Hello Ladies and Gents! Got another exciting Knowledge Pool Scenario for you this week. This one comes direct from a recent Competitive REL event and we hope will get you thinking! And hey, if you run across an interesting happening in a Competitive REL event that you think would make a good teaching opportunity for Knowledge Pool, head on over to The Knowledge Pool Submission Form and submit your idea to us! We'd love to hear from you!

The Zombies Are Coming! - SILVER

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/?p=986

In a Legacy GPT, Nathan is playing Dredge and has a Bridge From Below, Ichorid, Putrid Imp and Cabal Therapy in his graveyard. Alex is playing Sneak and Show and has a Sneak Attack in play. Alex uses Sneak Attack to put Emrakul, the Aeons Torn into play and attacks with it. Nathan sacrifices the rest of his permanents (3 lands) and takes 15 damage. Alex passes the turn and shuffles Emrakul and his graveyard back into his library. During his upkeep, Nathan exiles Putrid Imp to put Ichorid into play. He draws a card, then declares he's flashing back Cabal Therapy by sacrificing Ichorid. He says “Target you and I get a Zombie.” Alex says, “Wait, your Bridge From Below should have gone away when Emrakul went to the yard.”

They then call for a judge. You determine that it was an honest mistake. What, if any, is the appropriate infraction, penalty and fix for this situation?

This is a textbook case of GPE - Missed Trigger. Since Bridge from Below's second triggerd ability is detrimental, Nathan gets a Warning and Alex receives no penalty.
We should then inform Alex that, since the error was caught within less than a turn , he has the option of putting the trigger on the bottom of the stack, which he probably will. Since it is on the bottom of the stack, Bridge from Below will not be exiled until the resolution of the other trigger, and Nathan will get his zombie.

EDIT: fixed the player's names, sorry for the confusion.

Edited Nathanaël François (Jan. 29, 2014 11:10:32 AM)

Nathanaël, didn't you reverse the players' names? It is Nathan's Bridge that should have triggered, so it's Nathan who gets a Warning for having forgotten his detrimental trigger, and Alex who receives no penalty. Moreover it's Alex who chooses whether the triggered ability is added to the stack. However I wonder what the IPG means by “the appropriate place on the stack” ; it seems to me the ability is put on the stack as if it triggered now, so above the Zombie-gaining ability (which itself is above Cabal Therapy), therefore Nathan will gain no zombie due to the “intervening ‘if’ clause”.

The Bridge from Below trigger should have gone on the stack right after the Emrakul's reshuffle trigger because of APNAP order.

This is a GPE-Missed Trigger because it is a “A triggered ability that causes a change in the visible game state (including life totals) or requires a choice upon resolution” by having a card change zones. Warning for Nathan.

Alex (not Nathan) would be the one to decide to put the trigger on the stack. We assume he would. I wish I could say that we're still in the middle of Nathan casting a spell and stop to resolve the missed trigger but I'm not comfortable with putting an effect on the stack above a sorcery as it'd make the Socerey an illegal cast or halting in the middle of a spell cast. He has declared costs but hasn't paid them yet so we're still in the technically in the middle of casting a spell. But he did shortcut through to the end. If we hold him to his choices we get to put Cabal Therapy, Zombie, exile Bridge from Below on the stack. So no zombie because Bridge from Below is gone.

It's sort of a bummer this isn't a GPE-GRV because the backup would be so easy but it isn't justified under Missed Triggers.

Edited Marc DeArmond (Jan. 29, 2014 11:09:58 AM)

Originally posted by Loïc Hervier:

Nathanaël, didn't you reverse the players' names?

Um, yes I did. i keep thinking of A and N ast the AP/NAP chen the call is made, thus my mistake. It is indeed Alex (not the Bridge from Below's owner) who decides whether to put the trigger on the stack.

As has already been said, clearly a case of Missed Trigger, with Alex's choice to put the trigger onto the stack. If he chooses not to, we're done, continue play. If he doesn't, things get a bit more interesting.

The current game state, in my mind, is that Nathan has cast Cabal Therapy, and declared that the trigger from Bridge from Below has gone onto the stack. However, Alex's intervention (in my mind) is interrupting putting that trigger on the stack (his intent seems to clearly be that the trigger shouldn't be put there), so at the time we're called, the game should be considered to be at the moment immediately before that trigger would be put onto the stack.

The IPG says the trigger should be “inserted at the appropriate position of the stack if possible, or onto the bottom of the stack.” We clearly cannot put it at the appropriate position (that time has come and gone), so we will put it at the bottom. The game will then proceed, the other Bridge from Below trigger triggers, resolves, Cabal Therapy resolves, and finally Bridge from Below will be exiled.

So, I guess the short version is that I'm agreeing with Nathanaël's initial post (other than the name mix up).

Originally posted by Aric Parkinson:

We clearly cannot put it at the appropriate position (that time has come and gone), so we will put it at the bottom. The game will then proceed, the other Bridge from Below trigger triggers, resolves, Cabal Therapy resolves, and finally Bridge from Below will be exiled.

I'm curious how you got that order if we currently have Cabal Therapy first on the stack, since it has been fully cast it would go on the stack first. Then the question comes about putting Bridge from Below “exile” and Bridge from Below “zombie” on the stack. I can see an argument for putting either the “exile” or the “zombie” on the stack first. The “exile” would go on first since you are interrupting the action of putting the “zombie” on the stack, or the “zombie” is already on the stack since it was declared and the “exile” comes on afterwords.

To me that sounds like a call for the judge to make, and of the possible answers I prefer putting the “zombie” on the stack first then the “exile” so that there is no zombie gain because the intervening “if” clause prevents it.

Marc: I followed my reading of the IPG. My understanding of “the appropriate position of the stack, if possible” is that you should only put it where it goes if the stack hasn't changed substantially since the trigger was missed. Say, for example, someone cast a Lightning Bolt targeting their opponent's Phantasmal Image, who responds by casting Boros Charm to make his permanents indestructible until end of turn. If I was called over at this point, I'd put the missed Phantasmal Image trigger between the Lightning Bolt and Boros Charm, since that's where the trigger belongs in the sequence.

In our scenario, however, the trigger was missed on the previous turn. The trigger has no real relation to the current state of the stack as it is right now. So as I read the rule, the “or onto the bottom of the stack” bit should apply, hence put it on the bottom.

I'll admit this is highly non-intuitive, and I'm not sure I know the reasons why this is the way the policy is written. I assume there are awkward interactions where just putting the trigger on the top of the stack causes problems, but putting it on the bottom doesn't cause those same issues. Alternatively, I'm possibly misunderstanding the policy, and I'd love to learn what it's actually intended to mean.

Ah, thanks. I see where you're going there and it makes sense. It just seems very odd to me to place anything on the stack below cabal therapy. But I can't deny that that is what the IPG calls for.

Greetings all,

I enjoy reading everyone's posts here and am going to jump in with a first of my own.

I agree with the general assessment, GPE-MT Warning to Nathan, Alex gets to choose if trigger goes on stack, if so on the bottom, below Cabal Therapy.

It is at this point I am confused. If the judge call is in response to Bridge from Below's zombie trigger trying to go onto the stack, which is what this appears is the case, putting the exile trigger on the bottom of the stack clears up the missed trigger, but allowing the zombie trigger to go on to the stack allows a bonus (or punishment) of sorts to the missed trigger. While putting the zombie trigger on the stack would follow the IPG as is, preventing the zombie trigger would leave the game state closer to what it would have been. Granted if Alex remembered the trigger he might have played differently. I am assuming that preventing the zombie trigger would be unwise in that it would have a level of subjective attempt to try to fix things, but I would like to hear thoughts on it.

Thank you all.

For the sake of discussion, I completely agree with Nathanaël François, and I believe Aric Parkinson did an excellent job explaining why we would put the exile trigger on the bottom of the stack as opposed to “the appropriate plate on the stack”.

To comment on Brian Barkow's question regarding philosophy: my response would be that it is not our job to try and fix the game state to get as close as possible to what we feel it should be, but rather to asses the game and determine what infractions have occurred (if any), and then apply appropriate penalties and then follow the prescribed remedy from the IPG as literal as possible. It is all too tempting to look at this situation and make the intuitive reaction that the Bridge should not be there, therefor he shouldn't get the zombie token. However that is not what the IBG tells us to do, and this is very much not an extreme or unusual case to warrant a deviation. One important thing to remember when applying the remedy to a game is that it is both players responsibility to maintain a correct game state. Yes in this case Nathan will end up with a Zombie that in a perfect world he shouldn't have, but it was allowed to get there because Alex wasn't paying close enough attention to the game. As judges we need to be consistent in our rulings and we have the IPG to help us with that. Sometimes it leaves us in a place that feels a little counter intuitive but countless hours have been spent to create and develop the IPG and in the IPG we trust.

Ok i think i was able to regurgitate all the cliche phrases that we live by :)

I agree that it feels weird for Nathan to get a Zombie, but even though the current gamestate is “incorrect” (based on previous events), it's not an error with respect to that current gamestate to have the Bridge trigger from the flashback cost of Cabal Therapy. Screwing up can create real disadvantages for both players, which is why it's important for everyone to keep their heads in the game.

Before reading the rest of the replies:

Nathan controls Bridge from Below's trigger, which is a detrimental trigger, and he missed it.
Why is it missed? When the trigger resolved, the Bridge should have been exiled, and this would have been the first point at which the trigger had a visible impact on the game state. That visible impact didn't happen.
Why is it generally detrimental? The guideline I've heard is appropriate to use is whether a trigger generally is a reason to play a card, or not. If a card would probably be played, even if it didn't have that trigger, that trigger is probably detrimental.

Nathan gets a warning, Alex gets no penalty. Alex can choose whether the trigger is added to the stack, and will presumably do so. The trigger will get added to the top of the stack. However, Nathan's trigger from cast is still on the stack. The bridge will exile, then Nathan will get a zombie, then cabal therapy will resolve.

After reading the rest of the replies:

I see I misunderstood ‘appropriate place in the stack’ on GPE - Missed Trigger's additional remedy. The exile trigger should go on the bottom of the stack. Nathan gets a zombie, then resolves Cabal Therapy, then exiles Bridge. It might be worth clarifying when ‘appropriate place’ comes in to play in the IPG.

As a side note, as someone who doesn't play legacy, I had to re-read this scenario a few times before understanding what the issue was (the missed trigger on the Bridge).

Talin, if you were to put the exile-trigger on top of the stack (and thereby have it resolve before the zombie-trigger), you would not get a zombie, as Bridge from Belows zombie-creating trigger has an intervening-if clause that only creates the token if Bridge is still in the GY as the zombie-trigger resolves.

(This is not of particular relevance to the scenario, but I felt it worth pointing out should you ever get a judgecall with a scenario where bridge gets exiled before the zombie-trigger(s) resolve).

Originally posted by Aric Parkinson:

Marc: I followed my reading of the IPG. My understanding of “the appropriate position of the stack, if possible” is that you should only put it where it goes if the stack hasn't changed substantially since the trigger was missed. Say, for example, someone cast a Lightning Bolt targeting their opponent's Phantasmal Image, who responds by casting Boros Charm to make his permanents indestructible until end of turn. If I was called over at this point, I'd put the missed Phantasmal Image trigger between the Lightning Bolt and Boros Charm, since that's where the trigger belongs in the sequence.

I totally agree with your interpretation, but I think a better example would be something like Path to Exile on Phantasmal Image. If the trigger was put on the bottom of the stack, it would create incentive to forget it and immediately remember it, and then call the judge on yourself.
There's also things like Chalice of the Void where putting the trigger on the bottom of the stack (while the original spell is still on the stack) doesn't make sense at all.

Those rulings must be pretty rare though, as Missed Triggers are in general caught only after the stack has emptied since the moment they should have triggered.