I was discussing an interesting scenario with another judge a few nights ago, and I wanted to see what other judges opinions on this are.

Here is the scenario:

Nancy controls a Chalice of the Void with 1 charge counter on it. Adam casts Thoughtsieze during his precombat main phase. Nancy reveals her hand to Adam, who begins to write down the cards in her hand. 5 seconds in to Adam's note taking, Nancy looks down at her Chalice of the Void, snatches her hand back up, away from Adam and says that his Thoughtsieze is countered by the Chalice trigger. Adam calls judge and you show up.

Does Adam choose a card for Nancy to discard and lose 2 life, or not?

The question is whether the Chalice trigger has been missed or not. I would think that Nancy revealing her hand does not reflect a visible change in game state, and so the trigger has not been missed. At the same time, it seems like an odd ruling because Nancy did seem to have missed her trigger and acknowledged that the Thoughtsieze had begun to resolve.

Thoughts?

i would treat it like a missed trigger, since it seems abundantly clear
that she did in fact miss the trigger, at least in the plain english sense
of the word.

Originally posted by Anthony Miller:

I would think that Nancy revealing her hand does not reflect a visible change in game state, and so the trigger has not been missed.

I would think that a triggered ability of Chalice causes change to visual game state (countering a spell and therefore putting it directly into graveyard, without resolving), unless I don't understand visual game state well yet. :) Since Nancy failed to mention it, when Adam played Thoughtsteize, I would rule that the trigger was missed and let Adam choose a card to discard. Especialy that Nancy let A look at her hand and start resolving Thoughtseize, making it clear she had forgotten about the trigger.

Edited Piotr Łopaciuk (Oct. 28, 2013 06:15:35 PM)

You can show your hand to your opponent at any time, that's not forbidden.
But if your opponent casts an spell that instructs you to reveal your hand
and you reveal it, for me it's pretty clear that you are resolving the
spell. So, you missed your trigger since you are resolving an spell that is
below the trigger on the stack and, more important in this scenario,
because that trigger would counter the spell you are resolving.

IPG states that if the trigger causes a change in the game state and the
controller must take the appropriate physical action before taking any game
actions. Showing your hand is resolving Thoughtseize so you are taking a
game action before showing awareness of your trigger that would counter
Thoughtseize and place it in your opponent's graveyard.

Adam should continue resolving the Thoughtseize as normal and Nancy should
take more care about her triggers.




2013/10/28 Piotr Łopaciuk <forum-6736-1147@apps.magicjudges.org>

Just ask Nancy one quick question:

“Why did you reveal your hand?”

So Nancy reveals her hand. I can interpret this in 2 ways:
1. She just randomly revealed her hand because she can. In this case the trigger is not missed.
2. She revealed it as part of Thoughtseize's resolution. In this case the trigger IS missed.

In this kind of situation, I just ask myself which is more plausible, or what does a reasonable person think REALLY happened. I believe that what truly happened there was that the thoughtseize was resolving, because people don't usually randomly reveal their hands and Nancy picked the cards back up in a hurry after looking at the chalice.

If I follow Milan's advice and she answers ‘Because I just enjoy revealing my hand’ she would have some very serious convincing to do in order to not get disqualified.

Originally posted by Anniek Van der Peijl:

In this kind of situation, I just ask myself which is more plausible, or what does a reasonable person think REALLY happened. I believe that what truly happened there was that the thoughtseize was resolving, because people don't usually randomly reveal their hands and Nancy picked the cards back up in a hurry after looking at the chalice.

If I follow Milan's advice and she answers ‘Because I just enjoy revealing my hand’ she would have some very serious convincing to do in order to not get disqualified.

Completely agree here. If Nancy can't provide us with any other convincing explanation, she clearly missed the trigger.

I know that when I play vintage, I do stuff like this all the time. I envision a scenario where N has Sensei's Divining Top in play, put her copy of Force of Will on top, and WANTS to show player A that she doesn't have it, so it tricks her opponent into doing something, so she can use top's second ability and then force her threat.

If she just reveals her hand whenever, her opponent might not fall for it, because obviously N has a top in play so she's functionally playing with another card in hand. BUT, if she sees the opportunity to reveal with thoughtsieze then pull a last minute trigger acknowledgment, she could be setting up a really really good bluff opportunity.

I go with not missed. The visible game state is not effected by revealing her hand. The game state must go from ‘Thoughtsieze on the stack’ to ‘Thoughtsieze in the yard’ OR they have to begin resolving the visible effect of the spell, which is the removal of a card.

If I gave this explanation to you, Anniek Van der Peijl, would it be enough serious convincing, or would you DQ me?

Edited Alex Moore (Oct. 29, 2013 09:36:24 AM)

That seems sketchy. Really sketchy.

Sent from my iPhone

I'd say that revealing your hand after your opponent casts Thoughtseize is a pretty clear indication that you're allowing that spell to resolve. I would rule that the trigger has been missed, and to pay more attention next time.

Alex, I wouldn't accept that explanation. Maybe I would if you had revealed your hand BEFORE the Thoughtseize was announced, but afterward, it doesn't really matter whether you have the Force or not, they've already committed to that spell so you're going to Force it if you have it or not.

Originally posted by Casey Brefka:

Alex, I wouldn't accept that explanation. Maybe I would if you had revealed your hand BEFORE the Thoughtseize was announced, but afterward, it doesn't really matter whether you have the Force or not, they've already committed to that spell so you're going to Force it if you have it or not.

I wouldn't fault you for this ruling, nor would I be too upset if it were ruled the chalice trigger was missed. I am very concerned that DQ is even on the table, however. I would never force the Thoughtsieze… most people in Vintage thoughtsieze right before trying to combo off or something. By revealing that I don't have force, it could easily cause the opponent to attempt it and waste, for example, their tinker or time vault that I, in turn, must counter.

Bluffing and baiting plays is a pretty big component of paper magic. I guess I just don't see a DQable offense there.

I think the DQ was for lying to the judge by saying “I just like revealing my hand” in order to get out of the missed trigger. Presuming he thought she was lying in that scenario.

Going off what Chris said - the problem wouldn't be with someone bluffing. The problem would be with someone who was not willing to explain that they were bluffing when questioned by a judge away from the table. If Nancy is in fact bluffing something, then I would expect her to say so when asked about the matter, and be able to provide an explanation of what she was trying to accomplish with her bluff while we're at it. On the flip-side, an answer like “I revealed my hand because I felt like it!” doesn't tell me Nancy was trying to bluff - what it tells me is that Nancy is trying to invent a reason for revealing her hand that leaves out her forgetting the trigger. She's claiming that she was doing something other then what actually happened in order to deceive the judge and obtain the ruling/outcome she wants - that's textbook fraud there.

Originally posted by Colleen Nelson:

Going off what Chris said - the problem wouldn't be with someone bluffing. The problem would be with someone who was not willing to explain that they were bluffing when questioned by a judge away from the table. If Nancy is in fact bluffing something, then I would expect her to say so when asked about the matter, and be able to provide an explanation of what she was trying to accomplish with her bluff while we're at it. On the flip-side, an answer like “I revealed my hand because I felt like it!” doesn't tell me Nancy was trying to bluff - what it tells me is that Nancy is trying to invent a reason for revealing her hand that leaves out her forgetting the trigger. She's claiming that she was doing something other then what actually happened in order to deceive the judge and obtain the ruling/outcome she wants - that's textbook fraud there.

Totally understand now. Thanks to both you and Chris for clearing that up.

So, in the case of the Bluff, as Alex had brought up, would the Thoughtsieze still resolve? If the judge asks the player away from the table, and they explain that they intentionally revealed their hand in order to bluff their opponent, would you accept that and allow the Chalice trigger to counter Thoughtsieze at that point or not?