On Thu Feb 07 17:05, Federico Donner wrote:
> Now we have a category of triggers that use the same wording on their philosophy but I believe are fundamentally different:

Triggered abilities that do nothing except create one or more copies of a spell or ability (such as storm or cipher) automatically resolve, but awareness of the resulting objects must be demonstrated using the same requirements as described above (even though the objects may not be triggered abilities).

>
> I don't understand what part of the trigger “automatically resolves” if the player needs to still demonstrate awareness of the effect of the trigger. If we are called when a player casts a sorcery after the trigger should have triggered, we cannot assume the trigger resolved and that the copies are on the stack, that trigger was missed. I am wondering if I am misinterpreting this paragraph or maybe this “automatically resolves” doesn't mean the same than before.

It's to deal with the case where someone casts grapeshot, their opponent says “ok, no responses” and the player says “OK, you take 23”. Under the old (last week) IPG, the opponent would say “no, I just take 1, you missed your storm trigger”. Now we say that the player demonstrated awareness of the storm copies at the point they would affect the game state (by stating the resulting life change) and that the trigger which put them there automatically resolved. This acords much better with how people actually play magic.

Matt

Originally posted by Federico Donner:

I don't understand what part of the trigger “automatically resolves” if the player needs to still demonstrate awareness of the effect of the trigger.

Storm spells include “When you cast this
spell, put a copy of it onto the stack for each other spell that was cast before it this turn.”

That trigger - the Storm trigger that creates the copies - automatically resolve, creating the copies. Those copies, however, have to be acknowledged in some fashion, according to the same language stated for “trigger awareness”.

A very common (and perfectly acceptable) example: I've played 5 spells, then announce Empty the Warrens, and look at you for a response. You shrug (because you're bored by me durdling for five spells already…), and say “sure”. I put 12 Goblin tokens on the battlefield - because my Storm trigger resolved, creating 5 copies (plus the original); I just let all 6 resolve, based on your “sure”, and demonstrated “awareness of the resulting objects” from the Storm trigger that had automatically resolved.

See, when Toby crafts the language (the IPG), it's elegant; when I explain, it's TL;DR territory. :)

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

See, when Toby crafts the language (the IPG), it's elegant; when I explain, it's TL;DR territory. :)

Maybe I'm stupid, and I've seen you use it before, what does TL;DR mean?

Too Long; Didn't Read

:)

Too Long; Didn't Read - it's what “Summary” used to mean, until they let
Uncle Scott use the Internet :p

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Jasper Overman <
forum-2772@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

> *Scott Marshall*
>
> See, when Toby crafts the language (the IPG), it's elegant; when I
> explain, it's TL;DR territory. :)
>
>
> Maybe I'm stupid, and I've seen you use it before, what does TL;DR mean?
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this e-email. Or
> view and respond to this message on the web at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/13968/
>
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/2772/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/2772/
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit
>



–
Adam Cetnerowski
Gdansk, Poland

Your source for internet terms you don't know:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tl%3Bdr


2013/2/7 Adam Cetnerowski <forum-2772@apps.magicjudges.org>

I'm happy to leave this thread open, as long as people are still seeking clarification of the new policies, want to address concerns about how to apply those policies, etc.

If, however, we are beset by odd corner cases that might support someone's contention that the policy is flawed, then I'll feel compelled to close the topic - and I don't think that's good service for anyone.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Thanks Scott.

I did have a question regarding triggers. I would like an [O] answer, please. :)

Say Arlo has 4 exalted creatures, and attacks with his Knight of Infamy. Arlo says “3 exalted triggers” when he attacks. Nikki declares no blockers. Arlo says, “Take 6.” Nikki calls a judge because she thinks the 4th trigger was missed.

The policy seems to indicate a player can demonstrate awareness of his or her triggers before they affect the game in a visible fashion, and then they're locked in. So it's clear that Arlo has at least 3 exalted triggers that resolved.

Once any of the above obligations has been fulfilled, or the trigger has been otherwise acknowledged, further problems are treated as a Game Play Error — Game Rule Violation.

The policy also says that Arlo can demonstrate awareness “the first time that it would affect the game in a visible fashion.”

The basic question is whether it's possible to “mix and match” your demonstrations of awareness.

So, two hypothetical situations for my scenario.

Scenario 1: Arlo was aware of his 4th trigger, but chose to not mention it in hopes that Nikki would think he forgot it and make decisions accordingly. Arlo thinks this is OK because of the wording of the policy.

How would you handle this? Fraud? Rule that the 4th trigger was missed? No infraction?

Scenario 2: Arlo hadn't noticed his Noble Hierarch next to his lands when he announced the triggers, but noticed it after Nikki declared “no blockers.” Being the well-researched player he is, Arlo knows that he hasn't missed a trigger unless he doesn't demonstrate awareness when it affects the game in a visible fashion (combat damage). So he figures it's fair play to demonstrate awareness now and still get the trigger.

How would you handle this one?

Thanks in advance!

Edited Josh Stansfield (Feb. 7, 2013 03:59:09 PM)

Originally posted by Justin Miyashiro:

Could you clarify your position?

No, please - just don't. Let's consider that side-thread closed.

Josh, your first scenario raises a good question - one which (surprisingly!) has not yet received a lot of discussion among the high levels. So, I can't (yet) give you an answer, but I can tell you my thoughts: if you communicate information about your triggers - going on the stack or resolving - you're implying that's all there is. Stating 3 triggers when you know there's 4 is being intentionally deceptive, and I know I'm not at all happy about that.
On this subject, more to come … later, of course.

In the second scenario, if I believe Arlo when he says “I just realized it was 4, not 3” I'd be much more forgiving than in scenario 1. After all - and this does have some bearing on the first scenario, too - Nikki has the same opportunity to verify the game state as always - policy has not changed that. And the same philosophy that guides us when Failure to Maintain Game State is appropriate (not here, obv) has some relevance - Nikki is responsible for knowing what's going on.

Thanks, interesting question!

> Oh, and - you always remember that one last point you wanted to make
> *after* Submit - consider this (likely) scenario…
>
> Same setup as above, your Boros Elite is attacking me, I block, you pump,
> I respond to the pump with Dimir Charm, hoping you've forgotten the
> Battalion trigger. You bin your Elite, because you assume I know what I'm doing
> … and not realizing the targeting restriction of Dimir Charm makes your
> 3/3 Elite an illegal target.
>
> We resolve the rest of combat, including the Battalion bonuses on your
> other attackers - because you did NOT forget that trigger - and then you read
> Dimir Charm, in my graveyard, because you want to remember the other modes
> … and notice the illegal play.
>
> Do you feel like I've cheated?
>
> d:^D


I have a question. How, as a judge, do I find out whether you, too, didn’t simply forget about the battalion? Isn’t this a game of equal rights? Maybe you look like being prone to forgetting battalion, or mayhap whether it was +1/+1 or +2+/+2 the Elite gained.
There’s no better argument than that to determine all triggers on the resolution of the trigger and not afterwards. I want clear situations to handle instead of having to weigh in on my gut feeling.

Especially: How should I determine whether you are aware that under the new policy your play would be cheating, while under the previous it was totally legit because the trigger w o u l d h a v e b e e n forgotten?

I don’t want to disqualify players because they grew tired over a 5 round tournament. I don’t want to disqualify players because they couldn’t keep pace with our manic speed of changing the trigger rules.

I’m glad you left the thread open.

since Scott hasn't given a “final” answer,
can I chime in a bit?

by the wording in IPG now,
I think what Arlo did would be considered legal,

he did count the 4th trigger just before it will have visual impact,
and not mentioning the 4th trigger at the moment of declaring his attack doesn't necessarily proof that he forget about it.


It is obviously not the kind of attitude that I can accept,
but well,
the wording does seem to allow that kind of “scummy” trick..

I'd prefer to include Scott's “if you communicate information about your triggers - going on the stack or resolving - you're implying that's all there is”
statement into the IPG to avoid such kind of play.



btw,
sorry if this is a bit OOT,
after reading Scott's reply in my email,
I had been searching my mailbox for Josh's scenario,
and after 10 minutes or so and still fail to find it,
I decided to click the link at the bottom of Scott's reply,
and voila..

Josh's post is right here in the thread,
but it wasn't forwarded to my email.
did it happen to anybody else?

Regards,


Maykel


________________________________
From: Scott Marshall <forum-2772@apps.magicjudges.org>
To: maykel.tan@yahoo.com
Sent: Friday, February 8, 2013 4:59 AM
Subject: Re: Missed Trigger Questions (Competitive REL)


Justin Miyashiro
>Could you clarify your position?No, please - just don't. Let's consider that side-thread closed.

Josh, your first scenario raises a good question - one which (surprisingly!) has not yet received a lot of discussion among the high levels. So, I can't (yet) give you an answer, but I can tell you my thoughts: if you communicate information about your triggers - going on the stack or resolving - you're implying that's all there is. Stating 3 triggers when you know there's 4 is being intentionally deceptive, and I know I'm not at all happy about that.
On this subject, more to come … later, of course.

In the second scenario, if I believe Arlo when he says “I just realized it was 4, not 3” I'd be much more forgiving than in scenario 1. After all - and this does have some bearing on the first scenario, too - Nikki has the same opportunity to verify the game state as always - policy has
not changed that. And the same philosophy that guides us when Failure to Maintain Game State is appropriate (not here, obv) has some relevance - Nikki is responsible for knowing what's going on.

Thanks, interesting question!


——————————————————————————–
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this e-email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/13988/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/2772/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/2772/

You can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit

It's actually very easy to figure out if the trigger was missed. What
amount of damage did he say it dealt? If he included the extra 2, then he
didn't forget it. There isn't really much grey area. It's entirely what you
said when it became relevant to the board.

I believe “missing” your trigger does not mean what you think it means. If
you attack and forget that your guy has exalted, but you remember it before
he deals damage (or some other relevant effect that cares about his p/t),
then you did not forget it according to the rules. It is not considered
forgotten as long as it is noticed before it affects the visual
representation. (Even if it was initially “forgotten” for a moment by the
common english interpretiation). This *is* a change from some previous
iteration; one that is more generous and forgiving of momentary mistakes.

I'm not sure I understand your DQ position. What DQs are you expecting to
be handing out? It's hard for me to think of scenarios that are DQs under
this policy that weren't in any previous policy. We still don't DQ players
for honest mistakes.

Nick Short
L2, Chicago, IL, USA

Early returns from the HL judges, on Josh's scenarios - which I'll misquote, here, for everyone's reference (heh)…

1) Arlo attacks and says “3 Exalted triggers” when he knows it's really 4 - he's just intentionally misrepresented Derived Information (number of objects in any zone). DQ.

2) Arlo attacks, says “3 Exalted triggers”, Nikki says “no blocks”, Arlo and Nikki pick up their pens … and Arlo says "oh, wait - I didn't count the Noble Hierarch, it's actually 4 Exalted triggers. At this point, the correct handling is to call a Judge, who will present Arlo with his CPV infraction & Warning, and (probably) back up to Declare Blockers, so Nikki can proceed with correct information.

Admittedly, the more likely scenario is Nikki will just say “oh, then I'd better block with this guy” or similar, and they'll happily play on, oblivious to that CPV infraction that's on the Judge Stack (heh).

Thank you very much, Scott. I appreciate the clarification. :)

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

In scenario 1, arlo needs to know that he can't intentionally misrepresent the number of objects in any zone? As of the feb 8th update on cheating. As I understand it, maybe its a DQ, maybe its just a CPV. It all depends on whether or not arlo thinks he is allowed to do that.

Right?