Chandra, Awakened Inferno
“+2: Each opponent gets an emblem with “At the beginning of your upkeep, this emblem deals 1 damage to you.”
First and foremost, we have our dear mythic Chandra. There are a few important points to remember when dealing with this card out in Competitive REL tournaments. To start, the emblem is both owned and controlled by the opponent who receives it (Comprehensive Rules 113.2), so it is their trigger to remember. And as always, players are NOT allowed to intentionally forget their own triggers; doing so is considered Cheating. This trigger is generally detrimental though, meaning judges should step in and fix the game state as soon as they notice it’s been missed.
Despite all of that, this trigger should never result in a Warning; we only apply the upgrade path if a player “own(s) the card responsible for the existence of the trigger”. And while NAP owns the emblem, Chandra is the actual card that’s responsible here. So to recap: judges should remind players of this trigger, and try to fix it if it’s been less than a turn cycle since it was missed. But there’s no penalty here unless its controller is Cheating, by deliberately missing it. There is a lot to remember here, but with these points you should be able to properly analyze and fix Chandra scenarios.
Edited Olivier Jansen (July 11, 2019 12:47:51 PM)
Originally posted by Scott Marshall:
You're right, Olivier, this is wonky - certainly a plausible scenario, considering both Chandra, Awakened Inferno and Mass Manipulation are seeing play. But that doesn't change the fact that this is, indeed, quite “wonky” (a non-technical variant of “corner case”).
The philosophy that guides us here, in this particular corner, is that your opponent created the situation (you having an emblem) that requires you to remember your own trigger; it's to their benefit to remind you of that trigger, and I think we can all agree that most opponents will do so - after all, that's the point of that particular line of play. But if you both honestly forget, then let's follow the same philosophy, and not issue a Warning.
d:^D
“This trigger is generally detrimental though, meaning judges should step in and fix the game state as soon as they notice it’s been missed.”
Originally posted by Isaac King:“This trigger is generally detrimental though, meaning judges should step in and fix the game state as soon as they notice it’s been missed.”
This isn't relevant to the original question, but since it was brought up I want to mention that this line is incorrect. The IPG tells us to only step in if we intend to issue a Warning- whether the trigger is detrimental or not is irrelevant. Since we wouldn't be giving a Warning here, we should not step in if we see the trigger missed unless we believe it may have been intentional.
Edited Beau (July 16, 2019 11:22:36 AM)
Originally posted by Matt Wall:
as couched by Scott's response here
Originally posted by Isaac King:Originally posted by Matt Wall:
as couched by Scott's response here
The post you link to clearly says that it is not an official answer, just Scott's opinion. I have spoken to Toby about this and his response has been that we should not step in, exactly as the IPG says. I'm sure Scott will clarify if necessary given that he's commented earlier in the thread.
Originally posted by Matt Wall:
Unless, Isaac, you can provide something quotable from Toby - blog comment, email, etc - in order for us to update our stance on this issue.
Edited Perry Kraker (July 19, 2019 11:25:33 PM)
You must be registered in order to post to this forum.