A scenario like this came up at an event I judged recently.

It is turn 2 of End-of-Match Procedures at a Comp-REL event. I am sitting next to the last table that is still going. Ajani controls Thopter Spy Network and Hangarback Walker. Ajani untaps their permanents, then draws. Ajani then acknowledges his Spy Network trigger and gets a 1/1 Thopter. No player explicitly asks the judge for clarification of the situation. A few questions:

1. As a judge, do I intervene here and call MT, or is it OoOS (or is it not the judge's job to interfere with non-detrimental triggers, even if an player acknowledges them later)?

2. If there was a significant pause between the time that Ajani drew their card and announced trigger, do I intervene or is it OoOS?

3. What if a game action (other than drawing) has been taken before Ajani acknowledges the trigger? Do I interfere then?

4. (Assuming that in at least one scenario I should issue a penalty) If Narset does not see a problem with Ajani getting their trigger, I still give any applicable penalties for MT, correct? I then just assume Narset wants the trigger on the stack, right?

Thank you in advance.
Ian Doty, L1, Saint Louis, Missouri

Edited Ian Doty (June 23, 2016 12:28:25 AM)

Also very curious about some other opinions on this.


I've always tried to go by the philosophy in the IPG that says “If a minor violation is quickly handled by the players to their mutual satisfaction, a judge does not need to intervene.”


I witnessed a scenario in which my partner was playing a win and in for the top 8 of a WMCQ and her and her opponent were board stalled. Lets call her AP and her opponent NAP for reasons.

AP has been attacking with Sun Titan every turn and having it chumped, she has been returning aether spellbomb to play on each attack, and it's what has been allowing her to attempt to stabilise against an aggressive deck.

In one combat step, both players write down damage before she moves to bring the spellbomb back, saying something akin to “spellbomb off the titan as per norm, pass turn” all in one motion after putting her pen down. NAP says yep, sure and just goes to have his turn as has been the pattern but a judge stepped in and said, nah, you can't do that.

Now I didn't say anything here because of a clear bias, but I definitely felt that them jumping in was potentially out of line and it did cost her the win and in.


As for Ian's scenario, and for the philosophy quoted above, I definitely wouldn't intervene. Both players are clearly happy to continue playing, if Ajani's opponent looked uncomfortable with them getting a token, and looked at me with a question in his eyes, I'd probably step in, but not before.

As for a significant pause, as long as nothing has happened, I'd probably still not step in. By the opponent comfortably allowing it, I'd want to see it as an implied allowing the trigger to be put on the stack situation, which is all we would offer if the opponent did have a problem anyway.

If the opponent has a problem, offer them the option of placing it on the stack (pro tip, they will say no :P) there is no warning for either player as the trigger is not detrimental and we never give warnings to opponents when triggers are missed :)

Edited Sean Crain (June 23, 2016 12:03:28 AM)

From the IPG on Missed Triggers: “Judges do not intervene in a missed trigger situation unless they intend to issue a Warning or have reason to suspect that the controller is intentionally missing his or her triggered abilities.”

I would not intervene here. If NAP calls absolutely, but if the players are both fine with it I see no reason to. Perhaps afterwards speaking to the player in question may be helpful, in order to prevent issues if future opponents aren't as accomodating.

In regards to #3: as a non-detrimental trigger there is no warning to record. We also do not assess FtMGS for not pointing out a missed trigger.

In my opinion, if both players appear to understand and be ok with the board state, we shouldn't be stepping in without obvious cause. It's one thing if players have clearly forgotten about a Lord of Atlantis when resolving combat or similar, where the end game state is clearly illegal, but this scenario seems a far cry from that. Especially in an end-of-round scenario, when the game has clearly been going on a while, players are likely operating off a previously established shortcut (as in the aether spellbomb scenario).
I don't think a time delay is relevant here. A pause to think doesn't signify we've progressed the game state or signify we've passed priority.

I think that once I'm sure that both players have reached that “mutual satisfaction” point - probably after another action or two - then I might interject something like “You know, technically, you get the Thopter token before you draw - not that it mattered here.” (And I really hope the opponent doesn't decide to be ornery at that point.)

d:^D

In my opinion, as long as both players are ok with it and it results in an overall legal outcome, they can do basically anything they want. However I'll usually remind them that there is a better way to handle it next time.