Hello,

I have once again some difficulties about a KP's anwser.

For the context, here is the scenario :

Abby and Nova are playing in an Amonkhet Sealed PPTQ. Abby taps four Forests, discards a Shefet Monitor, and announces she is paying the cycling cost. She draws a card and then starts searching her library. Nova stops her and says, “Hold on. You have to search your library before you draw. It even says so at the bottom of your card.” Abby reads her Shefet Monitor closely and replies, “Oops! You’re right. JUDGE!”

What do you do?

Here is the answer :

Abby's mistake cannot be ruled as Out of Order Sequencing. Since she drew a card before searching her library, this makes it more probable for AP to draw a land card.

Even though we don’t consider this problem Out of Order Sequencing, failing to search the library before drawing a card this way isn’t specifically a Game Rule Violation either. Shefet Monitor’s triggered ability is optional. Drawing the card and declining to search is legal, so there was no infraction the moment Abby drew a card. Nova couldn't have been sure there was an issue until Abby started searching.

Nova did stop the game immediately after watching Abby make the first noticeable error. This means Abby committed a Looking at Extra Cards infraction and she receives a warning. Have Abby shuffle the random portion of her library and remind her she always needs to search her library before drawing a card every time she cycles Shefet Monitor.

Why don't we ask the opponent if he wishes to resolve the triggered ability now or during the next phase?
Nowhere in the IPG I can find a section about may triggered abilities, so I have always assumed that they are treated the same way as all the others that do not have a “may”.
That is why I am not really confortable saying that we assume that the player chose not to do it while he totally intended to do it? It is a textbook missed trigger, so why don't we apply the IPG about missed triggered abilities?

The IPG instruct us to opt on some triggered abilities for default actions for example, but nowhere it is mentionned that we should treat the “may” triggered abilities the same way as those, so the standard fix should apply here, shouldn't it?

Thanks for your lights.

It wasn't missed because it's a “may” ability; not searching is a perfectly valid line of play. If, instead, Shefet Monitor said “When you cycle Shefet Monitor, search your library…” it would be a Missed Trigger.

Thanks for putting my thoughts into words. I've been discussing this with other judges and can't find a reason either

Andrew, I can't find any reference to this implied decision in the IPG
As I see it, this is a MT under this definition
- 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 acknowledge the specific trigger before taking any game actions (such as casting a sorcery spell or explicitly taking an action in the next step or phase) that can be taken only after the triggered ability should have resolved. Note that passing priority, 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.

To me, that cares more about things like, say, Demonic Pact, where a decision requires a choice and not choosing is explicitly an error. MT is, at its root, a Gameplay Error, which necessarily implies that to be that infraction, there must be something incorrect about the action.

However, if a player may search, and does not, there is nothing incorrect about this course of action. There has been no error of any kind.

The IPG does not seem to support that stance.
Contrast this with the JAR where may triggered abilities are treated differently.

I've done some research into when this changed because my memory obviously served me badly.

We still need to ask the opponent whether they want a may ability to go onto the stack, and that has been true since the Return to Ravnica update which introduced our current MT paradigm.

Toby said in his update then

This has some nifty consequences when you look at what used to be in the infraction. You may not have noticed that there’s no mention of ‘may’ triggers in the infraction any more. That’s because they work better here – if there’s a random reason that the opponent wants the trigger to go on the stack (a Restoration Angel with only Phantasmal Image as the target), it does so, and then, most likely, the controller opts to do nothing (may triggers with no implications on the game state – i.e. most of them – can just slide by as normal with both players ignoring it).

I've updated the scenario thread to reflect this.

Originally posted by Joe Klopchic:

Originally posted by Toby Elliot:

This has some nifty consequences when you look at what used to be in the infraction. You may not have noticed that there’s no mention of ‘may’ triggers in the infraction any more. That’s because they work better here – if there’s a random reason that the opponent wants the trigger to go on the stack (a Restoration Angel with only Phantasmal Image as the target), it does so, and then, most likely, the controller opts to do nothing (may triggers with no implications on the game state – i.e. most of them – can just slide by as normal with both players ignoring it).

This isn't quite the same scenario- missing a Restoration Angel trigger when the only legal target is a Phantasmal Image is actually an infraction- something illegal happened. The fact that the trigger includes the word “may” isn't relevant, since the Image should still have been exiled no matter what.

On the other hand, choosing not to search for Shefet Monitor is perfectly legal. The trigger wasn't missed, the player resolved it legally. As such, there's no need to give the opponent the chance to put the trigger onto the stack. If there were something on the battlefield that cared about the trigger existing, then this situation would be more similar to the Restoration Angel one.

IPG
Triggered abilities are assumed to be remembered until otherwise indicated

IPG
If a triggered ability would have no impact on the game, it’s not an infraction to fail to
demonstrate awareness of it.

The quote from Toby isn't a response to any specific scenario, it's a comment as part of the update bulletin from RTR. The quoted paragraph refers to optional triggers in general. The opponent might have any number of reasons why they want an optional trigger to go on the stack. Nothing in Toby's comment at that time, or in policy now, differentiates between optional triggers and non-optional ones - if the trigger is missed, the opponent wants to put it on the stack, and too much time hasn't passed, then it can go on the stack. (This doesn't impact the penalty at all, because I can't think of any optional triggers that would be considered generally detrimental…)

Why don't we ask the opponent if he wishes to resolve the triggered ability now or during the next phase?

Additionally, this is not the correct fix. This fix is applied for delayed zone change triggers, so that a remembered zone change trigger bring in a surprise blocker mid-combat, for example. The general fix for missed triggers is that - unless one full turn has passed - the opponent chooses whether to add it to the stack or not. If they choose to add it to the stack, we add it to the stack immediately, either at the correct location if possible, or otherwise at the bottom of the stack.

Isaac, i think you are distorting Toby's words. You're using his example as the only situation when we should not assume the choice, when that's clearly not what he's saying.
The IPG stopped defining what happens with may triggers BECAUSE there are some cases when the opponent may want to put it in the stack anyway. But this change applies to every “may” trigger, not only to the ones where there's some advantage for the opponent. May triggers require a choice upon resolution, and just because an outcome can be legal if nobody notices, doesn't mean we get to assume the choice taken by the player

Originally posted by Federico Verdini:

Isaac, i think you are distorting Toby's words. You're using his example as the only situation when we should not assume the choice, when that's clearly not what he's saying.

To be fair, the example is wholly inapplicable to this situation. It's an ability that requires a target; not choosing said target leads to an illegal game state.

The given situation is self-contained. Declining to search is an identically legal game state to missing the trigger. There has been no gameplay error, as far as the rules are concerned. If there has been no gameplay error, there cannot be a missed trigger.

Edited Andrew Villarrubia (May 24, 2017 01:59:59 AM)

“Declining to search is an identically legal game state to missing the trigger”
I disagree. It isn't what happened. The player didn't decline to search
When someone misses a trigger we don't intervene, and there's nothing ilegal about it. But there is a MT anyway. If nobody calls us, nothing happens. But if we are called to the table, we should act on it

What violation of the the Comprehensive Rules has occurred?

Edited Andrew Villarrubia (May 24, 2017 02:30:29 AM)

And we're going in circles. Closed, if an “o”fficial source wants to comment they can, otherwise Toby's comment from the RTR update bulletin is quite clear.

I'll add my ‘O’fficial stance here: Toby is an ‘O’fficial source.

d:^D