When is a trigger considered missed exactly? Should the player point it out the moment it triggers? The moment it resolves? Both?

Let me lay out a couple scenarios:

1) Elsewhere Flask enters the battlefield under A's control. A then says “draw for Flask on the stack”, then uses Conjurer's Bauble, then says “draw for the Flask” and draws
2) Elsewhere Flask enters the battlefield under A's control. A then uses Conjurer's Bauble, then says “draw for the Flask” and draws
3) Elsewhere Flask enters the battlefield under A's control. A then says “draw for Flask on the stack”, then uses Conjurer's Bauble, then says “oh, I forgot to draw for the Flask”
4) Elsewhere Flask enters the battlefield under A's control. A then uses Conjurer's Bauble, then says “oh, I forgot to draw for the Flask”

In which cases do you let the player draw? Why?

Is there any case where the opponent should remind the player to draw if he forgot to do so (but announced the ability)?

Thanks,

Daniel

I would let the player draw in each of those situations. That's because a trigger is not considered “missed” until the game progressed beyond the point when the trigger should have resolved. Since the Bauble can be activated in response to the Flask trigger, in none of these situations has the game progressed such that Flask should have resolved.

1) no trigger missed here.

2) no trigger missed here by the reason stated by Darcy

3) no trigger missed here since he placed it on the stack. he just resolved the trigger incorrectly

4) missed trigger. I wouldn't let him draw. the game has progressed beyond when it should have resolved since he said it himself.

On your point for situation 4), my interpretation understand that a forgotten trigger is different from a missed trigger. The question we need to ask isn't if the player forgot the trigger, the question to ask is if the game state has proceeded to a point where the trigger should have necessarily resolved, but didn't. In the example provided, we are not in that kind of game state: Bauble can be activated on top of the trigger, so we are in a valid state where there the trigger may not have resolved. I don't think it matters that the player admits he forgot the trigger. After all, the philosophy behind GPE - MT isn't to punish players for making a mistake as soon as they make it, but rather to discourage consistent sloppy play, to protect the game state, and to prevent a player from taking advantage of their mistake in the future.

Edited Darcy Alemany (Jan. 13, 2013 09:51:32 PM)

Originally posted by Darcy Alemany:

On your point for situation 4), my interpretation understand that a forgotten trigger is different from a missed trigger. The question we need to ask isn't if the player forgot the trigger, the question to ask is if the game state has proceeded to a point where the trigger should have necessarily resolved, but didn't. In the example provided, we are not in that kind of game state: Bauble can be activated on top of the trigger, so we are in a valid state where there the trigger may not have resolved. I don't think it matters that the player admits he forgot the trigger. After all, the philosophy behind GPE - MT isn't to punish players for making a mistake as soon as they make it, but rather to discourage consistent sloppy play, to protect the game state, and to prevent a player from taking advantage of their mistake in the future.

I tend to disagree, due to two reasons. Fist, yes, the question is, if the player forgot his trigger. Unfortunatly it is not always easy to tell. So we use the game state and the question, if it has progressed beyond the point when the trigger should have resolved as an indicator for the player's intentions. The phrase “show awerness” in the IPG points in a similar direction. A player has to be aware of his triggers, ergo has to remember them. Secondly, if we'd apply your thought, woudn't that mean, that a player can take any instant actions (including casting spells) and if he remembers the trigger during that and states “oh, I forgot the trigger”, this would be okay. This makes it more complicated - unnecessarily.
So based on that, I'd rule as follows:
1) No Missed Trigger
2) No Missed Trigger, if the player states it instantly after the resolution of the Bauble's ability, this shows awareness of the trigger
3) No Missed Trigger, although this is a tricky one as he forgot the trigger after the resolution. But he clearly showed, that he was aware of the trigger, when it actually triggered
4) Missed Trigger, he did not show awerness of the trigger when it triggered
So to answer Daniel's question: I'd say the player has to show that he was aware of the trigger at the time it triggered.
But I understand, that this is a bit tricky. Actually I have the most problems with Situation 2. Any takes on that?
Cheers,
Joel

I would tend to go with none of these are missed triggers.

1 seems perfect, played the flask, announced the trigger, responded to trigger, resolves trigger.

2 doesn't acknowledge the flask on entering the battlefield, but hasn't passed the point of the trigger resolution, is obviously aware of the trigger though.

3 acknowledges the trigger at the correct time putting it on the stack, responds to trigger, then points out he hadn't drawn for the trigger, definitely cannot rule this as a missed trigger because he announces the trigger. Why he thinks he forgot, perhaps he was planning on drawing for the flask before activating the bauble, but it's not actually forgotten, it was just the trigger was responded to.

4 sounds like a missed as the player uses the words “forgot” but he's actually saying he forgot to draw, not that he forgot the trigger, so it seems like it's basically #2 without the player understanding that he can respond to the trigger.

Originally posted by Mark Brown:

4 sounds like a missed as the player uses the words “forgot” but he's actually saying he forgot to draw, not that he forgot the trigger, so it seems like it's basically #2 without the player understanding that he can respond to the trigger.

Uh, that did not cross my mind, that the player could not know, that he is able to respond to the trigger. But honestly, the distinction between he only forgot the draw and he forgot the trigger, is a slippery slope. With a trigger that is essentially only a draw, isn't that the same for most players? If I'd forget the trigger, I might also say “Oh, I forgot the draw” and mean instead the whole trigger.

This is a classic problem with parsing testimony. Common usage and simple outbursts often contain far less information than is needed to draw a specific conclusion. In American English usage, it is not unusual for someone to say “I forgot . . .” to refer to any number of lapses. In some ways, it is comparable to saying, “I'm sorry.” Without context, it is nigh impossible to discern the true meaning of such a statement. When a player says, “I forgot . . .” he or she can mean anything from having forgotten the trigger to having forgotten its place in the sequence of timing and resolutions to even so far as simply meaning, “I am sorry, but I got caught up in a bunch of actions and meant to stop you before you noted anything being amiss as I am still in the middle of doing various things.”

1) Absolutely not a missed trigger.
2) Also not a missed trigger. While he didn't say anything, he has not taken an action that indicates that he is past the point of resolution of Elsewhere Flask's trigger, so he has not missed it.
3) Not a missed trigger. He has demonstrated awareness of the trigger, and again, since he has not passed the point of resolution for the Elsewhere Flask, it is not missed.
4) I would say this is not a missed trigger either. Again, our line of demarcation on whether a trigger is missed or not is whether the player has acknowledged it by the time when it would have resolved. Nothing has happened in the game state to indicate that we are past that point, so he absolutely gets to draw here.

As far as whether the opponent should remind the player to draw if they have announced the ability, if the ability does not contain “may” in it, then absolutely. Announcing the ability and then failing to resolve it correctly (i.e. not drawing a card when instructed to) is no longer missed trigger in my perception, that is now a Game Rule Violation (the trigger has been acknowledged and is on the stack, and then they do not resolve it correctly).

Originally posted by Joel Krebs:

I tend to disagree, due to two reasons. Fist, yes, the question is, if the player forgot his trigger. Unfortunatly it is not always easy to tell. So we use the game state and the question, if it has progressed beyond the point when the trigger should have resolved as an indicator for the player's intentions. The phrase “show awerness” in the IPG points in a similar direction. A player has to be aware of his triggers, ergo has to remember them. Secondly, if we'd apply your thought, woudn't that mean, that a player can take any instant actions (including casting spells) and if he remembers the trigger during that and states “oh, I forgot the trigger”, this would be okay. This makes it more complicated - unnecessarily

The problem here, though, is that this philosophy of penalizing a player as soon as they forget a trigger is not in the IPG. In fact, the philosophy behind this policy is not to harshly penalize players for forgetting triggers, with the recognition that remembering beneficial triggers is a skill. I would argue that not allowing a player to announce a trigger before that trigger has resolved is harshly punishing them, because in these cases the presence of that trigger on the stack is unlikely to cause harm to the game state or unfairly bias the result of the game to either player. With this understanding of the philosophy behind the infractions, and considering how the definition of MT is written, not allowing a player to acknowledge triggers that may not have yet resolved is a deviation from IPG, even if a player “forgot” to announce a trigger when it was originally placed on the stack.

Yes, this means that players can respond to trigger with instant-speed actions before acknowledging the resolution of the trigger. I don't think that adds any significant levels of complication to rulings that judges will practically be making. In fact, I'd argue that the MT definition was written specifically to preserve this interaction. To me, it's worse to have a rule which punishes players for calling a judge and telling us a truth, and rewards player for colouring a situation to their favour. I think it's important to recognize that, in the context of the game and how it relates to the IPG, situation 2 and situation 4 are completely identical, except that the player admits that they forgot the trigger. If only situation 4 results in a penalty, then I think we are in the case I described and I'd advocate for a change.

EDIT: In order for us to be beyond the point where the trigger should resolve, both players need to pass priority with only the trigger on the stack. There is no way for Player A to forget their trigger, pass priority, than play and resolve a Bauble activation without either a) there being a step change, or b) the player acknowledges the existence of a trigger by stating they are using Bauble in the same step despite passing priority. Since there is no acknowledgement of a step change, the above situation could only have happened if the trigger has not yet resolved.

Edited Darcy Alemany (Jan. 18, 2013 05:36:51 AM)