Hey guys.
I recently wrote this: http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/article.asp?ID=10897
I received a lot of feedback from players but not so much from judges. I figured that posting it here would generate some good discussion.
Specifically, my biggest concern is the Pyreheart Wolf thing (Toby addressed the other stuff in his recent blog).
For those of you who didn't read…
Player A attacks with Pyreheart Wolf onto an empty board. Player B casts Restoration Angel. Player A says “you know that can't block, right?” Player B states that Player A missed the trigger because he didn't announce it when it attacked. The floor judge ruled that Player A did miss the trigger because he said nothing, passed priority, and allowed Player B to cast a spell. This ruling was upheld by the head judge.

Was the trigger missed? It doesn't seem fair for player A to have to announce the trigger when there are no creatures in play. However, when the trigger became relevant, he showed awareness of it immediately.

Any feedback on that or the article itself is appreciated.
Thanks!
Melissa DeTora
L2, Providence, RI, USA

On Thu Dec 13 15:55, Melissa DeTora wrote:
> I recently wrote this: http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/article.asp?ID=10897
> I received a lot of feedback from players but not so much from judges. I figured that posting it here would generate some good discussion.
> Specifically, my biggest concern is the Pyreheart Wolf thing (Toby addressed the other stuff in his recent blog).
> For those of you who didn't read…
> Player A attacks with Pyreheart Wolf onto an empty board. Player B casts Restoration Angel. Player A says “you know that can't block, right?” Player B states that Player A missed the trigger because he didn't announce it when it attacked. The floor judge ruled that Player A did miss the trigger because he said nothing, passed priority, and allowed Player B to cast a spell. This ruling was upheld by the head judge.
>
> Was the trigger missed? It doesn't seem fair for player A to have to announce the trigger when there are no creatures in play. However, when the trigger became relevant, he showed awareness of it immediately.

Hi Melissa,

This subject certainly has had a lot of discussion recently what with you, Jackie and Owen all writing about it.

Two things I want to comment on with your scenario. Firstly, I'm not sure it's clear from the description that the trigger was missed:

From IPG2.1:

A trigger is considered missed once the controller of the trigger has taken an action after the point at which a trigger
should have resolved

I think it's quite hard for the NAP to establish that they are passing _with an empty stack_. It's not past the point at which the trigger should have resolved until they enter the declare blockers step without very careful questions and answers.

Secondly, you say it's not fair for them to have to annouce the trigger when there are no creature in play. What about the other player. Is it fair that they have to make the decision about whether or not to flash their angel in to block without knowing whether the trigger has been missed or not?

Matt

There was recently a cranialinsertion article, which included a Q and A about demonstrating awareness of triggers: http://www.cranialinsertion.com/article/702. I'll quote the relevant question here:

Q: Some people are saying that for Competitive events you have to verbally announce all triggers, others are saying that noting them in other ways is good enough. Help!

A: You do not need to verbally announce your triggers. You only need to acknowledge them in some way - it's easier for Head Judges making brief announcements to say “announce your triggers,” and that's always the clearest course of action, but demonstrating that you know about the trigger is enough. Some examples:

* Attack with Geist of Saint Traft and say “Swing for 6.” That's fine.
* Attack with Geist of Saint Traft and pick up an Angel token. That's fine.
* Cast Tendrils of Agony with a lethal storm count and say “Game?” That's fine.
* Opponent attacks with a 3/3 after you've activated Jace, Architect of Thought's first ability. You say “okay, I take 2.” That's fine.


The important thing to remember, players and judges both, is that the policy isn't about “say the magic word and get your trigger” - it's about showing in some way that you have not forgotten about the trigger.

The Jace example is the most interesting to me, because you're demonstrating awareness of a trigger after the point which it would have resolved, and the author states that this is a valid shortcut.

Anyways, moving onto your question, I might say that if there was no verbal cue from any player regarding the wolf's trigger (which is probably the case, as NAP didn't want to tip his opponent off), and the angel was cast in the declare attackers step, that AP did not miss the trigger, as we have not yet moved past the point where it would have resolved.

Edited Erik Halverson (Dec. 13, 2012 05:35:13 PM)

On Thu Dec 13 16:29, Erik Halverson wrote:
> I might say that if there was no verbal cue from any player regarding the wolf's trigger (which is probably the case, as NAP didn't want to tip his opponent off), and the angel was cast in the declare attackers step, that AP did not miss the trigger, as we have not yet moved past the point where it would have resolved.
>
This moves the problem from the AP to the NAP. If I'm the NAP here and I want to flash in and block with Angel if my opponent has missed the trigger, but wait until I can ambush it with 2 creatures if they have not, what should I do?

Matt

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

This moves the problem from the AP to the NAP. If I'm the NAP here and I want to flash in and block with Angel if my opponent has missed the trigger, but wait until I can ambush it with 2 creatures if they have not, what should I do?

Clarify the game state by asking questions. Yes, it may remind the AP of this trigger, that just how it's going to have to work. In most situations we have clear policy on how to tell if a trigger has been missed, this one is not as clear. That may be unfortunate, but our game is too big and complex to have simple policy rules we all understand that can apply perfectly to all situations.

Also we want players to play the game of Magic and not the game of ‘how can I manipulate necessary tournament rules to gain an advantage.’

What is your suggestion for improvement, keeping in mind it has to handle
more cases than just Pyreheart Wolf?

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

This moves the problem from the AP to the NAP. If I'm the NAP here and I want to flash in and block with Angel if my opponent has missed the trigger, but wait until I can ambush it with 2 creatures if they have not, what should I do?

Matt

There's really no choice but to clarify where we are in the stack.

The way the current IPG is written, there's a little ambiguity for when a trigger is missed or not, especially when players take shortcuts in the game (which in itself, is necessary). However, perhaps that ambiguity serves a useful purpose, as it allows human beings to play a game of Magic with a little breathing room, and not get caught up in a war of technicalities.

Originally posted by Ryan Rubley:

there is still room for further improvement, and some of us hope that comes soon.

Fear not, it's under constant consideration.

Let me propose a thought - nothing more, just a thought - and tell me what's wrong with it, and why.
“Once you've passed priority, or given the clear impression that you're passing priority, you've missed the opportunity to acknowledge triggers.”

So, attacking with Pyreheart and looking to your opponent for a reaction would constitute an implied passing of priority, with no clear acknowledgment of the Wolf's trigger.

Getting a Craterhoof on the battlefield - hard-cast or animated - and attacking with it is moving past the point where a trigger should resolve, and you didn't indicate that trigger - too late.

To me, the elephant in this room is the new behavior required of players. Is that the only real problem?

And, as CJ said - suggestions are always considered.

d:^D

At the end of the day, the chasm between Regular REL players and Competitive REL players has just widened with this new policy. Informing them and reminding them regularly to announce their triggers on FNM nights “just in case you play in GPTs and higher because the rules have been updated” has become quite commonplace.

I do feel that cards still do what they say they do, except that there is now a hidden clause for triggers to happen, "When , <if you indicate that the following will happen, then> ".

From what I see, forgetting triggers with the new policy resulting in a loss of its benefits is just like forgetting to switch on the fire after putting a pot of water to boil on a stove.

Sure, the stove's purpose is to cook/boil/heat things up when you put something on it to do so, but if you forget the middle step of switching on the fire (showing awareness of the trigger), you don't get anything cooked or boiled. It's your loss. I don't think it's logical to pin the blame on your neighbour for forgetting to switch on the fire when you put the pot on.

But that's just how I picture the new policy.

Edited Andrew Teo (Dec. 13, 2012 06:03:32 PM)

I feel like the NAP should be able to say, “Passing priority?” or in other words, “You're not doing anything else?” and move forward safely knowing that they're not going to put anything else on the stack. However, the “after the point at which it should have resolved” throws a monkey wrench into that.

Perhaps it could be argued that “should have resolved” means it should have gone on the stack, resolved and with an empty stack Resto angel has been cast. Or something along those lines.

On Thu Dec 13 16:59, Scott Marshall wrote:
> And, as CJ said - suggestions are always considered.

I actually think the simplest answer _to these issues_ is to return to automatic handling of no-visual-effect triggers.

Of course, that's not without its own problems. It does make some triggers oddly differently handled, but I think this is compensated for by being much more natural to the game flow. Having the ‘obvious’ result be true is usually a benefit, even if it's more complex in theory.

The other problem is whether we want the reverse gotcha of people not being informed of their opponents triggers and so having no chance to be aware of them. This is something we've had for a while in the previous policy (and pre-lapsing) and hasn't caused vocal complaints - at least not recently. When people have been ‘got’ by not seeing NVE triggers they usually respond with “oh, well, I should have read the card” or similar, whereas when people get “got” by not announcing the Jace delayed trigger they're getting upset with it.

Which of these situations is better is left as an exercise for the reader. I'll just say that the change away from NVE triggers would seem to be to protect newer players who aren't aware of what their opponents cards do. However, the venue where most of these players are (Regular events) aren't run with the new policy and at FNM noone is announcing things like exalted, because they don't have to, so I'm not sure it's actually helping where it's needed.

Matt

Originally posted by Cj Shrader:

What is your suggestion for improvement

Always assume “invisible” triggers to have resolved and leave every other missed trigger (whether it still goes on stack or not) to the opponent if caught immediately. Clean and simple (I believe).

@ Melissa: I actually read your article last night; liked it better than most.

Edited Bernd Buldt (Dec. 13, 2012 06:20:14 PM)

So let's say I'm Billy Player and the policy is “you must announce all your triggers except the ‘obvious’ (no visual effect)” ones.

I attack with my Exalted guy and don't say anything, because I know that's ok. So far so good!

I attack with my Geist but don't put a token down or really acknowledge it. After you do your blocks I say “Ok you take 6.” The judge says they forgot it, but Billy Player says that they don't have to state obvious triggers. Billy Player just admitted to being aware of his own “missed” trigger yet not saying anything about it because they didn't think they had to. That is Fraud.

There's a big rift there! I much prefer a policy where all we have to tell players is “You have to announce your triggers.” and they don't have to understand any finer points, and there's no chance for a DQ gotcha in there.

I just don't like the idea of “your opponent can forget about some of their triggers except these certain ones which are deemed unforgettable.”

I'm a big fan of removing the “no visual representation” exception. I found it very unintuitive as a player moving into the competitive realm. I'm much more comfortable with the idea that you need to announce everything. I've heard it many times before but Magic is not a game of “gotcha”, and I feel the “no visual representation” resulted in a lot of gotchas.

As a player I announce every trigger, regardless of whether I think it's relevant at that time. I.e. I'll tap my Azor's Elocutors even if it has no counters on it, or pyreheart wolf with no blockers. For me it has the secondary benefit of reminding me the trigger is there for when it DOES matter.

On Thu Dec 13 17:22, Cj Shrader wrote:
> So let's say I'm Billy Player and the policy is “you must announce all your triggers except the ‘obvious’ (no visual effect)” ones.
>
> I attack with my Exalted guy and don't say anything, because I know that's ok. So far so good!
>
> I attack with my Geist but don't put a token down or really acknowledge it. After you do your blocks I say “Ok you take 6.” The judge says they forgot it, but Billy Player says that they don't have to state obvious triggers. Billy Player just admitted to being aware of his own “missed” trigger yet not saying anything about it because they didn't think they had to. That is Fraud.
>
> There's a big rift there! I much prefer a policy where all we have to tell players is “You have to announce your triggers.” and they don't have to understand any finer points, and there's no chance for a DQ gotcha in there.
>
> I just don't like the idea of “your opponent can forget about some of their triggers except these certain ones which are deemed unforgettable.”

Indeed, which is why I said there are pros and cons, but there's already a big rift here. Why do I have to announce exalted and not static effects that give +1/+1? I think these are a _bigger_ issue for players than “if it involves actually doing a thing, you have to actually do a thing” - which is already true with those as non-triggers

Compare and contrast:

I have in play Glorious Anthem, Ardent Plea and Stromkirk Noble.
I attack with Stromkirk Noble and it's unblocked
I then cast Blood Ogre

Now, which of these 4 effects do you think are most similar? I think (and I think most players will think) that the two creature abilities are similar and the two enchantment abilities are similar. However, the rules actually treat the two triggers the same and the two static abilities the same. I understand why, but to players who don't know the minutae of the rules there's a more obvious difference between the “visual effect” and “non-visual effect” cases - in what they need to do in the normal case.

Now, how these are handled if there's a problem may well be different. Saying to a player “you forgot to put a counter on the noble, you don't get to” and “you forgot to put a counter on blood ogre. You do get to, but I going to warn you, don't do it again” I think they are OK with. In both cases they know they've done something wrong and should have put the counter on. In the other cases, however, they don't understand why the _normal operation_ is different between Anthem and Plea.

Matt