I would like to seek further clarification as to why this KP scenario is ruled as a MT infraction, rather than no missed trigger at all. Apparently I was wrong, but I would like a more detailed answer as to why.

Thank you!!

I'm also of the mind set that this was not a missed trigger, regardless of the specific language used by AP. Perhaps I am wrong, but I would like to hear more about this as well. From my perspective, nothing more than a priority pass has occurred between the two players, leading to the proper resolution of Cascade.

The boiled down MT part of the scenario is this

AP: Casts Shardless Agent and says “Does Shardless Agent Resolve?”
NAP: “It resolves”

Has cascade been missed?

- There is no default tournament shortcut for skipping to a specific point on the stack.
- A cascade trigger must be acknowledged at or before the time the trigger would be forced to resolve.

1) AP has cast Shardless Agent. Tournament shortcuts say priority passes automatically to NAP.
2) NAP has priority.
3) AP asks “Does Shardless Agent resolve?” This is fundamentally a request for NAP to pass priority back.
4) NAP provides an affirmative answer: “It resolves.” Priority is passed back to AP.

The correct next thing that should happen, assuming AP doesn't miss it now, is to resolve Cascade. If AP does something to indicate that Shardless Agent enters play at this point, without mentioning Cascade, then it's a missed trigger. According to the KP scenario, the next thing that happened was AP began to resolve Cascade. I can't find any evidence in the scenario to demonstrate that AP has undoubtedly missed a Cascade trigger.

The question here is not specifically about the Missed Trigger policy, but what exactly does the communication between AP and NAP in this scenario mean for the game state?

.

Edited Gregory Farias (June 28, 2017 04:41:46 AM)

Originally posted by Nathaniel Bass:

The question here is not specifically about the Missed Trigger policy, but what exactly does the communication between AP and NAP in this scenario mean for the game state?

I want to echo this sentiment, and add that the stance that the answer takes with regard to calling this a missed trigger strikes me as a bit of “magic words.”

Consider:

AP: Casts Shardless Agent and says nothing.
ruling: no infraction

AP: Casts Shardless Agent and says “Reponses?”
ruling: no infraction

AP: Casts Shardless Agent and says “Does it resolve?”
ruling:no infraction

AP: Casts Shardless Agent and says “Does Shardless Agent resolve?”
ruling: MT

I get that the scenario really only works as intended if AP doesn't realize that they have missed their trigger, but I'm concerned that we're walking back the presumption that triggers are remembered until we have clear evidence that they have been missed, and I don't know that a slight verbal misstep like this is in keeping with that philosophy.

For example, I could easily imagine an investigation going like this:

Judge: NAP, why do you think the trigger is missed?
NAP: AP asked if Shardless Agent resolves. Shardless Agent can only resolve if the cascade has already happened.

Judge: Okay. AP, why did you ask if Shardless Agent resolves?
AP: I understand that NAP is allowed to respond with the cascade trigger on the stack, and I wanted to see if they would prematurely counter Shardless Agent before I revealed what I was cascading into. Some players think that countering Shardless Agent will stop the cascade, and I wanted to try and give NAP an opportunity to make that mistake.

In a situation like this, I'd be hard-pressed to make a convincing case that AP has missed their trigger. AP has laid out a plausible explanation for where they were in the gamestate and is attempting to resolve the trigger at the correct point in time, and NAP has seemingly acted on the assumption that the trigger was missed based on ambiguous evidence (see: “magic words”). Absent any efforts on NAP's part to clarify that the trigger was in fact missed, I think we need to side with AP.

Judge: Okay. AP, why did you ask if Shardless Agent resolves?
AP: I understand that NAP is allowed to respond with the cascade trigger on the stack, and I wanted to see if they would prematurely counter Shardless Agent before I revealed what I was cascading into. Some players think that countering Shardless Agent will stop the cascade, and I wanted to try and give NAP an opportunity to make that mistake.

That's a really difficult line for the player to run and then claim that they didn't miss the trigger. This player just explicitly said they wanted to take one game action, asked their opponent if that action was ok, with the intention to take a different game action if the opponent passed prioirty. I believe it is cheating to ask “Does Shardless Agent Resolve” with the intention of cascading if the opponent says yes.

Edited Joe Klopchic (June 26, 2017 10:18:26 PM)

“Does Shardless Agent Resolve” maibe reffers to “S.A.'s cascade” but the players has not enought knowledge of competitive…

Originally posted by Joe Klopchic:

I believe it is cheating to ask “Does Shardless Agent Resolve” with the intention of cascading if the opponent says yes.

This does not sound like cheating to me. In this instance, AP is giving NAP the opportunity to make a mistake, which is a perfectly legitimate way to play a game – players are allowed to make mistakes, and to give their opponent opportunities to make mistakes (i.e. AP has Kalitas, Traitor of Ghet and casts Anger of the Gods, then suggests “I get zombies?” even though NAP gets to decide, but might not know how it works).

Originally posted by MTR 4.1:

“A player should have an advantage due to better understanding of the options provided by the rules of the game, greater awareness of the interactions in the current game state, and superior tactical planning. Players are under no obligation to assist their opponents in playing the game.”

The only way this is cheating, in my opinion, is when AP is actually misrepresenting the game rules or the stack (and other free information). If NAP had asked to clarify where they were in the stack, AP would have to explain what he/she was hoping to do next – cascade, or simply put her creature on the battlefield and cast another creature/go to combat/etc. Because NAP did not ask to clarify, she (and the responding judge) cannot be certain that the player wasn't simply searching for AP's response before resolving cascade, i.e. “Do you have a response/counterspell for this Shardless Agent that you would like to declare before I resolve the cascade?” or “Will my Shardless Agent resolve after cascade?”

In other words:

AP: casts Shardless Agent. “Does Shardless Agent resolve?”
NAP: “What does the stack look like?”
AP: “Shardless Agent is waiting to resolve. Nothing else.” OR “Shardless Agent is on the stack. The cascade trigger is also on the stack.”

The KP scenario did not provide enough information to be certain of a ruling because it's impossible to know what AP means by her statement “Does Shardless Agent resolve?” any more than we know what she means by "Does it resolve?"

Originally posted by Andrew Keeler:

Judge: NAP, why do you think the trigger is missed?
NAP: AP asked if Shardless Agent resolves. Shardless Agent can only resolve if the cascade has already happened.

Judge: Okay. AP, why did you ask if Shardless Agent resolves?
AP: I understand that NAP is allowed to respond with the cascade trigger on the stack, and I wanted to see if they would prematurely counter Shardless Agent before I revealed what I was cascading into. Some players think that countering Shardless Agent will stop the cascade, and I wanted to try and give NAP an opportunity to make that mistake.

Those intentions would be completely fine if AP had asked “do you counter Shardless Agent?” or just “counter?” but that's not what he asked.
Here it sounds similar to the classic "Persecute on blue?“ ”resolves“ ”then I choose white" shenanigans. If AP wants to trick his opponent, he needs to do so without obscuring the game state.

Edited Toby Hazes (June 27, 2017 01:29:46 PM)

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

Here it sounds similar to the classic “Persecute on blue?“ ”resolves“ ”then I choose white” shenanigans. If AP wants to trick his opponent, he needs to do so without obscuring the game state.

On the contrary, I think that it is more similar to:

“Declare Attacks?”
“okay”
“Toolcraft Exemplar's trigger resolves, use it to crew a vehicle.”

or

Cast Ad Nauseam, hold priority, cast angel's grace. Does Ad Nauseam resolve?

Even though the details of the game state are free information, AP doesn't have to volunteer that information unless his opponent asks for it. Further, AP should be able to gain an advantage from NAP not knowing how the rules work as well as AP does, since AP does not need to help his opponent play optimally.

Originally posted by Andrew Keeler:

Even though the details of the game state are free information, AP doesn't have to volunteer that information unless his opponent asks for it. Further, AP should be able to gain an advantage from NAP not knowing how the rules work as well as AP does, since AP does not need to help his opponent play optimally.

You are right. But AP offered a shortcut to resolving the Agent.
NAP accepted. So Agent resolves.
It's the AP that doesn't know the rules.

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

Here it sounds similar to the classic "Persecute on blue?“ ”resolves“ ”then I choose white" shenanigans. If AP wants to trick his opponent, he needs to do so without obscuring the game state.

We have a tournament shortcut defined in policy for this. (MTR 4.2) No such shortcut exists to cover the KP scenario. If there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I wish to share an example I feel is more comparable. AP goes to combat and attacks. NAP says “Declare blocks?” to which AP responds “OK, go ahead.” NAP attempts to flash in a creature to block with before declaring blocks. We allow this, because NAP's seemingly specific request to go to blocks is fundamentally nothing more than a request for AP to pass priority. We have no tournament shortcut for this that would define it any other way. Why then do we treat AP's specific statement differently here? NAP has priority, and AP wants to move forward. They propose moving forward toward Shardless Agent's resolution (which would include the resolution of a Cascade trigger) and NAP agrees. It's a priority pass. AP should get to resolve Cascade.

I've been argued against on the above example due to AP controlling the flow of the turn. While this statement is generally true, it is NAP who is sitting on priority in the KP scenario, and AP simply wants to keep the game moving forward with their request.

I feel we are trying to add unintended meaning to what AP has said with no basis for doing so. Expressing a wish to resolve Shardless Agent could very well have meant they wish to resolve everything on the stack down to that point. Nothing about this statement demonstrates an intent to disregard and discard anything else that might be on the stack above it IMO. Again, we don't have a clearly defined tournament shortcut to cover this type of statement, so we must be very careful forcing meaning onto it that wasn't intended. AP's actions following this interaction should determine whether the trigger is actually missed or not, not the interaction itself.

Even though the details of the game state are free information, AP doesn't have to volunteer that information unless his opponent asks for it. Further, AP should be able to gain an advantage from NAP not knowing how the rules work as well as AP does, since AP does not need to help his opponent play optimally.

I agree with all of those statements which is why I would be fine with AP asking “resolves?” there to trick NAP into doing things. But I don't see why those statements are relevant to the discussion between “does it resolve?” and “does Shardless Agent resolve”?

We have a tournament shortcut defined in policy for this. (MTR 4.2) No such shortcut exists to cover the KP scenario. If there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Oh sure, I'm not saying they're 1-on-1 applicable, just wondering whether the philosophy behind that shortcut could be used here to reason why we hold AP to certain actions after saying certain things.

I wish to share an example I feel is more comparable. AP goes to combat and attacks. NAP says “Declare blocks?” to which AP responds “OK, go ahead.” NAP attempts to flash in a creature to block with before declaring blocks. We allow this, because NAP's seemingly specific request to go to blocks is fundamentally nothing more than a request for AP to pass priority.

That I agree with because it's the same priority pass from AP there that leads to either flashing in or blocking from NAP.

But what if there's a trigger from NAP there? NAP has a Lightmine Field, AP attacks, NAP asks “go to blocks?”

Tournament shortcuts are not the only shortcuts that exist. Players don't need to use the word “shortcut” to establish a shortcut.

If a player untaps, draws, and says "Go to my second main phase and cast Goblin Rabblemaster.“ That's offering a shortcut.

AP asking ”Does Shardless Agent Resolve“ is also offering to shortcut to it resolving. AP is saying ”the next thing I want to do is put shardless agent into play.“

If you want a really acute example, give AP a permanent with extort, and NAP 1 life. If AP casts a spell and asks ”does <spell> resolve“ and NAP says ”yes", do we just let AP pay {w/b} and end the game? NAP doesn't get to respond?

Edited Joe Klopchic (June 27, 2017 05:02:00 PM)