Would we treat this the same way if AP casts a card with a non-cascade cast trigger, say Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger?
“Does Ulamog resolve?”
“Yes.”
“Okay, I'll exile these two permanents.”
(edit: Thanks Nathaniel Bass for clarification below)

I'm seeing argument that AP is just using rules to their advantage per MTR 4.1, but it makes more sense that NAP would be capitalizing on the fact that AP is past their trigger by allowing the spell to resolve after the trigger has been missed. If you're verbally asking to resolve the spell itself I would suggest that you've moved past your cast triggers.

Edited Kade Goforth (June 27, 2017 01:31:57 PM)

Originally posted by Kade Goforth:

Would we treat this the same way if AP casts a card with a non-cascade cast trigger, say Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger?

You're comparing a targeted triggered ability, which requires choices to be made before passing priority, with a triggered ability that has no visible effect on the game state until it resolves. These two types of triggers have different timings for when they must be acknowledged to not be missed.

Originally posted by Joe Klopchic:

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.“

Why would it be unreasonable for AP to propose the shortcut to shardless agent resolving and mean “I'm going to completely resolve the stack as it exists now (cascade trigger and then shardless agent) and you will have no responses.” Absent a defined shortcut, both understandings of the shortcut that AP is proposing seem perfectly reasonable.

Originally posted by Andrew Keeler:

Why would it be unreasonable for AP to propose the shortcut to shardless agent resolving and mean “I'm going to completely resolve the stack as it exists now (cascade trigger and then shardless agent) and you will have no responses.” Absent a defined shortcut, both understandings of the shortcut that AP is proposing seem perfectly reasonable.

This is my problem. I play a lot of Magic at Competitive REL, and as a player in NAP's shoes, this is exactly how I would have interpreted APs statement to me, until they indisputably proved otherwise by not Cascading as their next action. NAP should not make assumptions about whether AP missed the trigger or not until proved otherwise, and the statement alone is not clear enough to me to prove it. In cases where this is uncertain, should the player controlling the trigger not be given the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise?

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

Agreed. The problem is that APs statement has two potential interpretations, both of which seem valid to me. As NAP in this example, I certainly would not leap to the assumption that AP is disregarding the trigger in making the statement, so I have a hard time accepting that as a judge that we should rule against them in this case. This KP answer surprised me because I have a fundamentally different interpretation of what AP meant by what was said. Perhaps my interpretation of AP's statement is wrong, but it's how I would have personally understood it as a player in that scenario.

If he wants to “completely resolve the stack as it exists now”, that's what
he should have said
We (and the opponent) can only understand his intentions by what he
actually said, not what he may have tried to imply. The proposed shortcut
is clear, there's no ambiguity in the meaning of the phrase “does shardless
agent resolve?” nor any hint of the existence of the trigger whatsoever

2017-06-27 13:57 GMT-03:00 Andrew Keeler <

The shortcut is clear about where the game ends up, but proposing a shortcut is not the point at which a trigger would have a visible effect.

It is NAP's assumpion that the proposed shortcut requires that Shardless Agent is the only object on the stack. Nothing that AP has said requires this to be the case. By analogy, if a player casts Ad Nauseam, holds priority and casts Angel's Grace, and then asks, “Does Ad Nauseam resolve?” do we issue a GRV for not resolving Angel's grace first? Do we DQ them for cheating because their opponent might incorrectly think that Angel's Grace prevents Ad Nauseam from being countered (when AP has made no claim to that effect)?

edited to make the analogy match up with current policy

Edited Andrew Keeler (June 27, 2017 03:28:54 PM)

Why would it be unreasonable for AP to propose the shortcut to shardless agent resolving and mean “I'm going to completely resolve the stack as it exists now (cascade trigger and then shardless agent) and you will have no responses.” Absent a defined shortcut, both understandings of the shortcut that AP is proposing seem perfectly reasonable.

Because “Completely resolve the stack as it exists now” doesn't include the trigger. The trigger has not triggered if AP hasn't acknowledged it. Once again, if we accept this as not a missed trigger, does the trigger resolve immediately?

Originally posted by Joe Klopchic:

Once again, if we accept this as not a missed trigger, does the trigger resolve immediately?

I don't see a reason why it wouldn't. That's what would happen if the game were played in a technically correct manner.

AP: Shardless Agent, pass priority.
NAP: pass priority
-resolve cascade trigger, possibly casting abrupt decay
etc.

Originally posted by Joe Klopchic:

Because “Completely resolve the stack as it exists now” doesn't include the trigger. The trigger has not triggered if AP hasn't acknowledged it.

This seems like it kind of begs the question. Unless there's an official ruling that I'm not aware of, I can't think of any reason why AP's proposed shortcut requires that the stack look like this:

Originally posted by option 1:

-> NAP has priority here
Shardless Agent

and not like this:

Originally posted by option 2:

-> NAP has priority here
unacknowledged cascade trigger
Shardless Agent

Cascade, as I understand things, needs to be acknowledged by the time it resolves, as that's the point where it has a visible impact on the game. In option 2 we haven't reached that point yet, and so, unless the presence of the trigger is relevant for some other reason (say, NAP asks what objects are on the stack), I don't know of any justification for calling the trigger missed. If it's consistent with option 2 for AP to propose a shortcut to Shardless Agent's resolution, then then we can't just call the trigger missed based on the shortcut since we are supposed to assume it has been remembered until we have passed the point where it would make a visible impact on the game.

Edited Andrew Keeler (June 27, 2017 06:05:57 PM)

The way I see it, ruling this as MT seems to over-analyze a situation that would otherwise seem to be clearly answered in the IPG:

Originally posted by IPG 2.1:

“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.”

We're spending too much time slicing AP's words over “what she meant by _____” when the simple truth is that we would have to ask the player herself, and give her “the benefit of the doubt” as the annotated IPG states:

Originally posted by IPG 2.1:

“When making this determination, a lot of benefit of the doubt is given to players — they usually have to go well out of their way to show that they’ve missed a trigger.”

In so many cases we are so lenient because “english isn't their mother language”, “trigger have to be acknowledged when they become relevant” etc etc..

and in this case we are going “NO YOU MISSED THAT ONE”?

ggwp. Makes consistency so easy.

Once again, if we accept this as not a missed trigger, does the trigger resolve immediately?

I don't see a reason why it wouldn't. That's what would happen if the game were played in a technically correct manner.

So going back to my extort example, we're letting AP win the game when they didn't announce their trigger?

Originally posted by Joe Klopchic:

So going back to my extort example, we're letting AP win the game when they didn't announce their trigger?

Well, why not? Were they required to acknowledge that trigger prior to resolving it? Suppose AP hadn't said anything and NAP replied to the act of casting the spell by saying “OK it resolves”. We would let AP pay the mana and end the game even tho no prior acknowledgement was made. The extort example really isn't any different than the Shardless Agent one. The only difference is that the trigger resolving (combined with the payment of mana as it does) has the immediate impact of ending the game, which is what is supposed to happen anyway.

Edit: Fixed a typo.

Edited Nathaniel Bass (June 28, 2017 11:13:46 AM)

Given

AP taps mana, puts bloodbraid on table
NAP “that resolves”
AP ok, cascade
NAP “I want to stifle that”

I would allow NAP to stifle here.

Edit:

Why not? Because we shouldn't let players sneak through resolving abilities that they don't point out at all.

Edited Joe Klopchic (June 28, 2017 01:26:06 PM)

Originally posted by Joe Klopchic:

I would allow NAP to stifle here.

AP has no obligation to point out Cascade before it resolves. Allowing NAP to stifle this after priority passes is a takesy backsy that I would not support.

I agree with Nathaniel on this one
IPG specifically says that if NAP wants some info about the possible
existence of a trigger, he must ask or risk the chance to answer

El 28 de junio de 2017, 15:31, Nathaniel Bass <