AP attacks with Kari Zev, Skyship Raider and a couple other creatures. AP says “combat, trigger” as they turn their creatures sideways.

(At this point there is a discrepancy; AP says that they “said ‘trigger’ but might not have enunciated clearly,” while NAP says that AP didn't say “trigger” at all.)

NAP assigns blocks.

AP then says “Okay, take 2?” as they put the Ragavan token onto the battlefield.

NAP calls judge at this point.

In my investigation, I found that this is the first time AP has attacked with Kari Zev, so there's no history of how these players have been handling Kari Zev.

The AIPG notes that just saying ‘trigger’ isn't sufficient acknowledgement, but I understand that isn't actually “policy” in and of itself.

In the IPG part of the definition of missed trigger is “A triggered ability that caused a change in the visible game state”. Since we've declared attackers, declared blockers, and have gone to damage before AP demonstrated a visible change in the board state I'd rule the trigger was missed an there is no damage from the monkey.

It would be also interesting to know what was the pace of the whole combat phase . Sometimes players go through such situations very quickly. Did the active player have enough time to find the token and put it on the battlefield? If so, why did he wait for the damage step (this looks very fishy)?

Originally posted by Andrew Villarrubia:

(At this point there is a discrepancy; AP says that they “said ‘trigger’ but might not have enunciated clearly,” while NAP says that AP didn't say “trigger” at all.)

This is the part that sticks out at me, and I think this is where the issue lies, because it appears there was a miscommunication for the triggered ability. AP claims he said trigger and NAP claims he never heard anything. With no prior history of how this plays out, it is quite hard to make an educated ruling. In this case I would fall back on the AIPG, which following my understanding is an official document (someone else might correct me on that). As you stated the (edit) AIPG states that just saying “trigger” without otherwise noting what triggers is not enough, because that would open the door for players to say “trigger” over and over again without having to acknowledge them. I'd rule missed trigger for the Kari Zev and remind player to be more specific about which permanent triggers.

Originally posted by Brock Ullom:

In the IPG part of the definition of missed trigger is “A triggered ability that caused a change in the visible game state”. Since we've declared attackers, declared blockers, and have gone to damage before AP demonstrated a visible change in the board state I'd rule the trigger was missed an there is no damage from the monkey.

Allthough you are right Brock, I would be careful of not applying this too literally. If for example the player says “Trigger Kari Zev” but do not put the token down on the battlefield, he has not demonstrated a visible change in the board state, but he clearly remembered the Kari Zev trigger. At that point it falls more under the representation of the board state. IPG says “If the players are playing in a way that is clear to both players, but might cause confusion to an external observer, judges are encouraged to request that the players make the situation clear, but not assess an infraction or issue any penalty.” Bottom line is : Putting down a physical representation of the monkey is not a requirement as long as the player is clear about which permanent triggered.

Edited Maxime Emond (March 16, 2018 11:05:09 PM)

Originally posted by I would be careful of not applying this too literally. If for example the player says “Trigger Kari Zev” but do not put the token down on the battlefield, he has not demonstrated a visible change in the board state, but he clearly remembered the Kari Zev trigger. At that point it falls more under the representation of the board state. IPG says “If the players are playing in a way that is clear to both players, but might cause confusion to an external observer, judges are encouraged to request that the players make the situation clear, but not assess an infraction or issue any penalty.”:

I would agree with you if there was no confusion, however since there is confusion we have to assess whether or not the trigger was missed. 405.5 “…If the stack is empty when all players pass, the current step or phase ends and the next begins.” We've gone from declare attackers (when the trigger should've been put on the stack) to declare blockers, to combat damage. Since we've gone through 2 additional steps we have to determine whether the trigger resolved or was missed, and since we have no visual indication that there was a change to the game I believe we rule this as a missed trigger.

Andrew did the attacking player declare the amount of damage they were attacking for?

I'm curious if there was a further communication discrepancy between the two players at the table.

Originally posted by Maxime Emond:

the AIPG, which following my understanding is an official document (someone else might correct me on that)

AIPG is a wonderful tool for understanding the Official document, the IPG. It is not technically Official itself.

d:^D

Originally posted by Alex Frank:

Andrew did the attacking player declare the amount of damage they were attacking for?

There was no mention of damage until after blockers had been assigned and AP said “Okay, take 2?”

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

AIPG is a wonderful tool for understanding the Official document, the IPG. It is not technically Official itself.

Thanks for the clarification Scott :)

There are two entirely unrelated questions that are being confused here.

First off, there's the discrepancy between AP's and NAP's stories about whether AP said “trigger”. You need to investigate, and eventually come to a decision about whose story you're going to treat as correct. (You'll never be able to find out 100%, at some point you just need to make a decision. Also keep in mind that there is motive for cheating here, and it is a possibility that should be taken into account.) If you determine that AP did not say “trigger”, then the trigger was missed. If you determine that AP did say “trigger”, then the second question becomes relevant:

“Does saying ‘trigger’ count as ‘acknowledging the specific trigger’?” According to the strict wording of the AIPG, the answer is no. However I don't think it was meant to be interpreted that way. It's clear to what trigger AP was referring, so I belove that qualifies as acknowledging the specific trigger, regardless of the exact words used. As always with issues like this, the stance you decide to take will hopefully depend on the exact circumstances, and there isn't necessarily a single “right” or “wrong” answer. And as Scott Marshal said, the AIPG, while incredibly helpful, is not an official source.

Referencing - https://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2015/03/23/dtk-policy-changes-for-players/

Originally posted by Toby Elliot:

Right now, the requirement is that the trigger be acknowledged some time between it triggering and having impact on the game state. That works well most of the time, but for a certain class of triggers – those in which you take some physical action on resolution – it produces a strange result. To fix this, when you have one of these triggers, it is now acknowledged by taking the action at the appropriate time.

Referencing the IPG

Originally posted by IPG:

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.

So it's not really a strict interpretation. If there is a change in the visible game state due to a trigger the player must take the appropriate action - in this case put the token onto the board, before the game moves on past the point at which the trigger would have resolved. Given the opponent has chosen blockers and it's only at that point the player puts the token in, we've moved past so it is a missed trigger.

Originally posted by Mark Brown:

If there is a change in the visible game state due to a trigger the player must take the appropriate action

My reading of this section has always been that that is the latest point at which the trigger must be acknowledged. If I attack and say “Kari Zev trigger,” but don't put the monkey onto the battlefield, surely that isn't a missed trigger; I've very clearly acknowledged it.

Edited Andrew Villarrubia (March 18, 2018 01:58:17 PM)

Originally posted by Andrew Villarrubia:

My reading of this section has always been that that is the latest point at which the trigger must be acknowledged. If I attack and say “Kari Zev trigger,” but don't put the monkey onto the battlefield, surely that isn't a missed trigger; I've very clearly acknowledged it.

You are correct, they must acknowledge the specific trigger or take the physical action. In the scenario presented neither happened.