Andy attacks with a Boros Elite and two 2/2 wolf tokens; Neal questions him saying “so that's a 2/2, 2/2, and 1/1?” and Andy says “yes”. Neal thinks a bit and then decides to block the two tokens and Andy responds saying “you take 3” indicating a resolved battalion trigger.

Now Andy missed the battalion trigger when he indicated a 1/1 Boros Elite but has he commited another infraction? Is this also a Communication Policy Violation when he misrepresents the Elite's power when damage occurs or even cheating if he knows he made a mistake and yet is still trying to represent a 3/3?

What if there's no trigger involved, say instead it's a 3/4 Tarmogoyf which he confirms in the declare blockers step and then tries to represent as 4 damage (with no change in graveyards)?

What if the trigger is still on the stack when Andy answers?

Edited Sophie Pages (March 18, 2013 08:14:34 PM)

Originally posted by Alex Mullins:

Andy attacks with a Boros Elite and two 2/2 wolf tokens; Neal questions him saying “so that's a 2/2, 2/2, and 1/1?” and Andy says “yes”. Neal thinks a bit and then decides to block the two tokens and Andy responds saying “you take 3” indicating a resolved battalion trigger.

Now Andy missed the battalion trigger when he indicated a 1/1 Boros Elite but has he commited another infraction? Is this also a Communication Policy Violation when he misrepresents the Elite's power when damage occurs or even cheating if he knows he made a mistake and yet is still trying to represent a 3/3?

This was part of the discussion when the policy in its current version originally came out. I would invite a read of the following thread…

http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/2772/

…especially page 3, and Toby's response regarding a very similar situation.

As for anyone who is trying to figure out how to “lock in” a missed trigger - you basically can't, and that's by design. Similarly, trying to imply that you might have missed the trigger (obfuscating when you're answering the question so you can later claim Exalted is still on the stack, etc) is likely to backfire and provide evidence that you did, in fact, miss it.

Certainly you can investigate the situation and see what the player intended, what the player understood, and if they were trying to “game” the opponent. But, simply put, if a player answers a question about the P/T of the creature involving a trigger, and implies anything that the +P/+T trigger hasn't resolved, then he's likely demonstrated he missed the trigger. Trying to “game” an answer as “Well, when he asked, the trigger was still on the stack…” should not be taken as a legitimate approach.

Originally posted by Alex Mullins:

What if there's no trigger involved, say instead it's a 3/4 Tarmogoyf which he confirms in the declare blockers step and then tries to represent as 4 damage (with no change in graveyards)?

Comparing the effect of a static ability (CDA) that sets a creature's P/T to the effect of a triggered ability is a bit of apples and oranges. We do handle those differently, in that there really isn't something invisible that can be missed; the Tarmogoyf is a physical object, and its ability is clearly stated on the card. Misrepresenting the effect of that ability fits a CPV generally.

Missed triggers don't fall into this situation, since there is a nonphysical object that triggers “invisibly” and automatically as a result of some game event. As such, they are easily missed. That's why there is a separate infraction and approach to handling those. Because how the game handles it is very different.

What I'm trying to get at here is if a trigger is explicitly missed and a player later represents a derived value assuming that trigger resolved don't we now also have a Communications Policy Violation in addition to the Missed Trigger infraction?

It doesn't apply here.

Here's a few examples of how a communication policy violation could occur:

You ask me which of my creatures has the highest power. I answer that it's my 3/3 green creature, while I have a white creature that starts at 2/2, and I've forgotten that I have two copies of Crusade in play.

You ask me if you've played a land of the turn. I don't think you have, so I answer that you haven't. Later we start counting lands and realize that you actually had.

The key thing in these cases is that I've given the mis-information due to an honest mistake.

In the example you've given I believe one of two things is going on:
a) He's trying to get a trigger back that he's forgotten, in which case he's just not going to get it.
b) He intentionally misrepresented derived information in an attempt to gain an advantage. This is a bigger deal, and certainly worth asking some questions about when we're called for this.

Comparatively to your Tarmogoyf question we want to ask the question “Why did you say it was one size at point A, and a different size at point B?”

If we believe the answer is an honest mistake, we're looking at a Communication Policy Violation. It sounds like we haven't gone very far, so we're likely going to be rewinding and allowing the defender to redeclare blockers.

If we believe he's intentionally misrepresenting the size of the goyf we're going to have a much more serious chat about what is an isn't acceptable.