If a player misses the trigger for Aurelia, Exemplar of Justice, how would you handle it?

The JAR says that for “may” triggers, you just assume the player chose not to do the thing and you instruct the players to play on. Aurelia does not have a “may” trigger. But philosophically, her “up to one” creature fills a similar niche: it seems reasonable to me that, rather than working out how disruptive the trigger would be to the game state, we simply assume the player chose no targets. Is that a reasonable interpretation of the text?

I’d look at the game state. If blocks have been declared I would not put it on the stack. If we’re still in the Declare Attackers step I see no problem in putting it on the stack.

Educate and remind the player to play more carefully and to remember their triggers.

Edited Lars Harald Nordli (Sept. 24, 2018 07:53:45 AM)

Eli, your question is phrased in such a way that it answers itself: “If a player misses the trigger…” - well, then, they missed it.

If they don't name a target before allowing their opponent to declare blockers - i.e., they don't stop them and say “wait, I'm thinking” - then it's clear they've missed the trigger, as they've failed to show any awareness before the game moves beyond the point they have to acknowledge it - namely, when they choose a target.

Since this is clearly not a generally detrimental trigger, we really don't care about targets. (OK, corner case: their only other creature is a phantom that gets sacrificed when targeted … nah, we still don't care, because choosing not to target that phantom is still an option.)

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Since this is clearly not a generally detrimental trigger,

Does “generally detrimental” exist as a concept in Regular REL?

First off, I think there may have been some confusion as to what the question is. Aurelia has two triggered abilities that work very differently. I'm going to assume that Eli is referring to the second ability, the one that triggers at the beginning of combat. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

The reason that we assume the player chose not to perform the action for “may” triggers is that it reflects a more fundamental philosophy that exists at all RELs: If there are multiple interpretations of an action, one of which is legal and one of which is illegal, we generally assume that what happened was legal unless there's a compelling reason not to. Even though the trigger doesn't use the word “may”, I believe it falls under the same philosophy, and would most likely tell the player that they chose 0 targets.

The JAR doesn't mention “generally detrimental” explicitly, but I think it's a useful guideline when determining whether putting the trigger onto the stack now would be “too disruptive”.

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

Does “generally detrimental” exist as a concept in Regular REL?

It still guides us on when to step in, and when to leave things as is.

(But I confess, I missed the fact we're in Regular REL land…)(not that it changes anything)

d:^D

There is a relevant question for Reg REL though, which Scott's not addressed - which is when the player remembers it after the point it's been missed. I hadn't thought the question was about us stepping in, but about when the player calls us.

At Comp we have no issue - the opponent is clearly not going to put it on the stack. At Reg we often try and ensure the player gets the trigger if it's possible. We have a specific exception for ‘May’, but nothing up ‘up to N’ targets. You could consider that philosophically the same as ‘may’, but I don't think that's in any way a given - it would be very reasonable to try and give the player the trigger when possible. If it's before blocks I think that's reasonable with the only question being about what happens if it's white and it's after attackers so the creature is already tapped. I think in that case leaving it tapped is fine (we're putting it on the stack now, not partial fixing it having resolved). I wouldn't object to a deviation that untapped it either - if you're trying to establish a very new-player-friendly atmosphere at your event, for example.

Revisiting this because of the update bulletin. Now that Teferi is “up to” two lands, the same question applies.

Under Teferi's original wording, if we missed the trigger, we'd put it on the stack if it's not “too disruptive.” I'd probably give the player the chance to untap lands on their opponents turn, unless something was on the stack right then.

Now, I'd be tempted to apply the same logic as with Aurelia and with “may” triggers: assume that the player chose 0 for the “up to” two lands. This seems philosophically consistent with what the JAR wants to do. But it's not what the JAR actually says, and I don't want to read too far into a policy document, even one as loose and casual at the JAR.

Thoughts?