I know there's been a lot of questions asked about this card, but this came up in our last Modern FNM and a lot of the players are interested in a Modern GPT.

AP has Jeskai Ascendancy on the battlefield and casts Serum Visions. AP untaps all creatures he/she controls, draws a card, discards a card, then draws a card, without announcing any triggers. The issue is the player did not announce the looting trigger with a cantrip on the stack (Ascendancy is a “may” trigger). How do we address this situation? I've looked at the surrounding rules and policies, and I'm unsure whether this is GRV, MT, or DEC.

Additionally, after discussing this with a couple of local judges, we guessed the proper way to play this scenario was as follows: “Trigger. Trigger. tap all my mana dorks. untap my creatures. I wish to use the loot.” {draw a card. discard a card.} resolving serum visions {draw a card. scry 2}"

So what happens in all this is:
1) Cast Serum Visions.
2) Put the loot trigger on the stack.
3) Put the untap trigger on the stack.
4) Untap the creatures.
5) Resolve the looting ability.
6) Declare you're using the loot ability.
7) Actually draw and discard for the loot ability.
8) Resolve Serum Visions.

Saying all of this every time you cast a cantrip adds a significant amount of time to the combo turn, making it take a similar amount of time to say, pre-ban Eggs. At what point is this Slow Play? In my understanding, there is a very fine line the Ascendancy Storm player must walk between properly announcing all triggers and playing quickly enough to avoid Slow Play warnings, in which a single out-of-order sequence or failure to announce or properly resolve a trigger could potentially result in a Game Loss.

Edited Joshua Deming (Oct. 10, 2014 08:02:01 AM)

I don't see the issue here, unless NAP wants to respond to the triggers, or the Serum Visions, or both? If so, then there's some burden on NAP to say “I'm going to respond to …”, and also some burden on AP to pause to allow NAP to respond.

However, what you described was - almost - the correct resolution of everything. (You didn't mention whether or not AP performed the Scry 2 from Serum Visions.)

d:^D

Thanks for the quick reply. The issue is the loot is optional, and it's impossible to distinguish them by just drawing a card whether the loot is happening or not. Let's say Serum Visions is cast and the player doesn't announce the trigger. He could draw the card, then depending on what it is, either discard it to loot, then draw for Serum Visions and scry 2, or draw the card then just scry 2 and not loot. There's a lot of potential for cheating here. For instance, you could cast Serum Visions, see Treasure Cruise, and “pretend” you missed your trigger. That's one situation. This is why I feel it's really important to actually announce whether the loot is taking place before the card is drawn.

Edited Joshua Deming (Oct. 10, 2014 08:26:14 AM)

I don't see anything in here that would constitute slow play - as long as the player is conducting these actions at a reasonable pace and is actually advancing the game state, doing a lot of stuff in a turn isn't slow play. If the player is taking an action or a batch of actions with an unreasonable amount of delay between them, that's slow play. Remember to also watch the opponent here for slow play - if he or she is tanking in response to every trigger with nothing relevant in hand, I'm likely to ask him or her to speed it up a little.

I'll also say, as someone who's playing the deck right now (Jeskai Ascendancy has all my favorite words: “non-creature spell” and “draw a card”), I've created “trigger tokens” by writing “Loot” and “Untap” on the backs of tip cards, which I put on the stack on top of each spell in the order that I'm stacking them - helps opponents to understand what's going on, and keeps us from forgetting to resolve the actual spell after all that looting and untapping.

Originally posted by John Brian McCarthy:

I'll also say, as someone who's playing the deck right now (Jeskai Ascendancy has all my favorite words: “non-creature spell” and “draw a card”), I've created “trigger tokens” by writing “Loot” and “Untap” on the backs of tip cards, which I put on the stack on top of each spell in the order that I'm stacking them - helps opponents to understand what's going on, and keeps us from forgetting to resolve the actual spell after all that looting and untapping.

This. I am a huge fan of making tokens to represent abilities on the stack. I also recommend getting foil Pokémon energy cards to help keep track of how much of what color mana you have in pool. (That's what I use for Eggs.)

As for the loot trigger, I would either have the players either establish a shortcut where it is assumed that they are always looting, or announce if they are looting every time. It is a very abusable trigger if they do not announce their intentions, though I suspect it would be pretty easy to tell if they were cheating (if they stop to think after drawing the first card and then decide to scry, they were likely deciding if they wanted to loot or not).

If they do not have a shortcut established and do not announce anything, can we assume that they are not looting per the rules on may triggered abilities in the IPG?

Originally posted by Dan Milavitz:

As for the loot trigger, I would either have the players either establish a shortcut where it is assumed that they are always looting, or announce if they are looting every time. It is a very abusable trigger if they do not announce their intentions, though I suspect it would be pretty easy to tell if they were cheating (if they stop to think after drawing the first card and then decide to scry, they were likely deciding if they wanted to loot or not).

If they do not have a shortcut established and do not announce anything, can we assume that they are not looting per the rules on may triggered abilities in the IPG?

The Ascendancy player doesn't need to decide whether they are looting until the trigger actually resolves. At that point, if they draw a card, they're looting. If they don't draw a card, they aren't (modulo OoOS). In either case, there is no need to establish a shortcut.

Oren: the problem is that commonly the stack looks a lot like:
loot?
draw

So the opponent doesn't know if they have chosen to loot or not till the
player announces it or discards.

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Oren Firestein <
forum-13153-488d@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

> *Dan Milavitz*
> As for the loot trigger, I would either have the players either establish
> a shortcut where it is assumed that they are always looting, or announce if
> they are looting every time. It is a very abusable trigger if they do not
> announce their intentions, though I suspect it would be pretty easy to tell
> if they were cheating (if they stop to think after drawing the first card
> and then decide to scry, they were likely deciding if they wanted to loot
> or not).
>
> If they do not have a shortcut established and do not announce anything,
> can we assume that they are not looting per the rules on may triggered
> abilities in the IPG?
>
>
> The Ascendancy player doesn't need to decide whether they are looting
> until the trigger actually resolves. At that point, if they draw a card,
> they're looting. If they don't draw a card, they aren't (modulo OoOS). In
> either case, there is no need to establish a shortcut.
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view
> and respond to this message on the web at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/84708/
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/13153/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/13153/?onsite=yes
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/
>
>


–
Gareth Pye
Level 2 Judge, Melbourne, Australia
Australian MTG Forum: mtgau.com
gareth@cerberos.id.au - www.rockpaperdynamite.wordpress.com
“Dear God, I would like to file a bug report”

Originally posted by Gareth Pye:

The opponent doesn't know if they have chosen to loot or not till the
player announces it or discards.

This is the core issue.

If the player doesn't say anything about choosing not to loot and they pick
up a card I'd feel inclined to stick to looting. They haven't given us any
indication that they have forgotten the trigger or are choosing to not loot.

If the next thing they do is discard, they are looting. If the next thing they do is scry 2, they are resolving serum visions. Once that happens the NAP knows where the game state is. If the NAP needs to respond within that window, they need to say so. This may remind AP of the loot trigger if they've forgotten it. That's just a fact of life.

I might be wrong here but from the IPG 2.1:

“A triggered ability triggers, but the player controlling the ability doesn’t demonstrate awareness of the trigger’s existence the first time that it would affect the game in a visible fashion.

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 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 make it clear what the action taken or choice made is before taking any game actions (such as casting a sorcery spell or explicitly moving to the next step or phase) that can be taken only after the triggered ability should have resolved. Note that casting an instant spell or activating an ability doesn’t mean a triggered ability has been forgotten, as it could still be on the stack. ”

You only have to display awareness by the time it affects the game in a visible fashion.

Thus you don't have to announce the trigger, you can just draw and if you discard you have taken the “appropriate physical action”, if you don't you're drawing a card as an effect of the spell (Ascendancy Storm pretty much just runs dorks and cantrips).

If the player draws, doesn't discard, then draws a card - then I'd say we're in GPE-DEC territory.

If players have to announce, trigger, trigger every time - you're going to run into time issues.

Whether the opponent knows if the draw is for the trigger or the spell is not an issue. It's the same as an attacking Qasali Pridemage. Under current trigger rules, the opponent doesn't have the right to assume triggers are forgotten.

Potential for cheating is a bigger issue, but like Dark Confidant that would mean investigating if he forgets his triggers more often.

I am not even a little teeny tiny bit worried about this.

First off, consider what has to be happening in order for this to even begin to be a concern: the only cantrip I'm seeing in Modern Ascendancy lists which has the card draw as the first step of resolution (and thus the only card which can create ambiguity as to whether the draw is for the cantrip or for the Ascendancy trigger) is Serum Visions. So right off the bat we're talking about something that's only even possible when the very first spell cast post-Ascendancy is exactly Serum Visions, since with any other spell it's not an issue, and at any other time a Serum Visions is cast it's overwhelmingly likely that there will already be an established pattern of shortcut behavior we can refer to from previous cantrips.

Second, consider that the alleged avenue of cheating here is seeing the card before deciding whether it's going to be the card for the Ascendancy trigger or if it's the card for Serum Visions, with a decision not to loot for Ascendancy.

Actually pulling that off is more difficult than people are assuming. For one thing, it's going to be a bit tricky to do this in a convincing way that doesn't also involve missing the separate untap-and-+1/+1 trigger. And missing that trigger can straight up fizzle the combo, so that's an awfully big risk to take.

But it's nothing compared to the risk of getting DQ'd for what would be a pretty obvious cheat. If somebody's been consistently looting, and then suddenly chooses not to in the one and only possible case where ambiguity about whether they've done it gives an opportunity for advantage, well, that's going to draw all kinds of attention from the folks in the judge uniforms.

Finally, the specific in-game advantage to be gained from the cheat – of not having to discard a card in a situation when you probably want to keep everything and try again on the next cantrip, and just need the free “peek” to confirm it – is so much smaller than things we already know to be non-problems (like Dark Confidant, as mentioned above) that I have a hard time believing this one's worth losing any time or sleep over.

What James Bennett said, absolutely. (And thanks for saving me 1000 words, sir!)(err, only 380 words … thanks, anyway!)

d:^D

It is impossible to fill all the holes in our policy, and this may be one of those cases. But I feel that this card is going to see a lot of play, and it'll help for us to discuss it a little more to bring awareness of some issues surrounding the deck.

Originally posted by James Bennett:

the only cantrip I'm seeing in Modern Ascendancy lists which has the card draw as the first step of resolution (and thus the only card which can create ambiguity as to whether the draw is for the cantrip or for the Ascendancy trigger) is Serum Visions

1) Serum Visions
2) Crimson Wisps
3) Gitaxian Probe (when a probe has already been cast, or an opponent's hand is empty)
4) Treasure Cruise (the 2nd and 3rd steps also happen to be “Draw a Card”)

Originally posted by James Bennett:

and at any other time a Serum Visions is cast it's overwhelmingly likely that there will already be an established pattern of shortcut behavior we can refer to from previous cantrips.

There might be a pattern that's helpful to us. But players are well known to be less verbally explicit than judges like (or expect). Think about life totals discrepancies despite the MTR explicitly saying that players need to verbally announce changes. Think about the old trigger policy that required explicitly announcing exalted and how it was changed because so seldom did players actually do that. If the player, for the first 4 cantrips, taps the Ascendancy and says “loot”, then yes we have a clear pattern. But I don't see much help if the player has no obvious physical indication, and just says “draw” (or the more likely case: doesn't say anything at all)

Originally posted by James Bennett:

Second, consider that the alleged avenue of cheating here is seeing the card before deciding whether it's going to be the card for the Ascendancy trigger or if it's the card for Serum Visions, with a decision not to loot for Ascendancy.

Actually pulling that off is more difficult than people are assuming. For one thing, it's going to be a bit tricky to do this in a convincing way that doesn't also involve missing the separate untap-and-+1/+1 trigger. And missing that trigger can straight up fizzle the combo, so that's an awfully big risk to take.

I think the likeliest scenario is “All my cards are good, I don't want to loot, but if I draw a land or other dead card then I'll just bin it real quick”

I don't think it's difficult to
Cast cantrip
Untap all my creatures
Draw a card (and if it's a land then insta-bin it and draw another card).

Can you elaborate?

Originally posted by James Bennett:

But it's nothing compared to the risk of getting DQ'd for what would be a pretty obvious cheat. If somebody's been consistently looting, and then suddenly chooses not to in the one and only possible case where ambiguity about whether they've done it gives an opportunity for advantage, well, that's going to draw all kinds of attention from the folks in the judge uniforms.

But that's the very nature of the deck. It cantrips and loots a LOT. It's very natural to find yourself in a situation where you don't want to loot (but if the next card is garbage, then yes you want to bin it). You're then basically taking “decides not to loot”+“not verbally explicit enough”=fishy. See prior point about players not communicating like we'd prefer.

Originally posted by James Bennett:

Finally, the specific in-game advantage to be gained from the cheat – of not having to discard a card in a situation when you probably want to keep everything and try again on the next cantrip, and just need the free “peek” to confirm it – is so much smaller than things we already know to be non-problems (like Dark Confidant, as mentioned above) that I have a hard time believing this one's worth losing any time or sleep over.

Toby Hayes
Potential for cheating is a bigger issue, but like Dark Confidant that would mean investigating if he forgets his triggers more often.

The Dark Confidant cheat involves breaking the rules of the game. Even though we don't give warnings for missing that trigger, it is still a clearly visible violation of the CR. Abusing ambiguity by silently (and retroactively) making non-visible choices is not.

So… a cheat that is less critical to the game, but vastly more difficult to detect.

Gareth Pye
If the player doesn't say anything about choosing not to loot and they pick
up a card I'd feel inclined to stick to looting. They haven't given us any
indication that they have forgotten the trigger or are choosing to not loot.

This would ‘solve the problem’ (as small a problem as it is). As would the reverse (assume you're not looting unless you specify).



Another ‘fix’ is to just leave this to the opponents. Tell players that they should request of their opponents a verbal “loot” prior to looting for Ascendancy. Of course … that's not something they can demand, and it still doesn't give us a good fix when something goes wrong…
.
.
Because … this talk of theory should come with a reminder that after 9 or more rounds in a day, towards the end of game 3, players are mentally exhausted and do silly things (add to that the fact that some players play complicated combo decks without adequate preparation).



Another odd quirk to this is how to deal with players who quite honestly forget about the loot, but then remember it. With the current version of the missed trigger policy, we don't penalize players for being truthful about honestly forgetting their trigger provided the player remembers (and verbalizes) it in time. The gigantic wrinkle (causing the whole problem), is that in this case it's a “may”, so we can't completely derive our answer from other missed trigger discussions.

So…. I present alternate non-cheating scenario ('B'): Player casts cantrip, untaps, draws card, has completely fizzled, looks dejected, then says “OOH! wait! I get to loot”. Assume no cheats, do you allow the loot?



Open questions I'm interested in:
1) Answer to alternate-non-cheating scenario ('B')
2) What ‘investigation’ questions might someone ask to try to determine if the player was cheating? (Assume there's no useful precedents that are set)
3) What policy or practical problems are there with Gareth's suggested rule, or the reverse-rule? Are there good similar situations that we draw inspiration from? (Something more specific than general missed trigger policy, or most non-'may' triggers)
4) James Why do you say that pulling off the cheat convincingly means missing the untap?