Here's the problem for the people who want to stop the Exalted case: We're talking about derived information. Figuring out derived information correctly is a testable skill. The active player isn't obliged to point out the Exalted trigger until it has an effect. If A attacks with a 2/2 and an Exalted trigger N has two options;

1. Ask about the trigger and risk reminding A.
2. Assume A missed the trigger and risk blocking badly if A didn't.

If we create option 3 “Ask about the creature's power and then use that to decide whether the trigger was missed or not,” we shift a responsibility that has been intentionally put on N over to A. Since A doesn't know if N is aware of the trigger at all A only option is to say “figure is out yourself.” We really don't want that to be the only correct answer to any question about derived information.

Very well said, Brian!

We also don't want to encourage “word games” between players, where NAP tries to force AP into a Missed Trigger through clever wording (nor vice-versa).

d:^D

Originally posted by Brian Denmark:

Since A doesn't know if N is aware of the trigger at all A only option is to say “figure is out yourself.” We really don't want that to be the only correct answer to any question about derived information.

There is another correct answer. “3” is a very good answer.

I'd say it is the best answer for someone who wants to communicate properly and avoid “word games”.

You do not have to communicate properly. You get to say “Figure it out” if you don't want to help your opponent play the game. (I guess the correct counter-answer for NAP is now to say “Can you tell me all the events that happened since the beginning of the game”.)

Why is it now necessary to allow AP to give an answer which is patently false? If NAP asks the power of the attacking creature, AP is allowed to pretend that he is asked the question in response to the trigger to prevent “word games” by NAP?

Florian, answering “3” is the Sporting answer. Saying “2” isn't Unsporting, it's simply Competitive. Players don't have to help each other make good strategic decisions, and we aren't about to create policy to try and force that. (At Regular REL, we encourage it, but don't really require it.)

I attack with Akroan Hoplite, Boros Elite, Hero of Bladehold and you ask “how much?”; I simply say “a bunch” as I reach for my two Solider tokens. You don't know if I've remembered the Hoplite's trigger, nor if I correctly stacked my Battle Cry trigger below the Soldier tokens.

As Brian explained above, you can ask specific questions that may remind me to do things correctly, or you can make a dangerous assumption - or you can just assume I've remembered everything, and plan accordingly.

And that's exactly how we want it.

d:^D

Edited Scott Marshall (Jan. 30, 2015 09:43:57 AM)

Oh, one additional thought on that: asking “how much?” in that example is a Bad Question™; a much better question is “How are you stacking your triggers?”. (A: Hoplite, Battle Cry, Battalion (those 3 in any order), then Soldiers; Elite gets +2/+2, everything gets +1/0, then Hoplite gets +5/0; I count 18 damage. Hope you brought bandages.)

d:^D

At this juncture, I think it's worthwhile to remind judges that the vast majority of players are (or try to be) sporting nearly all the time. Even in competitive settings.

If a player has actually invoked a shortcut, apply that shortcut.

If a player has done something vaguely, sort-of, maybe like invoking a shortcut, don't apply a shortcut.

If a player has done something he could only do after a trigger resolves, he has missed the trigger.

If there's any possible way the trigger is still on the stack, he hasn't missed the trigger.

Diving much further down the rabbit hole than that is not likely to uncover anything new or applicable to actual games, played by actual players.

Joshua, while I agree that discussions tend to go too far down the rabbit hole, I do not think that it is the case here (but then, I imagine that not many rabbit holer do, so I'll stop posting on this thread).

In my view, this discussion is not about a corner case situation that becomes more and more complex to the point of unplausibility. The question is not so much “How Bad Guys can exploit the policy for their nefarious purposes?”, it is “What is the policy?” in a very mundane situation : a players attacks by saying “Attack for X” while things may happen and triggers may have been forgotten. Bad guy cases are invoked only to justify which policy should be applied in the good faith cases.

I am judging a Standard event tomorrow, and I am pretty sure that there will be a situation where a player says “Attack for 2” with a Rakshasa Deathdealer before realizing that they want to activate it, as well as one where a player will forget the second triggered ability of Goblin Rabblemaster and say “Attack for 4” with it and two Goblin tokens.

Before this thread, I would have forbidden the Rakshasa activation, and I would have ruled the trigger forgotten in the Rabblemaster activation. Now, I will rule the other way.

There is a third case that seems very plausible. A player gets attacked by Goblin Rabblemaster and two tokens, asks “How much?”, gets the answer “4” before his opponent remembers that it should be 6.

I still want to say that the trigger is forgotten here, and I do not understand the reasoning that says it is not. I have the impression that all the responsability is put on the defending player, for some reason I do not get.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Answering “3” is the Sporting answer. Saying “2” isn't Unsporting, it's simply Competitive.

I would have said that “3” was the Sporting answer, and “Figure it out” the Competitive one. If I hear “2”, my point is not that the attacking player is a cheating Cheatyface, just that he forgot his trigger and won't get it back.

In your Akroan Hoplite, Boros Elite, and Hero of Bladehold example, your answer to “How much?” is not 5, it is “a bunch”. You won't get a “Most Sporting Player” badge with this answer, but it is fine by me: I can count by myself or ask precise questions. What I do not get is why you should be allowed to say 5 and deal 18.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Asking “how much?” in that example is a Bad Question™; a much better question is “How are you stacking your triggers?”

The second question is much better. It is also very likely to remind the attacking player of the existence of said triggers, and that how they are stacked is important, something which should belong to the “good strategic decisions” category.

I get the impression that the attacker is given a lot of leeway to avoid reminding his opponent of his trigger, while the defender should be very technical if he wants to know what happened. I don't get the reason why.

Edited Florian Horn (Jan. 30, 2015 11:36:55 AM)

Originally posted by Florian Horn:

I would have forbidden the Rakshasa activation, and I would have ruled the trigger forgotten in the Rabblemaster activation. Now, I will rule the other way.

(emphasis mine)

Thank you. I understand you aren't comfortable with my Answer, but I am glad to hear that you'll respect it, and follow policy.

Perhaps a review of this, and Toby's related blogs, will help?
Toby Elliott's Missed Triggers Part 3
(If that URL isn't quite right, I apologize; corporate security blocks that site, so I can't verify…)

d:^D

Originally posted by Florian Horn:

There is a third case that seems very plausible. A player gets attacked by Goblin Rabblemaster and two tokens, asks “How much?”, gets the answer “4” before his opponent remembers that it should be 6.

I still want to say that the trigger is forgotten here, and I do not understand the reasoning that says it is not. I have the impression that all the responsability is put on the defending player, for some reason I do not get.

I think there are largely two elements at work here: One being the application of the Player Communication Policy, especially with regards to derived information (representing something incompletely versus incorrectly), and the other being a reasonable allowance for players “fixing” things themselves and us not intervening.

The former gives the attacker some slight leeway in just how much information they have to provide. And it could be argued that the player doesn't need to fully describe the total power of the attackers (e.g., reminding the opponent about Instigator Gang), or have to be truthful about future actions (e.g., the application of damage prevention from Ajani Steadfast's emblem).

The latter is just a question of how sternly an infraction may apply. If a player selects an illegal target, but immediately corrects for that mistake, it's not really an infraction. The same could be true with a trigger, and realizing the total power of the attackers is wrong. A reasonably quick correction makes it clear the trigger wasn't forgotten, so much as a momentary lapse. Hence why it's called “Missed Trigger”, not “I momentarily oopsed the trigger.”

Originally posted by Florian Horn:

I get the impression that the attacker is given a lot of leeway to avoid reminding his opponent of his trigger, while the defender should be very technical if he wants to know what happened. I don't get the reason why.

That largely falls to the second paragraph of the Philosophy section of MIPG 2.1 regarding who is responsible for what when it comes to triggered abilities. And, yes, the opponent does clearly have some responsibility for clarifying information if he or she needs that information.

Just throwing in another data point: “Attack for X” in my experience has always been a declaration of what's attacking, and never, ever a shortcut to damage, but rather, to Declare Blockers.

It's used most often in situations where triggers are relevant, like Geist of St. Traft. I would tap the card, say “Attack for 6,” and then be reaching into my deckbox for that token (I swear I had it in here, maybe it's in my bag?), but my opponent knows that she has priority to cast spells, or to go to blockers.

If I want to shortcut to damage, I'll use “take” language. “Take 4?”, for example.

How I see it is “Attack for X” is a statement regarding declared attackers while “Take X” is an assignment of damage. In a competitive or professional REL setting I think it's perfectly acceptable to say “I attack with Brimaz for 3” with an implied passing of priority. I'm only required to say what I'm attacking with and which entity is being attacked. In the case where there's only one opponent and no planeswalkers are on the opponents board then I've done everything I need to with the one statement.

The opposing side can be looked at to help clarify on attack triggers as well. If I attack with my Hero of Iroas after my opponent has activated the +1 ability of Jace, Architect of Thought I'm not required to assume that NAP remembers his trigger. I declare “I attack with Hero for 2 at Jace”. It's not an assumption that my Heros stats won't change especially since I understand that in a moment it should only be an attack for 1 if nothing else happens.

In less words, “I attack for X” and “I attack with Y” are only declarations of what is attacking with a courtesy count of either the number of creatures or the current total power of declared attackers.

Originally posted by Steve Guillerm:

ust throwing in another data point: “Attack for X” in my experience has always been a declaration of what's attacking, and never, ever a shortcut to damage, but rather, to Declare Blockers.

Agreed. In my playgroup, “Attack for X” means “Attack, resolve all relevant triggers on the board, move to declare blockers with a total of X power in creatures attacking at that point.” Honestly, I'd be fine with adding that as one of the predefined shortcuts.

There are several opinions expressed here and even after reading all of these posts, I'm still confused as to what is and whats is not correct. Could someone please make a summary of this thread?

Uncle Scott's answers are Official, so those are the posts you are looking for.

Edited Wearn Chong (Feb. 7, 2015 04:41:21 AM)

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

I attack with Akroan Hoplite, Boros Elite, Hero of Bladehold and you ask “how much?”; I simply say “a bunch” as I reach for my two Solider tokens. You don't know if I've remembered the Hoplite's trigger, nor if I correctly stacked my Battle Cry trigger below the Soldier tokens.

TIL you don't need to announce how you stack triggers. That seems quite scary to me.