Would like clarification on a point on the philosophy of the Missed Trigger penalty.

2.1. Game Play Error — Missed Trigger
Definition
A triggered ability triggers, but the player controlling the ability doesn’t demonstrate awareness of the trigger’s
existence the first time that it would affect the game in a visible fashion.

Naturally, a player can demonstrate awareness of a triggered ability *before* it would affect the game in a visible fashion. In this case, can the player miss the trigger later on when it has a visible effect?

For e.g.: Ambergris plays a Minotaur Skullcleaver; it resolves, and he says “ETB trigger.” He casts other things, then taps the Minotaur and says “swing for 2.” Is it a Missed Trigger since the ability's existence wasn't demonstrated right at the moment it was pertinent? Or is it a GRV for failing to recognize a continuous effect that had been established by the earlier announcement of the trigger?

The IPG says:

Once any of the above obligations has been fulfilled, or the trigger has been otherwise acknowledged, further problems are treated as a Game Play Error — Game Rule Violation.

Furthermore the Annotated IPG (http://wiki.magicjudges.org/en/w/Annotated_IPG/Missed_Trigger) adds the following
“As convenient as it may be for judges to consider previously acknowledged but problematically-executed triggered abilities to be missed, they must nonetheless be treated as a different infraction.
For example, suppose Acetone attacks Neutrino with an unblockedArbor Elf equipped with Sword of Feast and Famine. During the combat damage step, Acetone untaps his lands but both players forget about Neutrino discarding. Even if this is noticed during the post combat main phase, this must be treated as a Game Rules Violation (GRV) by either rewinding the game or applying the appropriate partial fix, and not by simply asking Neutrino if she’d like the discard ability to be placed on the stack. It is also a GRV if you acknowledge a trigger at the proper time or earlier, and then, because of multiple things on the stack, you forget to resolve it.”

Once the triggers controller acknowledges the trigger as happening, it happened. Any errors that come after that, are handled by the appropriate infraction (probably GRV)

-bryan

Could the example be CPV? I mean, it sounds a lot like missrepresenting the power of the creature (derived information), assuming the statement of bryan:

“Once the triggers controller acknowledges the trigger as happening, it happened.”

But the IPG speciffically says: “Once any of the above obligations has been fulfilled, or the trigger has been otherwise acknowledged, further problems are treated as a Game Play Error — Game Rule Violation.”

I don't like CPV for this. I think of CPV in this context more like representing the number on the card incorrectly (which in Goyf's case requires calculation). Or representing the “3” die as the number of tokens as opposed to the token's power (for tokens that don't have power printed on them).

This scenario is more of an error in handling an interaction of effects, which just seems more GRV-ish to me.

To risk splitting hairs, forgetting to apply the buff happened mentally before the action of reporting the power. So that's really the core mistake, and the one I'd key the infraction from.

Fortunately, both end up with a Warning generally and the option for a rewind at HJ discretion. So the main effective difference is in upgrade paths. But I don't like CPV for this.

Wouldn't CPV vs. GRV matter when determining how far to back up?

Assuming Skullcleaver enters, attacks, is unblocked, and both players mark down 2 life -
If the only problem is a GRV, that doesn't actually occur until combat damage, when life totals change incorrectly. When rewinding, we'd only rewind to the combat damage step, and resolve that correctly.

If the problem is a CPV, we'd rewind to the original communication ‘swing for 2’, giving the defending player a chance to change their blocks and responses based on the now-correctly-communicated power of Skullcleaver.

Edited Talin Salway (June 7, 2014 02:06:51 AM)

I don't know, why do you want to rewind till blocker declaration in that situation? Player N knows, that player A acknowledged Skullcleaver trigger, so he should make blocks considering that that cow is a 4/2 creature. After that, we have incorrect damage distribution, both players know that Skullcleaver is a 4/2, but only 2 damages are assigned. This is the point when we have infraction, so I don's see reason to back up further.

Add to the fact that the NAP should be assuming the Skullcleaver trigger is
remembered anyway given current policy on Missed Triggers. If you're
assuming your opponent missed a trigger and are upset when it turns out
they didn't, current policy doesn't hold good news for you regardless.

If Ambergris didn't say anything at all, NAP would have to assume the trigger was not missed, and play accordingly. In this case though, AP *did* say something - they communicated that the power of the attacking creature was specifically 2.