Is there a remedy outlined in rules or policy to cover a situation where a player prematurely advances the game state beyond which an opponent's triggered ability should have resolved? Here is the specific clause for reference:

Players may not cause triggered abilities controlled by an opponent to be missed by taking game actions or otherwise prematurely advancing the game. For example, if a player draws a card during his or her draw step without allowing an opponent to demonstrate awareness of a triggered ability, the controller still has an opportunity to fulfill the appropriate obligation by doing so at that point. The Out-of-Order Sequencing rules (MTR section 4.3) may also be applicable, especially as they relate to batches of actions or resolving items on the stack in an improper order.

Scenario is: A player passes turn, not mentioning her Sulfuric Vortex triggered ability in case the opponent has a play in her end step. The opponent says, “Ok.” and immediately draws a card. The player then has the obligation to point out the triggered ability at that time. We all agree that Policy says that the player did not miss the trigger.

Now, as a judge, what are you supposed to do. I believe that you can make three assumptions based on how the policy is written (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong); the ability has resolved at the appropriate time in the upkeep (which I believe should be incorrect) or the ability should be placed on the stack in the draw step (which I believe is much cleaner than the first) or the game should be backed to the point at which the trigger is on the stack (which is messy, but could be correct).

My whole point here is, I do not see a remedy for this situation in the IPG.

Let me give you another example: Nancy controls an Angelic Skirmisher. Albert turns all of his creatures 90 degrees and says, “Attack.” Nancy calls a judge and says that Albert didn't let her resolve her triggered ability.

What does Policy tell us about fixing this interaction? Again, we can all agree that the trigger was not missed. Does it tell us to back-up to the beginning of combat and allow the trigger to resolve as normal? In this scenario I can make an argument that Albert declared a shortcut and Nancy had an amendment to that shortcut, so you back up the attacks (which as a judge you should do), but you can easily add drawing a card when attacks are declared to muddy up the situation.

Again, my point here is, I do not see a remedy for this situation in the IPG.

Thoughts?

I actually lost sleep this morning thinking about this and the tardiness thing. I blame GP Charlotte and all of the judges I have come into contact with that make me care about this game obviously too much. :-P

Edited Jason Flatford (March 7, 2013 07:38:20 AM)

On Thu Mar 07 12:33, Jason Flatford wrote:
> Scenario is: A player passes turn, not mentioning her Sulfuric Vortex triggered ability in case the opponent has a play in her end step. The opponent says, “Ok.” and immediately draws a card. The player then has the obligation to point out the triggered ability at that time. We all agree that Policy says that the player did not miss the trigger.
> Now, as a judge, what are you supposed to do. I believe that you can make three assumptions based on how the policy is written (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong); the ability has resolved at the appropriate time in the upkeep (which I believe should be incorrect) or the ability should be placed on the stack in the draw step (which I believe is much cleaner than the first) or the game should be backed to the point at which the trigger is on the stack (which is messy, but could be correct).

I believe a previous iteration of the IPG explicitly said to put it on the stack now, but I can't find that wording in the current documents. I don't know if this means we should apply that, or that we should now _not_ apply that. It would be equally consistent, I think, to back up. After all, if the opponent draws a card and we say ‘hold up, I want to cast a spell in your upkeep’ we'd back up (ditto declaring attackers and beginning of combat actions).

Matt

The combat situation is pretty simple. The shortcut was not accepted, so you back up (assuming AP didn't give NAP a chance to act in the beginning of combat step).

The rushed trigger for Vortex should just go on the stack now. Player A is not obligated to point out B's trigger, and B has the onus of communicating the trigger. While it's understandable for B to want to know about end step actions, they should be as clear as possible. Maybe ask “Anything in my end step?” And if A says “no”, then say ok, upkeep, trigger. Backing up the game for a trigger isn't really in the philosophy… having to put back a random card that will then be drawn again immediately afterwards seems more awkward than helpful.

This is something that generally won't happen more than once in a match. If A is purposely rushing, instruct them to play more carefully, and to allow B to acknowledge the trigger during upkeep. There's no specific infraction for A, but you can issue a direct instruction if needed.

We had a discussion about this during the SCG open in Vegas this last weekend. Prematurely advancing game state can cover so many things, and a whole variety of things can go wrong / be missed. To list them all and the individual fixes would be like writing hard and fast rules for back ups. In these situations we apply philosophy, judgement and experience to come up with the appropriate fix. In my opinion this is one of the best parts about judging because we get to think critically.

Consistency also came up in the discussion and while I agree we want players to be able to expect the same ruling for the same situation at every tournament, it isn't always possible. Games are unique, players are unique, mistakes are unique, and judges are unique, so logically, sometimes our rulings must be unique.

The rushed trigger for Vortex should just go on the stack now.

Please back up this statement by citing Policy or an argument for why you are deviating from Policy.

Prematurely advancing game state can cover so many things, and a whole variety of things can go wrong / be missed. To list them all and the individual fixes would be like writing hard and fast rules for back ups.

My point is that there is no remedy for this entire grouping of situations, not the individual situations that I listed.

Originally posted by Jason Flatford:

Please back up this statement by citing Policy or an argument for why you are deviating from Policy.

If there is no specific remedy outlined in the MIPG, how is Josh “deviating from policy”? Isn't the better question, how is he utilizing policy, especially the guiding nature of policy, to support the remedy he is utilizing in the absence of a specific remedy?

That was exactly Jason's point.


2013/3/16 Brian Schenck <forum-3259@apps.magicjudges.org>

Originally posted by Dominik Chlobowski:

That was exactly Jason's point.

Well, perhaps I have a different assessment of what's going on then. It seems that Jason's point is predicated around there being specific remedies for this situation at all. At least when I look back at his original post. Perhaps he's obliquely asking whether there should be a specific remedy. Which is a good question to have, since there are a broad number of circumstances this could come up. No differently than say, how would you handle a player who rushed through his or her combat phase, and the opponent trying to interrupt to take an action in the beginning of combat step.

Either way, coming in and asking someone to explain why they are deviating from policy when there is no policy is kind of an odd way to approach a discussion, don't you think?

I admit that my question was a loaded one, as I believe that the question strictly has no answer. I wanted to make the point that based on written Policy, there is no remedy. However, I understand that it is possible to extrapolate a remedy from the philosophy of Policy, and I implied as much in my original post. I stated three possible remedies, each of which are reasonable to assume based on Policy and philosophy. The reason for my post to the forums is not to learn the appropriate remedy or to teach the appropriate remedy, only to point out that it is reasonable to assume multiple remedies because there is no stated remedy. Yes, my questions is, should there be stated remedy. I believe that there could be this stated remedy:

If a player prematurely advances the game state past the point which an opponent's triggered ability should have resolved by drawing a card for their turn, then put the trigger on the stack in the draw step. Otherwise back up the game state to the point were the triggered ability is put on to the stack. (the wording could be cleaned up a bit, but I think I captured the essence)

Let's say a player bypasses an opponent's Braids, Cabal Minion trigger in an effort to see if they would draw a land or not so they knew which permanent they should sacrifice. You sure want to back up in this situation. Are you comfortable backing up if there are no other cards in the player's hand? Should you back up in that instance? I really want Policy to answer that question for me. Currently, it doesn't.

So, I guess my opinion is; there should be a stated remedy.

Jason

I agree with almost everything you have said, except for the remedy on the intentional bypass of the Braids trigger. I am pretty sure they just intentionally violated policy and therefore, maybe we should be looking at a different infraction, as opposed to whether or not we should back up the game state.

Another thing I do not agree with is a choice to be made based on game state. The game state should not be a factor in missed trigger policy, just as it is not a factor in determining whether a trigger is generally detrimental or not

Edited Bob Narindra (March 16, 2013 08:06:57 PM)

I agree with almost everything you have said, except for the remedy on the intentional bypass of the Braids trigger. I am pretty sure they just intentionally violated policy and therefore, maybe we should be looking at a different infraction, as opposed to whether or not we should back up the game state.

I'm pretty sure the player did not violate any policy or rules here.

Another thing I do not agree with is a choice to be made based on game state. The game state should not be a factor in missed trigger policy, just as it is not a factor in determining whether a trigger is generally detrimental or not

Which point of mine are you referencing here?

Originally posted by Jason Flatford:

I'm pretty sure the player did not violate any policy or rules here.

Why not? MIPG 2.1 says the following…

Players may not cause triggered abilities controlled by an opponent to be missed by taking game actions or otherwise prematurely advancing the game.

…so, why wouldn't a player intentionally and deliberately trying to cause the opponent to miss the trigger not be an infraction? Especially if the player were trying to gain an advantage by causing the opponent to miss the trigger?

That being said, I'm certainly not opposed to the idea of specific corrections in such situations. Especially if it adds some level of consistency to how such situations are handled.

Originally posted by Jason Flatford:

I agree with almost everything you have said, except for the remedy on the intentional bypass of the Braids trigger. I am pretty sure they just intentionally violated policy and therefore, maybe we should be looking at a different infraction, as opposed to whether or not we should back up the game state.

I'm pretty sure the player did not violate any policy or rules here.

Another thing I do not agree with is a choice to be made based on game state. The game state should not be a factor in missed trigger policy, just as it is not a factor in determining whether a trigger is generally detrimental or not

Which point of mine are you referencing here?

It was the implied point you made when you brought up the Braids trigger as a situation as one that you would want to back up.

With regards to not violating any policy or rules, see Brian's response above

…so, why wouldn't a player intentionally and deliberately trying to cause the opponent to miss the trigger not be an infraction? Especially if the player were trying to gain an advantage by causing the opponent to miss the trigger?

What infraction would you say the player committed here?

Originally posted by Jason Flatford:

…so, why wouldn't a player intentionally and deliberately trying to cause the opponent to miss the trigger not be an infraction? Especially if the player were trying to gain an advantage by causing the opponent to miss the trigger?

What infraction would you say the player committed here?

I am not sure why you would ask this. What infraction do we normally apply if a player willfully and deliberately violates a game rule or policy in order to gain information or to gain an advantage?

MIPG 4.8: A person breaks a rule defined by the tournament documents, lies to a tournament official, or notices an offense committed in his or her (or a teammate's) match and does not call attention to it.