The way the new wording on the Missed Trigger section is written, NAP is incentivised to say nothing if AP misses their Pact of Negation trigger until AP has tapped their mana to cast something else. Then they get to call a judge, put the trigger on the stack with AP unable to pay, and AP gets a Warning as the trigger was Generally Detrimental.

However the IPG also says that we as judges shouldn't intervene when we see Missed Trigger unless it's a generally detrimental one (or we suspect cheating). So in the above scenario we should step in when AP draws for the turn, which means AP has enough mana to pay.

So essentially the result of this game changes depending on whether a judge happened to be watching. “I would have won if a judge wasn't watching” is a pretty bad story. Is the only solution to just explain to the players (with all the customer service possible) that that's just how it works?

I think it is cheating if NAP notices that AP missed his pact trigger and doesn't point it out until a convenient time, for example, main phase 2 after AP tapped out to cast something. And to me NAP has to explain a lot to me why they just remembered AP's trigger at this convnient time as well as AP has to why they forgot the trigger at the correct time.

The IPG explicitly says that “Opponents are not required to point out triggered abilities that they do not control, though they may do so if they wish.” So NAP can never be considered to have cheated. Also, as a general philosophy, we want to have policy encourage players to call a judge, not discourage. If something goes wrong, we want them to involve us, not stay silent in case we DQ them.

As to why AP forgot their own trigger? Sure, we can ask. But the most likely reason is that they just forgot.

Hi Christian,

As Mark has pointed out, triggers are a special case. Otherwise, you are absolutely right: were it not a trigger, we would consider it a cheating attempt.

Originally posted by IPG GPE-FtMGS:

If a judge believes a player is intentionally not pointing out other players’ illegal actions, either for their own advantage, or in the hope of bringing it up at a more strategically advantageous time, they should consider an Unsporting Conduct — Cheating infraction. Not reminding an opponent about their triggered abilities is never Failure to Maintain Game State nor Cheating.

To get back to the Mark's original question, it looks like this change in policy may be bringing these unwanted side effects. I am looking forward to an official statement on this. Will there be a tweak?

This situation is the first that I came up with as a downside to the policy update (which, as a whole, is fantastic).

NAP is definitely in a bad place here. It seems with these changes that it's detrimental to NAP for a judge to watch their match. That's up there on the feel-bad list, which I'd imagine we just tried to reduce with the IDAW/Bribery changes.

I'm sorry, I should have read the annotaded IPG more thoroughly. Waiting with a missed trigger is never cheating. Thanks for pointing that out. I do have to agree now that this situation could be real and feels like we really don't want to have players think that a judge cost them the win they would have if the judge wasn't watching their game.


But to the second point. I don't think anyone plays with a pact in their deck not knowing that they really have to remember their trigger. I agree that it is possible to forget, but not investigating may make that player more likely to “forget” the trigger again in the future.

Edit: should I edit my previous reply to not have a wrong statement as first answer in this thread?

Edited Christian Gienger (Jan. 22, 2019 04:15:31 AM)

Originally posted by Christian Gienger:

Edit: should I edit my previous reply to not have a wrong statement as first answer in this thread?

Only if you want to. It's unlikely to make a big difference to anyone reading along, as they'll see the other posts too :)

The scenario is unlikely. The two modern decks known for playing Pacts are Ad Nauseum (mainly Pact of Negation) and RG Valakut (mainly Summoner's Pact). Both are comparatively small percentages in a given event. So the odds of one of those decks even being played, plus the odds that they cast a pact and then forget their upkeep trigger, plus the odds that a judge sees this happen, are VERY small. But philosophically the point is interesting - having a judge watch the game can be actively bad for a player who abides by the rules.

It reminds me of an incident during one of the early attempts to rewrite Missed Trigger policy. I can't remember the exact wording, but players weren't obliged to remind their opponents about triggers. But Judges were. I was watching the elimination rounds of possibly a WMCQ. Then a spectator asked me something and I chatted with them for a moment. When I turned back to the game, AP was attacking, but I noticed that NAP had forgotten to transform their Huntmaster of the Fells in AP's upkeep. Since I noticed it, I was obliged to point it out, despite AP (and most of the spectators) knowing that NAP had missed it and AP was within their rights to carry on. I was forced to remind NAP, which meant they could block and kill the attacker, and turned the game right around. Sure, AP took a risk that NAP might remember mid combat, but it certainly sucked for all involved.

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

The scenario is unlikely.

It is an anecdotal evidence, but I personally have witnessed this exact situation.

I remember a few years ago something similar reared it's head, when players would forget about the Dash mechanic and returning a creature to hand. I believe the scenario involved Lightning Berserker, the player missing their trigger, and on the following turn they attack and pump it. NAP at that point calls a Judge to inform them of the missed trigger, and that they would like to put it on the stack at this time.

If memory serves me, NAP in this case has not done anything wrong per the rules. I don't see why this would be any different.

EDIT: Memory did serve me….

Edited Chris Wendelboe (Jan. 22, 2019 06:36:11 AM)

I think there's been a subtle shift in culture around the Pacts, where players feel entitled to a “free win” because of an opponent's forgetfulness, especially in cases where opponents take their beginning phase out of order. But the Pacts aren't really designed as a memory test (I can't think of any time when Magic designers have suggested that remembering things is a skill we test in Magic…), they're designed to let you have a thing for free now, and pay more than market rate for it later, with the risk that you might get blown up if you're not able to pay later.

If an opponent is concerned about a player paying for his or her Pact with more information after drawing, I'd suggest to that opponent that he or she might consider saying, “Pass the turn, don't forget to pay for your Pact” to ensure the other player pays before gaining additional information. I see no problem with a judge intervening to investigate and issue a Warning at the earliest opportunity for a Pact trigger - it's no different than a judge intervening to infract for a missed Goblin Guide trigger when NAP controls a Jace, the Mind Sculptor.

Another line of thought, which I admit is not perfect, but maybe something to consider.

Under the old rules
AP misses their pact triggers, and Draw
NAP would automatically call a judge and get the win.

Under the new rules
AP misses their pact triggers, and Draw
NAP noticed but keep silent (as this thread as already established this is a legal course of action)
AP cast something, which renders him unable to pay for pact.
NAP calls a judge. gets the win.

In both those cases, the old and new rules end up at the same place, a win for NAP.

The only moment I can see a difference is 2 situation
1) AP goes to draw, draws for their turn and then remember their pact. They now have a chance to pay for the pact with additionnal information. BUT the additionnal information will probably(?) end up being irrelevant here because they are likely to tap down a sizable portion of their mana to actually pay the pact.
2) AP draws, forgets the pact and pass turn without any action that uses mana. This is a feel bad spot. As NAP, you can call the judge in their endstep, which will make them pay their pact and probably mess with their plan to use cards/abilities during your turn, so you might get a little compensation there.

It's not perfect, and no rules are perfect by any means. But i think this is a decent point to be and is way less punitive in competitive than it used to be!

For me, the new concern might actually be an old one: by teaching NAP to keep silent (about AP's missed Pact), in hopes that AP will tap for something else, is that we are rewarding the concept of sitting on an infraction.

I'm sure I'm not the only judge who's investigated something, only to have the player insist “I don't have to point it out” because they think it's a trigger, or like a trigger. I've had more than a few of these with Lifelink, for example. And our Missed Trigger policy essentially taught players to ignore errors if they thought it was covered by MT policy.

This shift - welcome and wonderful, IMO! - does mean players might think it's OK to sit on a non-trigger infraction until it's most advantageous to point it out. As judges, we get to investigate whether or not we think they knew at the time, and whether or not we think they knew, or should know, that it's illegal to do that.

Keep this in mind when you're explaining this Brave New World to your players.

d:^D

If a player is relying on their opponent forgetting their pact trigger and waiting until they haven't enough mana to pay, then it's not a very good strategy. The fact that a judge could notice and issue a warning and allow the player to pay the mana is essentially what the player should have been expecting - that their opponent did pay for the pact trigger and now has access to less mana until their next turn. The only difference is now the player has a warning and a potential upgrade later in the day if they continue to be forgetful multiple times.

So, how does he pay for the trigger when tapped out?

Johannes, I think you may have misunderstood Mark's wording.

He's saying that the opponent may want to wait until the Pact player can no longer pay, and then call attention to a trigger, as a way to get a “cheap” win. We'll call this the “Cheap Win Strategy”, or “CWS” for short.

And, he's saying that players who are counting on that to happen, might be disappointed. For one thing, a judge might notice the detrimental trigger and point it out (and assess a Warning) - thus removing the CWS possibility.

He's also saying that the opponent should actually be expecting (i.e., planning/strategizing based on) the player remembering their Pact, and not counting too heavily on the CWS.

If a judge doesn't call attention to the missed trigger, the opponent still has their slim chance at the CWS - but we're both saying that's not something any player is entitled to. I pointed out that I was aware there could be “feel-bads”, for opponents who were counting on that CWS; Mark's pointing out that counting on that CWS is not a good strategy.

d:^D