Hello,

For as long as I've been playing and judging at Regular, I've basically explained to people that “if a trigger is good for you, its on you to remember it, otherwise too bad”. This has been very easy for players to understand. However, after a discussion with another judge, it appears I was wrong. The Judging at Regular document states in relevant part:

Originally posted by Judging at Regular (emphasis mine):

(Triggered) abilities are considered missed if the player did not acknowledge the ability in any way at the point that it required choices or had a visible in-game effect. If the ability includes the word “may,” assume the player chose not to perform it. Otherwise, put the ability on the stack unless you think it would be too disruptive - don’t add it to the stack if significant decisions have been made based on the effect not happening! Unlike other illegal actions (which must be pointed out), players may choose whether or not to point out their opponent's missed triggers.

The most obvious issue with this policy is that giving the judge the ability to decide what “too disruptive” means can potentially lead to many upset players, for the same reason why the HCE fix has the opponent choose the cards instead of having a judge choose what the “best cards” are. This problem is compounded for the question at hand, as many of the judges enforcing this document are uncertified, untrained, and unexperienced store judges. In addition, my experience is that these kinds of missed triggers are more likely to happen in eternal formats where store judges may not have a good grasp on the format and therefore may not know what “too disruptive” means. There's plenty of instances where I would have been quite salty if a judge ruled that my Delver of Secrets got countered by Chalice of the Void last turn and I made microdecisions based on it resolving, or if I suddenly find out I have two less life to play with because I cast a Vendilion Clique into an Eidolon of the Great Revel and the opponent remembered the trigger after I chose a card based on how much my life total was at.

Further, this policy no longer meshes with card design philosophy. My understanding is that WOTC currently designs cards without using the word “may” for beneficial abilities with an understanding that the abilities can still be missed, at any level; the recent Ajani's Pridemate change seems to heavily stress that. However, this policy seems to indicate that this philosophy only applies for Competitive REL, which seems strange given that the cards are printed a certain way to be played this way, and cards read the same no matter what REL they are played at. I believe that WOTC's card design team would find it truly bizarre for a player to be allowed to “surveil” and flip Search for Azcanta after drawing their card for turn.

A more detailed investigation seems to confirm my theory that this is an oversight. It appears that this section of the JAR hasn't been updated since the last iteration; and the last time the JAR got a pass, card design philosophy was still to use the word “may” for beneficial abilities. (e.g. Karametra, God of Harvests, which was printed at approximately the same time as this JAR iteration)

Originally posted by Judging at Regular, 2/4/2014 version (emphasis mine):

{Triggered) abilities are considered missed if the player did not acknowledge them in any way at the point that it required choices or had a visible in-game effect. If the ability includes the word “may,” assume the player chose not to perform it. Otherwise, add it to the stack now unless it happened so long ago that you think it would be very disruptive to the game - don’t add the ability to the stack if significant decisions having been made based on the effect not happening! Unlike other game rule errors (which must be pointed out), players are never required to point out their opponent’s missed triggered abilities, although they may do so.

I ask that this section of the JAR be given another look, given the concerns I've detailed.

edit: formatting

Edited Elaine Cao (Feb. 20, 2019 11:53:14 AM)

Originally posted by Elaine Cao:

Put the ability on the stack unless you think it would be too disruptive - don’t add it to the stack if significant decisions have been made based on the effect not happening!

All of your examples are covered by this line. Those all sound like significant descisions being made based on the trigger not happening.

If you're concerned about the inexperienced judges that may be applying this policy, that seems more like an educational concern. Blaming the documents for judges who weren't taught policy well enough doesn't seem productive.

Karametra, God of Harvests has a ‘may’ because searching is often a ‘may’. For reference see District Guide (current set, still has a ‘may’, because it is searching). As an example of a card in the same set as Karametra which doesn't use “may”: Akroan Skyguard.

More specifically, the R&D shift away from “may” happened closer to 2011. Shrine of Burning Rage was the prime example for this R&D change influencing judge policy. But there were also cards from the same set that used ‘may’ that probably wouldn't today (Suture priest). It was a trend from R&D that was ongoing, but that the judge program recognized.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't revisit policy, or advocate for alterations. I just want to make clear that the current JAR language, as it relates to missed triggers, is deliberate and not an oversight.