AP attacks with a bunch of creatures and says "I buff Zada, Hedron Grinder with Giant Growth“

NAP thinking that the damage isn't lethal because she doesn't know what Zada does says ”Ok, no blocks“

AP says ”You take <some amount that's lethal>“

Is what AP has done legal?

At Competive REL, the IPG says that Zada's trigger automatically resolves and provided AP demonstrates awareness of the resulting objects at the appropriate time he has acknowledged the trigger.

The MTR which applies to both Regular and Competitive says ”triggered abilities are considered to be forgotten by their controller once they have taken an action past the point where the triggered ability would have an observable impact on the game“ and later says ”triggered abilities that are forgotten are not considered to have gone onto the stack“.

The JAR says ”these abilities are considered missed if the player did not acknowledge the ability in any way at the point that it required choices or had a visible in-game effect."

When is the appropriate time to acknowledge these objects in Regular?
Is it when they are created on the stack (is that an observable impact on the game)? or is it after they've resolved, had their effect, and AP indicates the proper amount of damage?

Is the appropriate time the same or different at Competitive?

Edited Todd Bussey (Feb. 10, 2017 12:48:56 AM)

Ooh, interesting. I don't think I'm getting the same question as you here, Todd, but an equally ambiguous situation:

1) Targets must be chosen for spells and the player must choose which order the spells go on the stack. Technically, neither of these is from the trigger (they're caused by the trigger, but they're not part of the triggering or resolution of the trigger—they come from the games rules), so the missed trigger policy doesn't require action at those points. But on the other hand, the game rules require these things to happen in order to proceed. Which prevails?

2) Is there any proviso for spells with non-optional targets other than “target opponent”? Should there be? If there were, is it even possible to template it to include this situation? (Technically, the first target declared could be any of your non-Zada-creatures, but the resulting game state is the same regardless of what you choose.) Is this better covered under general philosophy?

I've typed out quite a few thoughts, but most of those tended to ramble on, so I will suffice it to say this.

A trigger that merely created a token would be considered missed if not for acknowledgment of the token. Why should this be any different for copies of spells? The only real distinction made between tokens and copies, is that tokens are defined to be non-card representations of a permanent.

Originally posted by Brian Ross:

The only real distinction made between tokens and copies, is that tokens are defined to be non-card representations of a permanent.

That and copies of spells don't exist in a tangible form ;)

A token has to be physically represented somehow, so the first time a token being created affects the physical game state is at the moment of its creation. A copy of a spell doesn't cause a physical change in the game state at the moment of its creation.

I also believe that because targets are not chosen, but defined by the resolution, we can assume they resolved the ability correctly and only have to acknowledge this at the point where the life total change happens.

Originally posted by Brian Ross:

A trigger that merely created a token would be considered missed if not for acknowledgment of the token. Why should this be any different for copies of spells?

Well the example in the annotated IPG of Empty the Warrens and storm says you have to acknowledge the tokens, which seems to say you don't need to acknowledge the spell copies, although that's at Competitive.

Hmmm… ‘number of objects in a zone’ is considered derived information… which at regular is free information…

Would defining ‘visible effect’ by being ‘anything concerning free information’ make sense? (Triggers already have their explicitly separate handling, so that's not really an issue.) If this were the case, it would make the above scenario fine at comp but not okay at regular.

Regarding Empty the Warrens, I don't know that it even implicitly states that you don't need to mention the copies; mentioning the tokens implies recognition of the copies, and not remembering the tokens implies not recognizing the copies… (Edit: For if you remembered the copies, it would also be your opponent's responsibility to ensure there were tokens.)

Edited Brian Ross (Feb. 11, 2017 05:47:59 AM)

At Regular REL, I'd say that the appropriate time to mention the +3/+3 depends of the table, the players, and the situation*, with a default on educating on why being technically correct is maybe the best kind of correct, but maybe not the most friendly and welcoming one.
Encourage players to make sure the game state is clear for their opponent, and to ask questions if there is any doubt about what is going on. Don't allow rules-lawering, and if a player is not technicaly correct, seek out if he or she is gaining an unfaire advantage of his or her mistakes. If not, then educate on what the rules are and move on.

* If both players are visibly in a competitive and rule-focused mood, and derive pleasure from it, I might be more strict. Both the default ruling takes into account that Regular REL events are a welcoming place event for the very beginners, and put on the players a lesser burden on knowing the exact rules.

- Emilien

Isn't what's at odds here the fact that Giant Growth targets?

Common Issues
A player forgets a triggered ability (one that uses the words “when,” “whenever,” or “at” usually at the
start of the ability's text).
These abilities are considered missed if the player did not acknowledge them in any way at the point that it
required choices or had a visible in-game effect.

And since Zada says, “each copy targets a different…” in order for that trigger to have been recognized, the targets would need to be chosen. Not choosing seems to be missing.

Generally speaking, I think I'd rule in favor of the non-blocking player and educate the Zada player about triggers that have choices, and ask everyone to play as carefully as they can care about the results and each other.

I'm all for keeping a friendly and welcoming environment at Regular REL, but I don't like to rule “against” a player when they play correctly, or tell them that they have done something wrong, just because we would like them to play in a “less competetive” way.

JAR is clear when it comes to triggers - they are only missed if they aren't aknowledged at the time they have visible effects or requires choices. Zada's trigger automatically copies the spell and changes the targets of each copy. There are no choices involved, and the first time there are changes in the visible game state in this scenario would be when AP is saying how much damage is dealt.

As far as I see it, there is no difference between this situation and other “buff-triggers” without choices, like prowess or exalted. Triggers can go on stack and resolve without having to be mentioned, as long as they don't require choices or change the visible game state.

I would think that the other player just have to assume that triggers like this are remembered (or ask about it), it isn't specified in JAR (or MTR), but since the missed trigger rules are less strict on regular than competetive, it makes sense to apply this view at regular as well.

I agree with Marit above. The triggered ability of Zada does not target, even though the word “target” is in the text of the ability. It is merely describing what the copies will be targeting, and at no times during resolution do you make any choices.

As long as the spell that is copied has an “invisible” effect on the game (such as a p/t boost from Giant Growth), I cannot see why AP has to mention it before damage is being dealt.

Technically, AP must choose the order the spells are put on the stack (not that it necessarily affects the ruling at Regular).

As David pointed out, there most certainly is a choice to be made- the objects need to be ordered on the stack. At competitive, I would therefore rule that the trigger was missed if there were multiple creatures to be Giant Growthed. In the case where there is only one creature, there is no choice to be made, so the trigger would be remembered.

However this scenario is rather odd in that going “by the book” leads to different outcomes depending on how many other creatures are on the battlefield. At regular, if it were clear that the player did remember the trigger, I'd be fine with allowing it to occur.

Originally posted by Isaac King:

As David pointed out, there most certainly is a choice to be made- the objects need to be ordered on the stack. At competitive, I would therefore rule that the trigger was missed if there were multiple creatures to be Giant Growthed.

I strongly disagree with this. For instance: In a Competitive REL event, would you rule that the triggered abilities from a pair of Toolcraft Exemplars have been missed if the player moves through Beginning of Combat without explicitly ordering the triggered abilities on the stack? Or two different creatures with prowess when the controller casts a non-creature spell?

As for many other things when playing mtg with actual cards: if NAP needs to know the order of the objects on the stack, they should just ask about it. This is in my mind not a requirement for the triggered ability to be remembered.

Edited Håkon Gulbrandsen (March 22, 2017 01:21:51 AM)

Originally posted by Håkon Gulbrandsen:

I strongly disagree with this. For instance: In a Competitive REL event, would you rule that the triggered abilities from a pair of Toolcraft Exemplars have been missed if the player moves through Beginning of Combat without explicitly ordering the triggered abilities on the stack? Or two different creatures with prowess when the controller casts a non-creature spell?

I agree that it seems a bit pedantic to insist that the player choose the order when it probably won't matter. However it does seem to fit pretty clearly into:

Originally posted by IPG:

A triggered ability that requires its controller to choose targets (other than ‘target opponent’), modes, or other choices made when the ability is put onto the stack: The controller must announce those choices before they next pass priority.

so I'm conflicted. Could we get an ‘O’fficial answer on whether the order of triggered abilities when placed onto the stack is something that can cause a trigger to be missed?

We have to be careful not to focus too much on Competitive REL issues in Reguar REL. They can be used as a guideline but not as specific policy to apply to Regular REL events.

The JAR is specific about when a trigger is missed -

These abilities are considered missed if the player did not acknowledge the ability in any way at the point that it required choices or had a visible in-game effect.

Does the Triggered Ability have any choices?
“Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery spell that targets only Zada, Hedron Grinder, copy that spell for each other creature you control that the spell could target. Each copy targets a different one of those creatures.”

There is nothing that the trigger targets, it triggers off casting an instant or sorcery and generates copies that are assigned targets by the effect of the trigger.

Using the IPG as a guide to what kind of required choices they might be it is only choices that would be made when putting the trigger on the stack. There are no choices to be made for this trigger, it doesn't target anything.

Having copies of a spell put onto the stack doesn't make a visible in-game effect.

So while the behaviour would be more of a competitive nature, as long as they point out the trigger as they have I don't see how we can say it's been missed.