> C >>>> D
A is the MT
B is the “Choose play or not the Dec”with no impactcausing an impact (play or not a spell)
C is the Play the Dec
D is the results of play the DecEven if C and D have impact, the only point to check is “No impact” clause applys is B.
Originally posted by AIPG2.1:
Triggered abilities that don’t matter are few and far between. When determining whether or not a triggered ability would have no impact on the game, you should not take into account how likely an opponent is to perform some optional action permitted by the ability.