Hello,

My local store has decided to start hosting Legacy night alongside normal FNM events. These events are, of course, run at Regular REL.

However, I've started to notice that many aspects of Legacy don't really work out very well when played according to the JAR document. Specifically, I'm referring to the missed trigger policy as pertains to effects like Chalice of the Void (which I'm abbreviating as COTV because typing it out repeatedly is annoying).

In Legacy at Competitive REL (which is where most players are accustomed to playing Legacy), running your 1-drops into your opponent's COTV on 1 (and hoping they miss the trigger) is considered to be a perfectly valid strategy because your opponent is able to miss the trigger. However, my understanding of the JAR is that, at Regular, your spells can be “retroactively” countered as long as it wouldn't be too disruptive to the game state. This would mean that spells like Ponder and Brainstorm wouldn't be countered, but something like DRS would be countered because “retroactively” countering it wouldn't be disruptive to the game state. Though this is a valid way of playing Magic, its not the way that most Legacy players are accustomed to playing with COTV and it contradicts the “Principle of Least Surprise” concept that seems to be the basis of Magic tournament policy.

The other side of the “missed trigger” policy seems even more problematic. As far as I can tell, JAR doesn't make a distinction between detrimental and beneficial triggers, which means that players are allowed to cast their own spells through COTV as long as the opponent doesn't notice. I understand that intentionally doing so is cheating, and a “Serious Problem”, but its very difficult to prove that someone is doing it on purpose. In particular, there are two players at my LGS that always play sloppy (not always to their advantage), and its hard to show that they were missing triggers on purpose.

This doesn't just apply to Chalice of the Void; Bridge from Below has a similar issue, where players miss the detrimental trigger on it. This happens extremely often because people facing Dredge are not always familiar with the Dredge cards, and people who actually play Dredge seem to have a tendency to not really understand all of their cards.

Also: A closer reading of the JAR indicates that intentionally missing your opponent's COTV triggers could be classified as a “Serious Problem”, which also doesn't make sense to most Legacy players. (“Intentionally and knowingly breaking or letting an opponent break game or tournament rules” is one of the examples.)

I could police games and give people verbal warnings, but those warnings have no teeth because there's no upgrade path into a GL like there is at Competitive. (And I can't just say they're cheating because, like I said, these are non-intentionally sloppy players.)

Has anyone else had experiences like this, and what was your solution?

Quickly addressing your COTV-specific concern: while the JAR recommends adding the trigger to the stack, it does not recommend backing up the game state. The trigger goes on the stack, but the spell has long since resolved.

Hi Henry.

So, there are a few things here:

A closer reading of the JAR indicates that intentionally missing your opponent's COTV triggers could be classified as a “Serious Problem”
At the end of the Missed Triggers section is the line ‘Unlike other illegal actions (which must be pointed out), players may choose whether or not to point out their opponent’s missed triggers, though we should encourage them to do so.', which clearly indicates that you are allowed to miss your opponent's triggers. This should never be a Serious Problem.

However, my understanding of the JAR is that, at Regular, your spells can be “retroactively” countered as long as it wouldn't be too disruptive to the game state.
I'm not sure where you are reading this. Again, the JAR says ‘ Otherwise, use your judgement to decide if putting the trigger on the stack now would be too disruptive’. If the spell has resolve, it's not going to be “retroactively” countered by taking this action!

As far as I can tell, JAR doesn't make a distinction between detrimental and beneficial triggers
The difference between detrimental and beneficial triggers at Competitive REL changes whether or not we give a player a Warning. As we don't give Warnings at Regular REL, this distinction is irrelevant, and so is not made. As you noted, intentionally missing your triggers is a Serious Problem and if you think that a player is doing that, you should investigate and they should be disqualified. ‘Proof’ is more or less an impossible standard to try to meet with this, so you have to use your judgement on what you think is happening based on the evidence available to you.

I could police games and give people verbal warnings, but those warnings have no teeth because there's no upgrade path into a GL like there is at Competitive.
From the General Unwanted Behaviours section: “As a judge, the priority is to educate players who exhibit these behaviors. It can be useful to reinforce this education with more stern penalties such as a Game Loss should the unwanted behaviour continue.” I appreciate that as this is in a different section it may not be natural to link it to the common issues, and I'll review that in the future. But in general, if the player is repeatedly making the same mistake despite your making repeated efforts to educate them, you have the option to issue a Game Loss for it in order to reinforce the message.

I hope that this helps!

Originally posted by Henry Cao:

and it contradicts the “Principle of Least Surprise” concept that seems to be the basis of Magic tournament policy

I'm not familiar with this principle, despite having been very involved in policy discussions over the last 10 years or so…

Of course, a quick Google search fills in the details - but I don't think we can draw a strict correlation between that principle, and the guiding philosophies behind our policy.

So, what are those philosophies? That probably deserves an extensive blog post or article, but I'll sum up a couple of important points:
* maintain the integrity of the event
* let players play the game as naturally as possible

d:^D

Originally posted by Henry Cao:

(…) and its hard to show that they were missing triggers on purpose.

I am somewhat confused by this. Are you certain that they are missing triggers on purpose? If so, you do not have to ‘prove’ anything. You are the judge, use your judgement. If you believe that a player might be cheating, he or she probably is. Even if those players only cheat sometimes, it would still constitute a Serious Problem.

If, on the other hand, you think they are just being sloppy without any intention of gaining an advantage, just remind them to clean up their play (and apply the corresponding fix, of course).