With the new IPG, player A is responsible for player B's triggers while controlling that player's turn. What if player B controls Inventor's Fair with three artifacts in play (trigger triggers), but does not acknowledge the trigger. Player B points this out in post-combat main phase.

Is that trigger detrimential (=Warning) for player A?

(Sorry for the delay in answering!)

The general rule of thumb is “if it was beneficial for the player being controlled, it's generally detrimental for the player controlling them.” Of course, there will be exceptions - and corner cases, OMG!!! - but that can guide you for most situations you'll encounter.

…including this scenario - a straight-forward example of a trigger that is now detrimental for A, so he would get a Warning.

Note that the most common involvement for judges may well be when the controlling player says “but I'm allowed to miss his triggers!” - we need to investigate a bit, to make sure they aren't cheating, but most likely it's an educational opportunity: “No, you aren't allowed to ignore his triggers, nor your own triggers; forgetting and missing them are understandable, but knowingly ignoring them could be Cheating.”

d:^D

So the fix for an honestly missed trigger is normally asking the opponent if she would like to put the trigger on the stack. Do we instead ask the player whose turn was controlled if they would like to stack the trigger? Presumably this is yes but I'd rather not deviate from policy if the determination is “no”.

Thoughts from the gallery? Eventually an “O” answer would be needed =). Apologies extended if this has already been answered.

Edited Ben Quasnitschka (Oct. 18, 2016 03:00:18 PM)

We normally ask the opponent of the player who Missed the Trigger, and we continue to do so in this scenario.

d:^D

Scott, is there a resource you'd suggest for studying about “Investigations”. Or, if it's not too much to ask, would you be willing to record or type a little bit of how you would investigate this “I'm allowed to miss triggers” claim.

By the way, wouldn't the very statement, “I'm allowed to” mean they weren't cheating by the rules since the rules seem to require they know better?

P: “but I'm allowed to miss his triggers!”
J: “you think it's OK to make mistakes on purpose?”
P: “Oh, well … if you put it that way … no, I guess not.”

That's the most likely direction that investigation would take. The concern is the player who knows they shouldn't miss their own triggers (and, by extension, triggers of a player they control), but do so anyway, to gain advantage, … and then pretend ignorance to “cover up” their Cheat.

I think it's far more common for players to be ignorant of this policy, esp. as it's a fairly recent shift. (Too) many players still think it's OK to let their opponent make mistakes, even GRVs - i.e., they extend the skill-testing aspect of Missed Trigger to other infractions.

When investigating, you really just need to satisfy your curiosity, to determine the credibility of the player's statement (that they thought it was OK, or at least not illegal). I'll admit, it's going to be unusual that you poke a bit at the edges of their story and determine that, in fact, they know very well that they just Cheated - but it's still worth a question or two, because those exceptions do occur. (Please, don't spend 5 minutes on such an investigation!)

Consider a very plausible and possible response from a player: “Yeah, I think it's kinda scummy to let him miss his triggers, but it's still legal!” - that player isn't Cheating, because they aren't intentionally violating policy; instead, they're doing what they think is allowed - even if their instincts are trying to guide them to correct behavior.

d:^D