You are observing a match at a Standard GPT when the following happens: Adam attacks with Firefist Striker and 2 Ash Zealot. Norbert controls 2 Sylvan Caryatid. Norbert says “Well, one of these can't block, so I block 1 of them and take 4.” Have any infractions been committed? If so, what is the error and how would we correct it?

Firefist Striker 1R
Creature - Human Soldier
2/1
Battalion — Whenever Firefist Striker and at least two other creatures attack, target creature can't block this turn.

Ash Zealot RR
Creature - Human Warrior
2/2
First strike, haste
Whenever a player casts a spell from a graveyard, Ash Zealot deals 3 damage to that player.

Sylvan Caryatid 1G
Creature - Plant
0/3
Defender, Hexproof
Tap: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool.

I don't see an infraction here. Assuming that Adam isn't misrepresenting the situation to Norbert, then the fact that Norbert messed up is not our responsibility to correct. Norbert is making an incorrect assumption, and we would be coaching if we said anything to him.

I was initially inclined to say that Norbert misrepresented derived information (the ability of one of his creatures to block), which leads to GRV/FtMGS, but maybe he just meant “I need his mana next turn and I'm worried about a combat trick, so I better not block”.

So unless something else was said, I'm not seeing an infraction either.

Norbert shortcut to the resolution of the trigger that Adam hadn't yet announced. Might not be a very good play, but nothing illegal - nothing to see, move along… ;)

d:^D

The Caryatids are hexproof and hence cant be targeted by the ability. Both hia creatures CAN in fact block

derf… RTFC for the win, eh? OK, ignore all that.

Still, no infraction, as Adam hasn't misrepresented anything; he's just allowing Norbert to make an incorrect assessment of the game. If Norbert said “so, I guess this one can't block?” and Adam didn't answer correctly, it'd be different.

What about the fact that he didn't announce the trigger? The ability has a target that has to be named and there are valid targets. Is an investigation in order to see if he purposefully missed the trigger, especially if you find out the same thing hapened last turn?

OK, he could name one of his own creatures - which can't be blocking this turn anyway - as the target.

What benefit do we provide by interrupting a game with a perfectly legal outcome, only to nitpick over an irrelevant technicality like this?

Also, weigh the potential downside: we could end up provide strategic advice, in our efforts to be heavy-handed with rules technicalities.

I'll stand by part of my original post: nothing to see, move along.

d:^D

Missing a trigger on purpose is Cheating regardless if it is beneficial or not, right? If the situation has come up previously then Adam knows that by not announcing the trigger he is gaining an advantage.

But IPG says “If a triggered ability would have no impact on the game, it’s
not an infraction to fail to demonstrate awareness of it.
” In my opinoin rendering active player's creature unable to block has no
inpact on the game and therefore does not have to be announced.


2013/12/8 Joe Reeves <forum-7372-35b7@apps.magicjudges.org>

Originally posted by Joe Reeves:

Missing a trigger on purpose is Cheating regardless if it is beneficial or not, right? If the situation has come up previously then Adam knows that by not announcing the trigger he is gaining an advantage.

From the IPG:

If a triggered ability would have no impact on the game, it’s not an infraction to fail to demonstrate awareness of it.

The point by which the player needs to demonstrate this awareness depends on the impact that the trigger would have on the game:
• A triggered ability that requires its controller to choose targets (other than ‘target opponent’), modes, or other choices made when the ability is put onto the stack: The controller must announce those choices before they next pass priority.

This reads to me that targering is an impact on the game state and nothing to imply otherwise

The section you've quoted is an indicator that if a target is required and
is not designated prior to passing priority, the trigger is considered
missed. That has nothing to do with the impact on the game state. My
understanding is that the rule is set that way so that the opponent can
know whether the trigger is missed or not based on those choices. Those
choices indicate an awareness of the trigger.

Would you consider this an infraction if the defending player had no
creatures at all and the attacking player failed to prevent one of his own
creatures from blocking?

How is he not gaining an advantage by not announcing if he knows that Norbert will interpret the situation incorrectly? This to me is the core of the question. If he has reason to believe Norbert wont block because he did not announce the trigger than he is purposefully missing a trigger to gain an advantage.

Joe, you have had explanations from a level five judge explaining why this was fine, and you have had quotes from two sections of the IPG (one explaining why this is fine from a ‘Missed Trigger’ perspective, and one explaining why it could not fall under ‘USC - Cheating’). The fact that you are not happy with any of these explanations means that this thread is now just going in circles.

I'm going to lock this thread for the time being as a result - if anyone has any questions or comments, feel free to PM me.