Flusterstorm - Missed trigger?

[iamajellydonut]

If you mean they could be paying 1, seeing if the opponent forgot the storm trigger, and then trying to undo that if the opponent did remember - well, saying they forgot the storm is Cheating. It's up to judges to suss out cheating.

This is pretty much what I'm trying to get at. The problem being that the trigger doesn't exist until Player B says it exists or Player A acknowledges it. So, when does it become cheating?


This is the Dark Confidant trick by the way.

When I had Dark Confidant in Vintage and my opponent had Tangle Wire, I would also ask "reveal for Confidant?"; they say "yes" and had just missed their Tangle Wire trigger.

[Valtrix]

Here's something related to triggers. Say I cast a Batterskull and then start making a move to my deckbox/bag/etc. with the intention of getting something for a token, but without announcing explicitly what I'm doing. While doing that I say that I pass the turn (to keep the game moving quickly), but before I've actually obtained a token from my things. Would this technically be considered a missed trigger or not?

[Julian23]

You ask your opponent (who also controls Tangle Wire) whether your Dark Confidant triggers resolves. If he says "yes", it's too late for him to resolve his Tangle Wire trigger now.

Regarding the Flusterstorm, I think it's perfectly fine to just say "pay 1 for the original Flusterstorm" and then try to undo when your opponent reminds you that there are copies on the stack. You trying to pay for the initial Flusterstorm is the first moment in the game where our opponent gets a chance to demonstrate awareness of his trigger. Without us trying to resolve the stack (=trying to pay 1 for the original Flusterstorm) and him not announcing Storm, how are we ever gonna know what the game state is? You could say "just ask" but that would totally defeat the purpose of the "new" trigger policy.

[cdr]

This is pretty much what I'm trying to get at. The problem being that the trigger doesn't exist until Player B says it exists or Player A acknowledges it. So, when does it become cheating?

It becomes cheating when you a) attempt to do something illegal while knowing what you're trying is illegal, or b) lie to a judge.

If you're going to attempt to see if your opponent will miss a trigger, you had better be explicit - just attempting to pay 1 is not sufficient. "Flusterstorm resolves?" would be OK. This how it relates to Dark Confidant - you're not just going ahead and trying to resolve the thing on the stack that's below Dark Confidant, you're asking. The opponent has to be given the chance to demonstrate (and then miss) the existence of their trigger.

Here's something related to triggers. Say I cast a Batterskull and then start making a move to my deckbox/bag/etc. with the intention of getting something for a token, but without announcing explicitly what I'm doing. While doing that I say that I pass the turn (to keep the game moving quickly), but before I've actually obtained a token from my things. Would this technically be considered a missed trigger or not?

Reaching for a token is demonstration of awareness of the trigger. Any informed judge would be fine with that. Still, it's a good idea to verbally acknowledge triggers and remove any possible ambiguity.

[iamajellydonut]

It becomes cheating when you a) attempt to do something illegal while knowing what you're trying is illegal, or b) lie to a judge.

If you're going to attempt to see if your opponent will miss a trigger, you had better be explicit - just attempting to pay 1 is not sufficient. "Flusterstorm resolves?" would be OK. This how it relates to Dark Confidant - you're not just going ahead and trying to resolve the thing on the stack that's below Dark Confidant, you're asking. The opponent has to be given the chance to demonstrate (and then miss) the existence of their trigger.

Ok, this clears up a lot. Thank you.

[cdr]

You ask your opponent (who also controls Tangle Wire) whether your Dark Confidant triggers resolves. If he says "yes", it's too late for him to resolve his Tangle Wire trigger now.

Regarding the Flusterstorm, I think it's perfectly fine to just say "pay 1 for the original Flusterstorm" and then try to undo when your opponent reminds you that there are copies on the stack. You trying to pay for the initial Flusterstorm is the first moment in the game where our opponent gets a chance to demonstrate awareness of his trigger. Without us trying to resolve the stack (=trying to pay 1 for the original Flusterstorm) and him not announcing Storm, how are we ever gonna know what the game state is? You could say "just ask" but that would totally defeat the purpose of the "new" trigger policy.

As above, just trying to resolve the thing below the trigger you hope will be missed is not OK. You absolutely do have to ask a question if there's ambiguity - it has to be clear that they missed the trigger before you can continue.

[Julian23]

To be fair, that puts you into a position where there player to causing the ambiguity either breaks even or even benefits, while the player resolving the ambiguity either breaks even or even suffers.

[Esper3k]

As above, just trying to resolve the thing below the trigger you hope will be missed is not OK. You absolutely do have to ask a question if there's ambiguity - it has to be clear that they missed the trigger before you can continue.

So in Julian's example, is asking if the Dark Confidant trigger resolves (and your opponent saying "yes") not enough of a sign of them missing the Tangle Wire trigger?

Also, if I have a question about how we know if an opponent has missed the trigger or not in a particular situation, should I just ask it here or start a new thread? I don't want to get too far off topic on this one by asking about a different potential missed trigger situation if it'd be easier for me to ask in a separate thread.

[cdr]

To be fair, that puts you into a position where there player to causing the ambiguity either breaks even or even benefits, while the player resolving the ambiguity either breaks even or even suffers.

Yes, that's pretty much how it is. If it's important to you as the other player whether the trigger exists, you have to ask.

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliot...he-bonus-disc/

Lots and lots of triggers fall into this bucket. Basically anything that “does” something physical on resolution: kill stuff, bring stuff back, add counters to stuff, tap stuff, etc. A player misses these when they make it explicitly clear that they’ve missed it: by playing a spell that you couldn’t otherwise play, or by trying to move (or just moving) to another phase. No losing them on technicalities, and if the opponent wants to act at instant speed but needs to know if the trigger is still on the stack, they have to ask about it directly, or we assume yes.

“Explicitly moving to the next step” does mean explicit. “Combat” (or just turning creatures sideways), “Go”, drawing for your turn. These are explicit. A pause is not, nor is trying any priority-grabbing tricks.

So in Julian's example, is asking if the Dark Confidant trigger resolves (and your opponent saying "yes") not enough of a sign of them missing the Tangle Wire trigger?

It is enough of a sign - that's where the line is. A asked B to demonstrate awareness of the trigger (slash basic game rules) and they declined.

In the original Flusterstorm example, nothing is being asked - that's where A goes wrong, if he's aware of the trigger. It has to be clear that B is OK with moving past the point where the trigger would resolve.

Also, if I have a question about how we know if an opponent has missed the trigger or not in a particular situation, should I just ask it here or start a new thread? I don't want to get too far off topic on this one by asking about a different potential missed trigger situation if it'd be easier for me to ask in a separate thread.

If it's in a similar vein it should be fine in here.

[Esper3k]

Gotcha, thanks!

In the case of a trigger off of something like an Eidolon of Great Revels or Chalice of the Void where they're triggering off of their own spell, if you're checking to see if they forgot their trigger or not, do you just say their spell is resolving and then when they go to resolve it, you call a judge?

[iamajellydonut]

Gotcha, thanks!

In the case of a trigger off of something like an Eidolon of Great Revels or Chalice of the Void where they're triggering off of their own spell, if you're checking to see if they forgot their trigger or not, do you just say their spell is resolving and then when they go to resolve it, you call a judge?

So, you're wondering how, for example, an opponent casting Brainstorm through their own Chalice of the Void would work?

As they are the controller of both, it would be considered a Detrimental Trigger and they are obligated to remember it. If a judge is called, it is likely they would receive a warning. I would certainly advise doing it before they actually begin the process of resolving the Brainstorm and draw cards, though. If they begin drawing cards and you call a judge, well, two wrongs don't make a right. You want to call a judge after it's clear he's missing the trigger but before it irrevocably impacts the game.

*sent from phone

[cdr]

Gotcha, thanks!

In the case of a trigger off of something like an Eidolon of Great Revels or Chalice of the Void where they're triggering off of their own spell, if you're checking to see if they forgot their trigger or not, do you just say their spell is resolving and then when they go to resolve it, you call a judge?

When you don't have something on the stack or potentially need to respond to the trigger, I'd just wait to see if they start to resolve the spell.

"Gotcha" strategies like asking if something resolves are right on the borderline of shadiness, so I'd recommend being very careful you know what you're doing and avoid doing it when possible.

iamajellydonut does have a point about stopping them as soon as possible from continuing with illegal actions (in the case of detrimental triggers).

[Esper3k]

So, you're wondering how an opponent casting Brainstorm through their own Chalice of the Void would work?

As they are the controller of both, it would be considered a Detrimental Trigger and they are obligated to remember it. If a judge is called, it is likely they would receive a warning.

I believe I understand how it would work. My question was at which point is it considered missed?

For example, your opponent has an Eidolon of Great Revels out. They cast Lightning Bolt targetting you. You look at them expectantly, pause, and say it resolves. They go to write down your life total changing.

Is it considered missed in the following situations:

1) Say, "Oh, I take 2 damage" after writing down life totals?
2) You write down your life total change, but they don't and say "Oh, I take 2 damage"
3) They go to write down your life total change and then tell you that they take 2 damage?

[Esper3k]

When you don't have something on the stack or potentially need to respond to the trigger, I'd just wait to see if they resolve the spell.

"Gotcha" strategies like asking if something resolves are right on the borderline of shadiness, so I'd recommend being very careful you know what you're doing and avoid doing it when possible.

But in cases like Chalices and Eidolons, if we don't ask if our spells resolve, is there a way we can tell if they missed the trigger or not? We don't want to be shady, but we also want to be explicitly clear that they forgot it so there can't be any argument over it?

[cdr]

I believe I understand how it would work. My question was at which point is it considered missed?

For example, your opponent has an Eidolon of Great Revels out. They cast Lightning Bolt targetting you. You look at them expectantly, pause, and say it resolves. They go to write down your life total changing.

Is it considered missed in the following situations:

1) Say, "Oh, I take 2 damage" after writing down life totals?
2) You write down your life total change, but they don't and say "Oh, I take 2 damage"
3) They go to write down your life total change and then tell you that they take 2 damage?

1-3 basically depend on whether what they do makes it clear they only remembered the Eidolon trigger after the Lighting Bolt began resolving. For 1 they pretty clearly forgot and should get a warning, 2 and 3 are not clear.

But in cases like Chalices and Eidolons, if we don't ask if our spells resolve, is there a way we can tell if they missed the trigger or not? We don't want to be shady, but we also want to be explicitly clear that they forgot it so there can't be any argument over it?

Them taking absolutely any action after the trigger should have resolved is enough to clear up the ambiguity. If you as the other player need to resolve the ambiguity before the trigger player for some reason, ask - just be careful that you're not trying to mislead or misrepresent. "X resolves?" is fine.

[iamajellydonut]

But in cases like Chalices and Eidolons, if we don't ask if our spells resolve, is there a way we can tell if they missed the trigger or not? We don't want to be shady, but we also want to be explicitly clear that they forgot it so there can't be any argument over it?

He misses his triggers at exactly the same points in time as any other trigger. If he resolves the Lightning Bolt and doesn't write down both life total changes, he has missed his trigger. You can remind him off such, allow him a heartbeat to evaluate the game, or just straight up call a judge. If you do call a judge, just don't be shady about it. Don't be a giddy snitch and don't be a domineering dork. You are clearly capable of understanding what should have happened, so you are calling over a judge solely to ensure your opponent wasn't acting with ill intentions. Nothing more. If it seems like the call was for personal gain, you are liable.

sent from phone

[Esper3k]

1-3 basically depend on whether what they do makes it clear they only remembered the Eidolon trigger after the Lighting Bolt began resolving. For 1 they pretty clearly forgot and should get a warning, 2 and 3 are not clear.



Them taking absolutely any action after the trigger should have resolved is enough to clear up the ambiguity. If you as the other player need to resolve the ambiguity before the trigger player for some reason, ask - just be careful that you're not trying to mislead or misrepresent. "X resolves?" is fine.

Thanks for the clarification! I'm only asking these nitty gritty little questions because I have run into them before in the past where I think it's clear the opponent forgot their own trigger (normally people who remember them trigger it), but didn't remember it until during your spell resolving, etc. but it's always so hard to prove that from our side. I tend to usually let the first one slide, ask them to remember their triggers, then start calling judges on subsequent ones.

I'm not trying to be shady, but I also don't want to be letting my opponents' mistakes slip through if I don't have to, you know?

[Julian23]

Yes, that's pretty much how it is. If it's important to you as the other player whether the trigger exists, you have to ask.

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliot...he-bonus-disc/

Lots and lots of triggers fall into this bucket. Basically anything that “does” something physical on resolution: kill stuff, bring stuff back, add counters to stuff, tap stuff, etc. A player misses these when they make it explicitly clear that they’ve missed it: by playing a spell that you couldn’t otherwise play, or by trying to move (or just moving) to another phase. No losing them on technicalities, and if the opponent wants to act at instant speed but needs to know if the trigger is still on the stack, they have to ask about it directly, or we assume yes.

“Explicitly moving to the next step” does mean explicit. “Combat” (or just turning creatures sideways), “Go”, drawing for your turn. These are explicit. A pause is not, nor is trying any priority-grabbing tricks.

The way you phrase your explanations always make me think that you "frown upon" what you call "Gotcha" or "priority-grabbing tricks". I think those are way to actually preserve the integrity of the game by making sure that players who are not mentally involved enough to be punished. And that's a good thing when you want the better player to hold an advantage over the lesser one.

Regarding asking in order to find out whether a trigger existed, I really think such a policy promotes cheating. Someone forgets his trigger but then gets put into a position where he can just lie when asked and super likely get away with it. The solution I am suggestion is that if there is zero indication for the trigger having been put on the stack, the opponent should proceed as if the player had forgotten the trigger, then be allowed a backup when the player points out that the trigger is actually on the stack. How else would you ever be able to capitalize on your opponent's mistake if not for some corner-case scenarios like the one I mentioned above, where your question on whether he has any triggers is disguised by another trigger and APNAP rules? The whole point of the new rules is to no longer be put into a position where you are helping your opponent play the game.

If you wanna talk what's shady, I was recently told that when your opponent is checking for Tarmogoyf's power and asking you what was in your graveyard, you can just say "Sorcery, Land, Instant" and not mention that there's also a creature. This might be REL-dependant but only carrying about Competitive+, this sounds something that is very borderline. But if it's ok, it means that it's part of the skill-game. What I am worried about here is that most people are not aware of this being legal.

[cdr]

The way you phrase your explanations always make me think that you "frown upon" what you call "Gotcha" or "priority-grabbing tricks". I think those are way to actually preserve the integrity of the game by making sure that players who are not mentally involved enough to be punished. And that's a good thing when you want the better player to hold an advantage over the lesser one.

Regarding asking in order to find out whether a trigger existed, I really think such a policy promotes cheating. Someone forgets his trigger but then gets put into a position where he can just lie when asked and super likely get away with it. The solution I am suggestion is that if there is zero indication for the trigger having been put on the stack, the opponent should proceed as if the player had forgotten the trigger, then be allowed a backup when the player points out that the trigger is actually on the stack. How else would you ever be able to capitalize on your opponent's mistake if not for some corner-case scenarios like the one I mentioned above, where your question on whether he has any triggers is disguised by another trigger and APNAP rules? The whole point of the new rules is to no longer be put into a position where you are helping your opponent play the game.

If you wanna talk what's shady, I was recently told that when your opponent is checking for Tarmogoyf's power and asking you what was in your graveyard, you can just say "Sorcery, Land, Instant" and not mention that there's also a creature. This might be REL-dependant but only carrying about Competitive+, this sounds something that is very borderline. But if it's ok, it means that it's part of the skill-game. What I am worried about here is that most people are not aware of this being legal.

WotC R&D and the judge program want the rules to take into account how the game is actually played, hence why concepts like Out of Order Sequencing exist. There is a strong distaste for "gotchas", yes.

I'll disagree that the trigger rules encourage cheating or make it any easier. It's not easy to lie about if a judge is paying attention at all. It is very clear when a trigger is forgotten by a player proceeding past the trigger, and in the unusual case the opponent cares whether the trigger is remembered before things proceed, the only reasonable option is to have them ask for clarification. Letting opponents proceed as if triggers were forgotten would end up in a ton more messy illegal play situations.

Tarmogoyf is communication policy. Player communication can certainly get technical, so that's another area you're best not to try to get "tricky" in without being very sure you know where the lines are. If an opponent simply asks "What's in your yard?" (and there's absolutely nothing indicating he is looking specifically for the number of types of cards) and you answer "Well, there's a sorcery, a land, and an instant" (and there's absolutely nothing implying you're giving a complete answer), then you might be OK. Screw up and not understand the communication rules as well as you thought and you could just as easily get disqualified for cheating if a judge finds you went over the line. I don't think you're generally gaining enough advantage to make "tricks" worth the trouble. Jackie Lee thought she was being (legally) tricky and ended up DQed from a PT, among many other examples.

[Tammit67]

Regarding asking in order to find out whether a trigger existed, I really think such a policy promotes cheating. Someone forgets his trigger but then gets put into a position where he can just lie when asked and super likely get away with it. The solution I am suggestion is that if there is zero indication for the trigger having been put on the stack, the opponent should proceed as if the player had forgotten the trigger, then be allowed a backup when the player points out that the trigger is actually on the stack.

I control a fetchland. Brainstorm with chalice @ 1 in play. I draw my cards for brainstorm, opponent calls a judge.

Good luck backing that up