I am honestly quite shoked that in the initial scenario, we could rule that the triggered ability of the chalice is not missed.

Countering a spell is a visible change in the game. There is no way I can behind the chalice countering the spell.

What game are we playing if a controler of a spell does not even know what is happening to its own cards but other players do?

About your initial topic question though, there are 2 points :

- Talking about the point where it is relevant to the controler of a triggered ability to aknowledge their ability. Why do we have that? There was a point where players were casting Emrakul without saying they were taking an extra turn before resolving the spell. There was a point were a player played 20 spells during his turn to cast a final grapeshot that resulted in 1 only damage because he did not say “storm trigger” right away.
Because that was dumb, it was quickly changed.

- Talking about the fact that we can still ask to the opponent of the player who missed his triggered ability within a turn if he wishes to put the ability on the stack. This is also a way not to let players get away with “oopsies, I missed my triggered ability, I totally have a warning but I still win this game.”

I don't know which point you want to adress but anyway, I do not think this applies here. If we wants to counter a spell with his chalice without telling his opponents he is doing it, well he can try do it elsewhere but not in my tournaments.

Edited Théo CHENG (July 11, 2016 08:06:18 AM)

@Theo

Thanks, i got examples from others with exalted and landfall that i understood quiet well (Emrakul & Storm makes even more sense..), but in this case i just can't think of a way the spell is countered… and im happy im not the only one having problem with this.

There could have been previous spells that were cast into it and countered by the caster with no word from the controller of the Chalice, this is one situation that I could see ruling it not missed. It is possible for it to be not missed but I'd need to be able to talk to the players to know

From my point of view, countering a spell has a visible effect on the game state. The acknowledgement type is not dependent of the resolution of the spell. The resolution of the spell having no visible effect on the game state, does not extend the reach of “missed trigger”. A creature spell would enter the battlefield and that would be the last possible moment to react. A brainstorm would draw cards… etc.

However, it also depends a lot on what the chalice player has been doing till now:
- If he is in the habit of saying “Ok” to counter the spell when he has a chalice in play (something that can easily be confirmed by his current and past opponent), I would say it is not missed and is a misunderstanding between both players, one hearing “okay, resolves” the other meaning “okay, countered”. In this case and depending on the situation (a “you had to be there” thing) I'd say it is either countered or it is a miscommunication between both players and I would rewind to the point where things went sideways, giving the chalice player the opportunity to counter the spell then and asking him to be more precise in his communication with his opponents.

- If he is not in the habit of saying “Ok” to counter the spell, we are getting into an investigation about a player potentially trying to cheat his way into a win. In this case, it is either a missed trigger or a DQ for cheating.

Countering a spell is a visible change in the game.

What's the difference in the change of the game, for Angel's grace, between “countered” and “resolved”?

Originally posted by Pascal Gemis:

Countering a spell is a visible change in the game.

What's the difference in the change of the game, for Angel's grace, between “countered” and “resolved”?

You might want to read the whole paragraph again…

Originally posted by Jeremie Granat:

You might want to read the whole paragraph again…

I dont see any answer to my question in the whole paragraph.

That being said, I'm on the same line than Theo. I dont want “gotcha” games on my tournament I prefer magic games.

Originally posted by Pascal Gemis:

That being said, I'm on the same line than Theo. I dont want “gotcha” games on my tournament I prefer magic games.

I absolutely agree that I don't want “gotcha” games, but it's important to realize in the Angel's Grace example that both players are playing a game of gotcha–the Grace player is not confirming that his spell resolves or that his opponent's trigger is missed, he's just trying to “gotcha” his opponent straight to the spell resolving.

Jeremie Granat
From my point of view, countering a spell has a visible effect on the game state. The acknowledgement type is not dependent of the resolution of the spell. The resolution of the spell having no visible effect on the game state, does not extend the reach of “missed trigger”. A creature spell would enter the battlefield and that would be the last possible moment to react. A brainstorm would draw cards… etc.

What's the visible effect?

If players are playing technically precisely, yes, there is a visible effect–some additional priority passes. But players don't play that way. It's why we have shortcuts and OoOS and so on. From the way most players play the real game, there is really no visible difference in game play unless players are explicit about spells resolving or not–a spell is cast, it goes to the graveyard, and nothing changes till later.

There is a difference talking about a General rule and a specific situation. Maybe I didn't write it clearly enough but we basically never care about specific situations in the IPG or you would have a 1000 page book.

I'm pretty sure I can come up with a plethora of situatio asituatio case might look like something else but isn't.

Generally speaking, countering a spell has a visible effect on the game. That being the case, in this specific case, there is not much difference… I would still handle this specific case exactly the same way. Why? Because as I stated, you don't extend the missed trigger windows depending on the resolution of a different spell…

From my point of view, there is only one person trying to gotcha his opponent. It is generally assumed in Europe and the US that saying “okay” means “resolve”. I've never seen it used to mean “trigger and counter”…

Originally posted by Jeremie Granat:

From my point of view, there is only one person trying to gotcha his opponent.

So you think that a player attempting to cast spells into his opponent's Chalice without him noticing is not “playing gotcha”?

Originally posted by Jeremie Granat:

It is generally assumed in Europe and the US that saying “okay” means “resolve”.

With respect, I don't agree with what I think you are trying to say. There are precisely 10 tournament shortcuts defined in section 4.2 of the MTR, and this is not one of them. Trying to enforce shortcuts that don't appear in the Tournament Rules has the same kind of problem that comes with issuing remedies not prescribed by the MIPG. We should do what the documents tell us to do and we should not do what the documents don't tell us to do.

Countering a spell does have a visible change. The spell being countered is removed from the stack and placed in the proper zone which in most cases is the graveyard. The issue here is that the same visible change happens on both the resolution and the countering of the spell. If we tweak the original scenario a little it'll help show the difference.

AP has Jace's Sanctum in play and casts Angel's Grace while NAP has Chalice of the Void on 1. Assuming everything is remembered then the stack should be Angel's Grace on bottom, AP scry 1, and Chalice on top. NAP says “ok”. AP begins to scry. At this point NAP either stops the action and corrects which zone Angels Grace is in (graveyard) or he's missed his trigger. If we get involved at this point then there's no infraction for the failed zone change. So the scry trigger is the first point where “it mattered” to the players as that's when the demonstration of missing the trigger would happen.

In the original scenario, the same zone change happens in both cases so the first point where “it matters” is during combat damage. The Angels Grace player is in no way required to remind his opponent that the spell shouldn't have resolved, but takes a significant risk by assuming it did resolve. Now both players have an assumption of the game state and no one has voluntarily made it clear which one actually happened. We have the direction of assuming the trigger was remembered unless shown otherwise. Nothing about the game shows that it was missed. Angels grace was put in the graveyard at the appropriate time and when the game would end AP brought up that the game should end. With that, I'd rule that the chalice trigger was remembered.

“Okay” means multiple things to multiple people and you cannot assume that “Okay” means “yes it resolves” or even “it is countered”. That is something that players need to confirm. “Okay” is probably one of the most ambiguous statements made in a game of Magic.

The issue I have with this specific example is that there are 2 different visible game states - the Angel's Grace in the graveyard after resolving and the Angel's Grace in the graveyard being countered before resolving. Yes the visiible game states are identical but it is up to both players to confirm which visible game state it is.

I would not be supporting a player controlling Chalice of the Void that does not indicate to their opponent if a spell is countered until past the point of relevance - ie. did the spell resolve or not.

I see this as completely different to prowess or exalted where the point of relevance is when the power/toughness is needed to be known (damage dealt to or by the creature). Players need to know whether spells resolve.

Casting a spell, hoping your opponent forgets their Chalice is perfectly legal, but there has to be a point where both players know the outcome and it should be at the point of when it would be countered or resolves.

Originally posted by Mark Brown:

“Okay” means multiple things to multiple people and you cannot assume that “Okay” means “yes it resolves” or even “it is countered”. That is something that players need to confirm. “Okay” is probably one of the most ambiguous statements made in a game of Magic.

To reinforce what Mark Brown correctly said, I'd even mention that I met multiple Japanese players for whom “Ok” meant “I acknowledge what you did or said, now let me time to think about it.”

- Emilien

Edited Emilien Wild (July 12, 2016 02:38:45 PM)

Originally posted by Mark Brown:

there has to be a point where both players know the outcome and it should be at the point of when it would be countered or resolves.

I think that the player always has the right to know this and they can ask at any time. Pulling from the IPG:

Triggered abilities are assumed to be remembered until otherwise indicated, and the impact on the game state may not be immediately apparent.

I as a player am not required to describe how your spell is being put in to the graveyard, it just needs to happen upon resolution of the trigger. I'm also not required to announce the trigger. It's assumed to be remembered until I show otherwise. Whether or not your spell resolved may not have an immediate impact on the game state (angels grace doesn't do anything until potentially lethal damage is involved.)

If an opponent requires information about the precise timing of a triggered ability or needs details about a game object that may be affected by a resolved triggered ability, that player may need to acknowledge that ability’s existence before its controller does

This is where the player may ask if the spell resolved or was countered. Because it's assumed countered until otherwise demonstrated, you asking may remind the opponent and even though they had forgotten up until that point, they can still avoid missing their trigger. So Mark I agree that there has to be a point where both players know the outcome. I don't agree that point is when the spell resolves.

As a side note for the conversation, there are plenty of other topics about “ok” and I agree it's probably the most ambiguous word in magic. Something I say in situations like this is “let's resolve the stack” and I feel it to be an appropriate replacement for “ok” in this scenario.

I quite agree that players may ask at any time about previous game actions, but I disagree that countering a spell doesn't have a visible effect on the game state. A card gets placed into the graveyard without resolving, which is different to resolving the spell.