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 impact
C is the Play the Dec
D is the results of play the Dec

Even if C and D have impact, the only point to check is “No impact” clause applys is B.

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.

Honestly I totally agree with your opinion.
I say thanks to Scott Marshal for providing us an Official Answer for this situation: I'll apply it for sure if I have to.
But my gut feeling is exactly what Isaac says: we're allowing an “impossible situation” to become real.

I asked myself this: If I was at the table and I saw AP forget about that trigger, would I have intervened to stop the game?
The answer I gave myself is “No”.

Edited Jacopo Strati (Jan. 13, 2017 05:31:47 PM)

Allowing an impossible situation to become real is not a problem per se: there are many situations where this happens, especially with missed triggers.

I agree with your second argument, though: stopping the game to say “Andrew, you have to remind Norbert that he would be allowed to cast Declaration in Stone if he had a target, here is a Warning” does feel weird.

Out of curiosity, if there were other legal targets, would you allow Norbert to exile Ormendahl? Allowing him to do so seems inconsistent with refusing the trigger if there. Not allowing him to feels like going deeper into the rabbit hole, which is a good reason to draw the line at “the immediate effect of the trigger”, even if it leads to strange situations sometimes.

Edited Florian Horn (Jan. 13, 2017 06:56:43 PM)

Keep in mind, we (judges) are not the ones enabling the “impossible” here; it's the player who forgot their trigger.

It sounds inconsiderate or mean, but it's a valid conclusion: Remember Your Triggers!

* * * * *

A quick note on the “no impact” clause:

Originally posted by IPG 2.1:

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.

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.

Here's an example of how a similar scenario might unfold, where that clause would apply:
AP casts Declaration in Stone;
NAP responds with Spell Queller, exiling Declaration in Stone.
AP targets Spell Queller with a removal spell, hoping to get her Declaration back.
NAP responds by activating Cryptic Cruiser, putting the Declaration in AP's graveyard.
When AP's removal resolves and Spell Queller leaves the battlefield, it's trigger will have no effect - the spell is no longer in exile, thus can't be cast. NAP doesn't have to mention the (otherwise generally detrimental) trigger from the Spell Queller, because of that “no impact” clause.

d:^D

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.

Fair enough. However I think Jacopo made a good point. If I'm watching a game where AP's Spell Queller dies and he doesn't say anything about the trigger since the spell can't be cast, am I really supposed to step in and give him a Warning? What do I say to explain this to him? “You failed to remind your opponent that he couldn't do anything”?

I honestly don't understand why this situation doesn't qualify for the “no impact” clause. It fits the literal meaning of the phrase in the IPG, and it also leads to a far more intuitive course of action.

Isaac, we're focusing a lot on a very very specific interaction with Spell Queller here. While it might feel a little odd, the missed trigger policy isn't going to handle every single case that can come up for every single card ideally. Ultimately, the players are usually going to be relatively clear. This situation is not going to come up with any frequency and the policy is largely effective.

It doesnt qualify for the no impact clause, because it has an impact. It lets you cast the spell. The ability doesnt get to see if the spell has a legal target.
If I'm watching the match, I'd stop the players saying simply “you failed to remember your detrimental trigger”.

Edited Federico Verdini (Jan. 13, 2017 11:50:00 PM)

Ben, the argument “This is a corner case, it doesn't really matter, accept our interpretation” goes both ways. Especially since Isaac (and I) aren't advocating for an additional band-aid-like patch to policy. The policy as written is sufficient (although interpreted differently).

A brief aside to (sorry Scott) contrast this with a few other scenarios. We're not talking about a spell that when cast would seemingly have no effect (but in reality increases the storm count, or potentially enables an opponent's Mindbreak trap). We're not talking about a Mana crypt trigger while controlling a Platinum Emperion which does almost-but-not-quite nothing(1). In the current, discussed, example we are talking about an actual 0 impact on the game. As Isaac said, the clause taken literally applies.

I'm willing to accept rulings-by-fiat. I had initially responded to the original poster about my interpretation about what policy is. I have been corrected. I will continue to disagree on what policy should be (mostly kept to myself: I wasn't planning on responding to Scott until your response). I won't argue about what policy is.

(1) For the curious: Emperion doesn't prevent the damage, just the effect of the damage. This matters for a card like Needle Drop

Aaron, I didn’t tell you that you have to accept my interpretation, or anyones. Please be aware though, it genuinely doesn’t go both ways. That’s the entire purpose of having an ruling, to end that ambiguity.

The reality here is that people aren’t automatons and judges aren’t either. 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. In fact, most of the time we have some odd case like this that will happen.

And again, we’re talking about “literally 0 impact to the game” in this one specific case. The vast majority of the time we will not be in this situation, and the ruling will make a lot more sense with our current policy.

Ben, I apologize for putting words in your mouth then. I had thought you were saying something different.

I agree with you on use of “J”udgement, and how things will likely play out.

Federico, I think that's too restrictive. By that reasoning, a trigger that says “you may sacrifice a creature” would still need to be acknowledged when your only creature is equipped with Assault Suit, since it gives you a choice and the trigger can't “see” that it won't do anything. Conversely, a trigger that itself does nothing but has some external effect (such as the only legal target being Phantasmal Image) could just be ignored.




Ben, the question applies to more than just a Spell Queller with a Declaration in Stone exiled being sacrificed to a Westvale Abbey. There are many triggers in the game that allow you to cast a spell or do something similar, (several of which are tournament playable) and I think it's worthwhile to know how those triggers should function at Comp REL. I'm asking about a specific situation because it's a lot easier to do so then to talk abstractly all the time, and becuase that's the scenario that brought up the question in the first place.

Also, your response has confused me further. When you said

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.

doesn't this disagree with Scott's answer?

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 impact causing an impact (play or not a spell)
C is the Play the Dec
D is the results of play the Dec

Even if C and D have impact, the only point to check is “No impact” clause applys is B.

Fixed… I think than now I undestand it… The chance itself of cast a spell have impact in game (even if can´t cast it because no targets availables).
The existence of the choice itself denie the use of the “no impact” clausule.

Here's some examples of a trigger that would have no impact on the game:

I attack with Chasm Drake and I control no other creatures.
I cast Deadwood Treefolk and I have an empty graveyard.
I control an Aether Rift and have zero cards in hand as I enter my upkeep.

From the AIPG:

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.

Would it be a correct interpretation of policy, in light of this kind of ruling, to say that AP's triggered abiltities that give NAP a choice generally do not qualify for the “no impact” clause and must be pointed out, even if they would appear to make no difference in the gamestate?

Andrew, that's a fairly general statement, which sets off alarm bells in my head (exceptions! OMG!!) - but, yeah, that sounds like it's going to be right more often than not.

d:^D