I'm still a little fuzzy on the missed trigger rules, and I've gotten different answers so I'd might as well open it up here =s

Let's say Alex missed the transform trigger on Ravager of the Fells on his upkeep. Nate notices it but says nothing. We go to combat, Alex declares his attacks, Nate blocks it with a 3/3, calls a Judge, and explains his opponent missed the trigger and he would like it put on the stack. …Is that actually fair game?

And if I'm called right as that ability should trigger, I assume my opponent only gets the one opportunity, at that point, to have the trigger go on the stack? (ie. they can't call me over a minute later and say “actually judge yes I do want this trigger to happen”)

We went over this scenario at the West Coast Judge conference.

Yes the NAP is allowed to do this, knowing the rules and the window on when a missed trigger can be most beneficial to the NAP is definatly a skill.
Just like Combat Damage on the Stack used to be. (no longer applies, but this is the new skill tester for players)


This also enforces Toby's message that remembering triggers is a skill and the philosophy of ‘Players are expected to remember their own triggers’.



Neil Meyer
L1 - Calgary Alberta





Subject: A player sitting on a missed trigger (Competitive REL)
From: forum-1683@apps.magicjudges.org
To: neil_meyer@hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 17:13:18 +0000

I'm still a little fuzzy on the missed trigger rules, and I've gotten different answers so I'd might as well open it up here =s

Let's say Alex missed the transform trigger on Ravager of the Fells on his upkeep. Nate notices it but says nothing. We go to combat, Alex declares his attacks, Nate blocks it with a 3/3, calls a Judge, and explains his opponent missed the trigger and he would like it put on the stack. …Is that actually fair game?

And if I'm called right as that ability should trigger, I assume my opponent only gets the one opportunity, at that point, to have the trigger go on the stack? (ie. they can't call me over a minute later and say “actually judge yes I do want this trigger to happen”)

——————————————————————————–
If you want to respond to this thread, s imply reply to this e-mail. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/7867/

You can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit/

Alex messed up, Nate knows how the rules works. This will always work out
well for Nate. If Alex plays the game better he'll not get stung by this.

Sounds very fair to me.

Makes enough sense. Thanks… And just to confirm, the moment a player calls attention to a missed trigger is the only chance the opponent gets to have it put on the stack, correct?

So, if Alex drew his card and called a Judge because he realized he messed up, Nate couldn't say “no, it doesn't flip” and then call me back later during the same turn and have it flip?

That is correct, once we have handled a situation and made the fix that is
the end of it…unless the player wanted to appeal (I don't know what they
would be appealing) to the HJ the ruling of a floor judge is final in the
situation it is given.

I thought the turn was broke down into three parts: 1st untap-pre main, 2nd combat, 3rd post main-end step. Once you crossed one of the thresholds there is no going back.

Not sure where you're seeing that - usually, any trigger that should have occurred within a turn of the point you're currently at can still be placed on the stack. So in the case of a transform trigger on upkeep, you have until the following upkeep to call a judge and have the trigger still occur.

E- Or more precisely, you can have your *opponent's* triggers still occur within a turn, as long as they're also not triggers with default actions (“may” triggers, or “if you don't”/“unless”) :)

Edited Rebecca Lawrence (Jan. 24, 2013 10:20:45 AM)

Even if what Rodney suggested isnt in the rules, wouldn't something similar be useful to cut down a bit on the number of “gotcha” situations we're seeing lately?

In this situation, the trigger has visual representation, so the NAP allowed for a legal but “incorrect” game state for several steps to take advantage of it on blocking.

I do agree with the “remembering triggers is a skill” policy but I (and most of us I believe) don't like the gotcha situations specially in cases like this where the AP decided his attackers based on the fact that it was a 4/4 and not a 2/2.

Maybe shortening the time span on when an opponent can ask to place the trigger on the stack would make for an overall better game experience?

Rodney, The rules you are remembering are old rules and they have been changed.

Originally posted by Jorge Monteiro:

I do agree with the “remembering triggers is a skill” policy but I (and most of us I believe) don't like the gotcha situations specially in cases like this where the AP decided his attackers based on the fact that it was a 4/4 and not a 2/2.

The AP In this situation is getting the much better deal in this situation by neglecting his own trigger. Let's pretend to shorten the window of opportunity in which th NAP can call for the missed trigger to happen to before attackers are declared. The AP is now under very little obligation to remember his mandatory transform trigger which at the moment would be detrimental to him. The burden is on the NAP to understand the opportunity window for him to bring up the missed trigger, just to remove the possibility of the AP cheating a 4/4 attacker rather than a 2/2. The focus is now squarely on the tournament rules, not the game rules.

By keeping that window open, the burden is back on the AP to maintain the visual representation of the game state dictated by the cards themselves. The attacking creature is by all rights a 2/2 even if its controller hasn't acknowledged it. Any such discrepancy is likely to be beneficial to one player and detrimental to the other. The idea here is to put the burden of responsibility on the trigger's controller.

The stickier aspect of these trigger rules, that I've heard personally from testimony, are from the invisible triggers, particularly ones controlled by the NAP. Jace, Architect of Thought's first ability is a good example - forgetting to give attackers -1/-0 until it was too late was a common theme at the recent GP. But I don't see a better solution without fundamental game rule alterations; it's just a change in player habits that's probably for the better. The Huntmaster situation probably isn't the best case for an amendment to the current trigger rules. Never mind all this as it was posted before the most recent missed trigger rule changes. :rolleyes:

Edited Aaron Huntsman (Feb. 17, 2013 06:22:02 PM)