Originally posted by Joe Klopchic:

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

Would we also let NAP retroactively stifle a main 1 prowess trigger that is only acknowledged during damage assignment?

Originally posted by Andrew Keeler:

Originally posted by Joe Klopchic:

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

Would we also let NAP retroactively stifle a main 1 prowess trigger that is only acknowledged during damage assignment?

I really feel that this is a different scenario. A prowess trigger applied as a result of a spell cast in a previous phase in the game (not that I 100% agree with that philosophy, but that is the rule as it stands currently since attacks could be the first time a creature's power/toughness becomes pertinent game information, they could include prowess triggers and that counts as acknowledgment of said trigger).

In this scenario, the player is actively attempting to resolve a trigger that should have resolved before Shardless Agent resolves. This doesn't feel like something that OOoS would cover (ex: no other creatures in play, top card of your library is Berserk; you can't target Shardless Agent with Berserk since it doesn't resolve until the Cascade trigger (and subsequently cast spell, if any) resolves).

To me, it seems like the only way we would allow the trigger to be put on the stack is by enforcing a rewind to the point where Shardless Agent is still on the stack , which should result in the NAP's ability to respond with Stifle.

This discussion seems to be going in circles, with folks just restating the same arguments using different cards, so I'm closing it down.

If you think there's still some meat on the bone and we should re-open this thread, please use the Report button to send a message to the Forum Moderators.

I've seen a few reports, per John Brian's suggestion, of reasons we should re-open this post. I want to clear up a couple of misconceptions.

While Knowledge Pool answers can be incorrect at times - and are always corrected, clarified, redacted, etc., on those rare occasions - in general, the solution post is meant to provide guidance on how the judge community should address that situation. While I can't quite say that KP Solutions are ‘O’fficial, in the same sense as those ‘O’ answers (as defined in the forum protocol doc), they are a carefully curated set of answers.

Some seem to think that this KP answer should be discussed by the judge community at large, and a consensus needs to be reached, before we can all agree to rule this correctly (and by “correctly”, I suspect some mean “the way *I* think it should be, not what KP posted”).

Our Policy team “listens” to all of the feedback contained within these forums. However, Policy is not defined by a consensus among all judges, and - as attractive as it might seem to some - we will not seek such consensus. (I personally believe it's impossible, and I'm not alone.)

One report mentioned “judges on both sides of the issue”; there isn't an issue, and there aren't sides. There are people who disagree with the Solution posted by the Knowledge Pool team. I read your disagreement, I respect your thoughts and perspective, and - seriously - I do appreciate you sharing this. No one, and no team, within the Judge Program, is or ever can be infallible. Sharing different perspectives is valuable.

However, as John Brian correctly observed, perspectives have been shared, and Failure to Agree on Reality is neither an infraction (but it was, once upon a time!), nor a reason to keep this “discussion” open. We've reached a satisfactory end to this thread; not one which placates all of you, but one in which various viewpoints have been shared, and considered by many.

If the Policy Team feels that the KP Solution needs to be amended, that will happen, and possibly as a result of the concerns that have been raised.

d:^D

Edited John Brian McCarthy (June 30, 2017 08:49:52 PM)