[Penalty Guidelines] Reminding Your Opponent CHANGES

[Julian23]

/edit: Yes, I misspelled "Guidelines" (._.)

Just noticed a post by Adrian Sullivan on Facebook. Apparently there have been some changes (effective January 1st 2012) to the Infraction Procedure Guide.

What he's most concerned with is the following:

Infraction Procedure Guide (http://www.wizards.com/ContentResources/Wizards/WPN/Main/Documents/Magic_The_Gathering_Infraction_Procedure_Guide_PDF2.pdf)
- 1.4. - You are no longer required to remind your opponent of mandatory triggers.
- 3.1. - Only the player controlling a trigger is responsible for resolving it correctly.


It makes much of what was mandatory non-mandatory. Now, if you are an inexperienced player, and you miss something that helps you that used to be required, your opponent can be quiet, and just let it happen.


As an example, during a PTQ in St. Louis, my opponent failed to untap his Goblin Sharpshooter. I noticed that the untap was not a "may" ability. Sadly, I informed my opponent that he was required to untap his Sharpshooter. This cost me the T8.

Now, I would not be required to enforce the rules of the card, and could just let him fail to resolve triggers because he didn't notice. This seems wrong.

If all of this is true (maybe a judge can give some more insight to the intention of these changes) this is a huge change to the way I play Magic. Suddenly Brian Kibler "missing" out on the mandatory trigger on Angel of Despair doesn't become something fishy but a good play. On the pro side, these changes eliminate the super awkward situation where you check your opponent's card for a possible mandatory trigger only to realize that it was optional and thus reminded him of putting it on the stack.

However, my gut tells me he doesn't like it...yet.

Bonus: Apparently you can't lose the game with Transcendence in play. Right now it seems you can just chose not to gain life, because of:


IPG
At Competitive and Professional REL, some additional triggered abilities and enters-the-battlefield replacement effects are considered optional. The player is not required to follow the instruction when the ability resolves, and if the ability is forgotten it will not retroactively be applied. An optional ability does one or more of the following things, and nothing else:

1. Gains you life or causes an opponent to lose life.
2. ...

The real big change is that you are now allowed to ignore mandatory triggers you would usually benefit from. According to IPG 1.4, "benefit you" means:


• Gains you life or causes an opponent to lose life.
• Puts cards from your library, graveyard, or exile zones into your hand or onto the battlefield. This includes drawing cards.
• Causes opponents to put objects from their hand or the battlefield into the library, graveyard or exile.
• Puts a permanent into play under your control or gives you control of a permanent.
• Puts +x/+x counters, or counters linked to a beneficial effect, on a permanent you control.
• Gives +x/+x or a beneficial ability to a target creature you control.
• Exiles, damages, destroys, taps, or gives -x/-x to an opponent's target permanent. If the ability could target your own permanents, it is not optional unless that ability could target an opponent.
• Gives you additional turns or phases.
• Counters a spell or conditionally counters a spell, but only when cast by an opponent.

Abilities that trigger at the same point in each players turn and do something to “that player” (e.g. Howling Mine) are never optional.

Starting with January 1st, feel free to ignore such triggers at REL Competitive/Professional.....

[Brushwagg]

This seems bad. It's almost like cheating is legal now, I've been playing this game a long time and seen many a bad move. I have a feeling (hope) this will be over turned.

[Julian23]

Browsing the web, this seems to be a FUCKING HUGE change. And I can see why as this will influence a lot of games in almost all formats. For example in Legacy, you can no longer be decked by your own Glimpse of Nature or Argothian Enchantress.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

So now they're basically trying to say that anything good for you is optional?

What bunch of mouth-breathing retards run this company. This is going to be a clusterfuck.

[SpikeyMikey]

Bonus: Apparently you can't lose the game with Transcendence in play. Right now it seems you can just chose not to gain life, because of:

Now if only it didn't cost 6 :P But yeah, an enchantment version of Platinum Angel seems good.

[Julian23]

You can now also chose to ignore your Emrakuls Annihilator trigger and just smash with the flying 15/15 monster, in case your opponent has Academy Rector out.

This change really doesn't seem right with me :cry:.

[Michael Keller]

So, I'm no longer required to remind my opponent of mandatory triggers. Assuming I do, does this affect the procedural outcome of the play?

Say for instance I attack with Emrakul, the Aeons Torn. Let's say I "pass up" on the annihilator trigger, but my opponent reminds me of it. Does my opponent then have to sacrifice six permanents? This rules change seems a little tricky; it's going to give people a massive edge when trying to discern what is legal and not legal when something mandatory happens that could drastically change the game-state.

Or, perhaps I'm just dumbfounded and already know the answer to this.

[kusumoto]

So any mandatory trigger that would benefit me, I can ignore?

So if I am at 2 life, I can just ignore my Bob?

This doesn't even make sense.

[Julian23]

You can not force your opponent to resolve mandatory triggers that he would "benefit" from. "Benefit" in the way I edited into the opening post, as per 1.4 of the IPG.


The player is not required to follow the instruction when the ability resolves [...].

So even if you remind your opponent, he can chose not to resolve an Emrakul's Annihilator or his Glimpse of Nature trigger with 0 cards left in the library.

/edit: You can't ignore Bob, since it does something else than just drawing cards. See: "An optional ability does one or more of the following things, and nothing else:"

[Wrath_Of_Houlding]

No way this holds up...someone will find a way in Vintage/Legacy to break this in half.

[TheArchitect]

Well wait a minute, what if your opponent DOES remind you of a trigger ("oh hey your Emrakuls annihilator 6 triggers before I declare blockers"). At that point you have to do it right? You would only get away ignoring it if your opponent went right to declaring blocking after you both ignored/forgot the trigger.

Regardless, this opens the door for a lot of underhanded moves where you're not really playing magic, you're playing mind games trying to make your opponent forget your "usually beneficial" triggers that in this case are hurting you.

And does this mean later in the game when your opponent questions you, you can openly say "ya I choose not to blow up my land when I turn one lotuspetal+ancient tomb into show and tell Angel of Despair". Or do you have to lie and "oh well I just forgot the trigger".


EDIT: apparently I am a slow typist, my questions mostly got answered. That seems really messed up that you can just blatantly ignore things that "usually benefit you".

[Julian23]

As I said, even if your opponent reminds you, you can now chose to still insist on not resolving the ability. This is pretty huge.

Regarding the Angel of Despair, you have to check with this rule:


Exiles, damages, destroys, taps, or gives -x/-x to an opponent's target permanent. If the ability could target your own permanents, it is not optional unless that ability could target an opponent.

So basically, when your own permanents are the only legal targets, you still have to resolve it.

[SpikeyMikey]

How does this work with combat damage? If my opponent is at 2 and chumps my creature with his Dark Confidant, can I choose to "forget" that my creature would deal damage to the Confidant?

[Offler]

Generally this moves a lot of responsibility towards players. But those rules seems to be related to some kind of casual event.

For example Ivory Tower.

I may forget to add life. Until now an oponnent has to remind me to add the life since "both players are responsible to keep game within rules". If he dont we both will be penalized on tournament.

Now if I forget to add life, oponnent may remind me, but from the beginning to the end its up to me if i resolve the trigger because "its up to you to keep your game within rules and up to you to take all benefits of your deck". But even if this happen No one will be penalized.

Thats a bit shift of responsibility. Something like "know your deck". from this point of view its not bad, however I fear to see players recognizing those rules as an advantage over oponnent.

[Meekrab]

So any mandatory trigger that would benefit me, I can ignore?

So if I am at 2 life, I can just ignore my Bob?

This doesn't even make sense.
No, because Bob does something that ISNT on the list of 'beneficial' triggers. Section 1.4 says:


An optional ability does one or more of the following things, and nothing else:

And holy crap this is a stupid rule update.

[sdematt]

So what exactly is the point of this? It seems like a stupid change, really.

-Matt

[cdr]

Yes, this is a huge change, especially for Legacy.

There should be an article by Toby Elliott (the L5 who writes the IPG) within a couple weeks explaining the philosophy behind the changes.

I imagine the goal of the 1.4 change is to "fix" cards like Soul Warden (which Toby explicitly mentioned in his Judge List announcement) which can cause issues because of the frequent + mandatory nature of their triggers.

Kind of wonder how much they had to work to get WotC to sign off on this (the IPG is created by judges, not WotC). Perhaps if WotC could go back in time, they would make almost all such triggers optional - I wouldn't be surprised.

The missed trigger change is huge too - you are no longer obligated to remind your opponent of any trigger that they control.

Also, keep in mind the new rules are not effective until 1 Jan.

[Octopusman]

I'm already anticipating the "Flash"2.0 that is born from this change.

I hope I'm wrong.

[thefringthing]

These changes are awful. They allow for all kinds of sketchy angle shooting and break cards (like Transcendence and Mind Unbound) for no reason.

[UnderwaterGuy]

So any mandatory trigger that would benefit me, I can ignore?

So if I am at 2 life, I can just ignore my Bob?

This doesn't even make sense.

*HEAD EXPLOSION*

this can't possibly be real. If the rule really does this then we undoubtedly have a slew of cards that used to be bad but are now amazing.

[Julian23]

*HEAD EXPLOSION*

this can't possibly be real. If the rule really does this then we undoubtedly have a slew of cards that used to be bad but are now amazing.

As I said, you can't ignore Bob. Bob does not only draw a card but it also reveals it and makes you lose life. You can only ignore triggers that just draw cards or do other beneficial things.

[UnderwaterGuy]

So does it really make Transcendence an enchantment Platinum Angel?

This isn't just April Fools already?

[thefringthing]

Let's get this clear: YOU CANNOT DECLINE A BOB TRIGGER UNDER THESE CHANGES.

Only part of Bob's ability is "beneficial", so it remains a mandatory ability.

[Anusien]

Throw the word beneficial out.

Look at whether something is an Optional Ability as defined in section 1.4 and quoted on the first page.

[Julian23]

I really don't like the term "Optional ability" as it doesn't really convey the difference to "may"-abilities.

[thefringthing]

Throw the word beneficial out.

Look at whether something is an Optional Ability as defined in section 1.4 and quoted on the first page.The bullet list uses the word "beneficial" without explaining what that means. Presumably it's "anything else on this list"?

[Parcher]

According to some IRC chatter, Toby has mentioned that they will be amending this new triggers rule, with specific instances concerning cards like Trancendence. Which he stated as a specific example.

What worries me more is the new loop rule.

According to everything I've now read, something like Emrakul or Progenitus now actually act as a combo breaker. Assuming you have something like Ambassador Laquatus, and "infinite mana": You now declare initially how many times you will actvate, as individual activations of a boundless loop are now declared as Slow Play. You then activate until, say, you hit an Emrakul.

Toby has stated that this now actually ends the loop. As in, you stop milling, Emrakul triggers, and you cannot continue milling afterwards, as this is now considered stalling.

I know it's going to be corner case, but there are several strategies and/or decks(that are mostly awful) in Legacy and Vintage that this hurts, or negates.

[thefringthing]

What worries me more is the new loop rule.I created a separate thread for that change.

[Nihil Credo]

I'm going to be optimistic and assume that all future sets are going to be developed and edited to make this rule transparent and obvious - i.e that if they print a new Soul Warden or Glimpse of Nature it will be with a "may" in the wording. Which, of course, does fuck-all to fix eternal formats.

Regardless, I really don't like that they went with a list of effects instead of taking the effort of spelling out exactly which cards were affected.

The Transcendence issue has already been pointed out, and doubtlessly there will be more. But consider this, too:


• Puts +x/+x counters, or counters linked to a beneficial effect, on a permanent you control.
• Gives +x/+x or a beneficial ability to a target creature you control.The word "beneficial" doesn't appear anywhere in the Comprehensive Rules. (Actually once, 112.2a says "Abilities can be beneficial or detrimental". It doesn't define it, but it does seem to suggest that there isn't a third option, that abilities are either one or the other, which would be massively stupid so I'm going to assume that's not the correct interpretation.)

Is Shroud a beneficial ability? If it's not, does that mean Protection isn't beneficial either, for the same reasons? How about Wither? It's going to be better than regular damage barring a Melina on the field. But what about Infect then?

Also, putting +1/+1 counters is optional, but removing -1/-1 counters isn't. Did they really forget about that?

IMO, they really should have just introduced a change to the errata policy ("Still no power-level errata, but errata may be issued to make cards reflect gameplay procedure") and just put a fucking may on all the affected cards.

edit: Oh, hello there:

http://magiccards.info/scans/en/wl/50.jpg

[cdr]

So, I'm no longer required to remind my opponent of mandatory triggers. Assuming I do, does this affect the procedural outcome of the play?

Say for instance I attack with Emrakul, the Aeons Torn. Let's say I "pass up" on the annihilator trigger, but my opponent reminds me of it. Does my opponent then have to sacrifice six permanents? This rules change seems a little tricky; it's going to give people a massive edge when trying to discern what is legal and not legal when something mandatory happens that could drastically change the game-state.

Or, perhaps I'm just dumbfounded and already know the answer to this.

You seem to be conflating things. The annihilator trigger is fully optional (due to the new 1.4) since it does nothing but cause cards to go from your opponent's graveyard to the battlefield. You can choose whether to do it or not.

Something like Dark Confidant is not optional, since it both causes life loss and puts a card in your hand. Your opponent though (due to the 3.1 missed trigger change) is not obligated to remind you if you miss it, even though it's not optional.

[cdr]

I'm going to be optimistic and assume that all future sets are going to be developed and edited to make this rule transparent and obvious - i.e that if they print a new Soul Warden or Glimpse of Nature it will be with a "may" in the wording. Which, of course, does fuck-all to fix eternal formats.

According to Aaron Forsythe on twitter (https://twitter.com/#!/mtgaaron/status/149175095049457664), quite the opposite - R&D no longer wants to put 'may' on cards unless "there's an interesting choice". Soul Warden if printed after Jan 1 would not have 'may' on it.

[Nihil Credo]

Christ. I like the idea of no longer having your game fucked by having to remind your opponent of a stupid trigger that should totally have been optional, but the more I think about this change the more poorly executed and ill-planned it looks.

Take just the line "Gives +x/+x or a beneficial ability to a target creature you control", it's a ton of clusterfuck, or a clusterton of fuck on its own:

- As I already pointed out, some abilities' status as "beneficial" is wildly debatable.
- It specifically and only refers to +x/+x effects. So if a card gives +1/0, or even +2/+1, then it's not optional? Now I can't see any Head Judge making such an insane ruling, but this just screams that they didn't even re-read what they wrote.
- It specifically and only refers to "to a target creature" effects. If your card says "creatures you control get +1/+1 until EOT", that's not optional. And unlike the previous case, I can see Head Judges reading the list and figuring they have to rule in favour of such an idiotic discrepancy.

Fucking hell.

Also, Forsythe openly said that Mind Unbound had been already identified as the "most awkward case". That was the extent of his answer - so they went through with the changes even though they didn't know how they were actually going to work? On a card that's in STANDARD?

[phonics]

Why wouldn't they just oracle the cards like Soul Warden instead of doing such broad changes like this? I know they like to keep oracle as close to the text as possible but this just seems like they are asking for trouble.

[UnderwaterGuy]

Why wouldn't they just oracle the cards like Soul Warden instead of doing such broad changes like this? I know they like to keep oracle as close to the text as possible but this just seems like they are asking for trouble.

They could, but they decided to be dumb instead I guess.

[Anusien]

RE: Beneficial.

Sure, I misspoke. Beneficial within the very narrow context of those two lines in the IPG is acceptable. But not every trigger that could be "beneficial" is optional. Dark Confidant is not optional.


- As I already pointed out, some abilities' status as "beneficial" is wildly debatable.
It really isn't. Expect to see more information about what this means in the coming days, but in the meantime, assume any judge that is running REL Competitive events is smart enough to know the difference between a drawback and a benefit.


- It specifically and only refers to "to a target creature" effects. If your card says "creatures you control get +1/+1 until EOT", that's not optional. And unlike the previous case, I can see Head Judges reading the list and figuring they have to rule in favour of such an idiotic discrepancy.
This is intentional, it's not an "idiotic discrepancy". Currently, you can't miss an Exalted trigger; it resolves invisibly without acknowledgment from either player. So I can attack with my 1/1 Exalted, you don't remember it has exalted, you try to trade with your 1/1 and you get blown out. If this trigger were made optional, you would have to verbally acknowledge it. By making it not optional, it continues to work in the same way.


Neither of Psychic Vortex's abilities are optional, for what it's worth.

[sillyandrew]

i'm going back to playing strictly casual. if someone's going to enforce such stupid rule changes on my game, i'd like the option of kicking them in the shin under the dining room table.

a rule that simultaneously punishes players who pay attention, rewards players who don't, and enables (actually, more like 'encourages') cheating? am I missing something? are judges really that sick of giving gamestate warnings?

so i guess we no longer have to pay the 'next upkeep' triggers on own pacts, because losing the game would be beneficial, on the account of no longer having to play under such asinine rule stipulations. right? [/nerd rage]

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

So the important question is:

Are High Tide decks dead?

I mean if you can skip a draw whenever you want then Spring Tide and Solidarity are out of the question. So is Stasis and Turbo-Fog for that matter.

[Aggro_zombies]

So the important question is:

Are High Tide decks dead?

I mean if you can skip a draw whenever you want then Spring Tide and Solidarity are out of the question. So is Stasis and Turbo-Fog for that matter.
None of those are triggers.

[KevinTrudeau]

Horrible.

EDIT: Got dang it Aggro_zombies.

[UnderwaterGuy]

So the important question is:

Are High Tide decks dead?

I mean if you can skip a draw whenever you want then Spring Tide and Solidarity are out of the question. So is Stasis and Turbo-Fog for that matter.

reading comprehension is hard

[socialite]

I'll be honest I do not have much to add on top of what's already been said.

I will however say that this is soooo fucking stupid.

http://chocolatesyrupywaffles.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/DoubleFacePalm.jpg

[Admiral_Arzar]

I suppose this means I don't have to remind my opponent about Goblin Guide triggers, which makes me happy. Other than that, this could create some serious issues though.

[cdr]

.

Pretty much my reaction.

http://i717.photobucket.com/albums/ww179/akantor786/facepalm-1.gif

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

None of those are triggers.

Your draw for the turn is a trigger.

[Nihil Credo]

Your draw for the turn is a trigger.Have you been playing MWS recently?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Have you been playing MWS recently?

I mean have they changed this? I know they had to alter it when Stifle came out, but my understanding was that they just removed it from the stack, not that it ceased being a triggered ability.

[cdr]

I mean have they changed this? I know they had to alter it when Stifle came out, but my understanding was that they just removed it from the stack, not that it ceased being a triggered ability.

Draw for turn is a special action and has been forever. It's treated as if it were a trigger if you miss it; that might be your confusion.

tl;dr no you can't skip drawing for the turn.

[troopatroop]

I don't understand. Not to beat a dead horse... but SOUL WARDEN?!?!?!?! Humanity continues to fail me.

[cdr]

If it's treated as if it were a trigger, wouldn't the new rules on how to treat triggers apply to it?

No, because it's not a trigger or even "treated as if it were a trigger" in the general sense.

It's thrown in with the missed trigger infraction for purposes of missing it, that's it.

[Julian23]

Even if it was a trigger, it would fall under the Howling Mine corner-case and thus remain mandatory.

To elaborate, there's a corner case with triggered abilities that are triggered each turn at the same time, like Howling Mine. Those can't be skipped. Yes, even more confusing, I know :eek:.

[cdr]

Even if it was a trigger, it would fall under the Howling Mine corner-case and thus remain mandatory.

To elaborate, there's a corner case with triggered abilities that are triggered each turn at the same time, like Howling Mine. Those can't be skipped. Yes, even more confusing, I know :eek:.

And specifically say "that player", yes.

[Julian23]

By the way, would I be allowed to call a judge and ask whether I was allowed to skip a certain triggered ability?

What I'm concerned about is people always defaulting to asking "can I skip this?" whenever something they don't like comes up that vaguely/almost fulfills the criteria for skipping. See all these DarkConfidant/Draw for the turn/etc. questions that popped up here.

[cdr]

By the way, would I be allowed to call a judge and ask whether I was allowed to skip a certain triggered ability?

What I'm concerned about is people always defaulting to asking "can I skip this?" whenever something they don't like comes up that vaguely/almost fulfills the criteria for skipping. See all these DarkConfidant/Draw for the turn/etc. questions that popped up here.

Absolutely, just like any other rules/tournament procedure question.

[Machahiko]

Great, did they ask Alex Bertoncini about what he would like to change in the game or something?

Reminding your opponent about triggers isn't that big of a deal, it keeps the game clean and fair. This change on the other hand doesn't convince people to play it fair, but instead take advantage of the player who might not be as good player as you are. If that's not enough, this change opens up a HUGE door to shady lines of play and possibly even borderline cheating.

Every time they make new changes to the game I feel as if the whole game is being made more stupid. I think that the game is just perfectly fine at the moment even through standard and modern are really boring to play.

What next, all creatures have to attack every turn they can, because keeping track of berserkers of blood ridge is being too tiresome and being on the defense is stupid?

[betterthenandrew]

Reminding your opponent about triggers isn't that big of a deal, it keeps the game clean and fair. This change on the other hand doesn't convince people to play it fair, but instead take advantage of the player who might not be as good player as you are. If that's not enough, this change opens up a HUGE door to shady lines of play and possibly even borderline cheating.

This couldn't be more wrong. Currently If your opponent missed a trigger adn you saw it you had to say something. If you didn't you were cheating. Under the new rules, in the same situation, you are not required to say anything. Under the new rules it is actually considerably more difficult to cheat because the option to cheat no longer exists in certain situations.

The only people that will be punished under the new rule are people that do not know or cannot remember what their cards do. I don't understand how that is a problem. Players who are paying attention to the game state and understand the rules and text of cards should have an advantage over players that don't.

In the event there is a new flash deck we can deal with it, but that doesn't make this rule bad. I for one am all for it. I realize people like to freak the hell out over every change, but calm down. Just keep playing magic. Read the cards, and follow the rules. Call more judges if you're confused. Its going to be ok.

[Kich867]

This couldn't be more wrong. Currently If your opponent missed a trigger adn you saw it you had to say something. If you didn't you were cheating. Under the new rules, in the same situation, you are not required to say anything. Under the new rules it is actually considerably more difficult to cheat because the option to cheat no longer exists in certain situations.

The only people that will be punished under the new rule are people that do not know or cannot remember what their cards do. I don't understand how that is a problem. Players who are paying attention to the game state and understand the rules and text of cards should have an advantage over players that don't.

In the event there is a new flash deck we can deal with it, but that doesn't make this rule bad. I for one am all for it. I realize people like to freak the hell out over every change, but calm down. Just keep playing magic. Read the cards, and follow the rules. Call more judges if you're confused. Its going to be ok.

That's kind of missing the point. This has less to do with calling people out for triggers and more to do with "you can intentionally miss triggers, get called out for it, and be in the right because it's stated in the rules you're allowed to purposely miss those triggers if you don't want them to happen."

Calling a judge on someone who purposely ignored the emrakul trigger if for some reason the annihilator 6 trigger would get him killed somehow, the judge can't punish that person for intentionally doing the wrong thing, it's legal and allowed.

[Koby]

Something feels fundamentally wrong about turning a "must-do trigger" to an "optional trigger" that can effect the game.

There's been many games where decking a reanimator player with Jin-Gixatias out mattered. The new rules now make that "draw 7" an optional trigger? Reading the card implies it must be done, even if you lose the game from it.

This change is awkward and unintuitive.

[biggerliz]

In the event there is a new flash deck we can deal with it, but that doesn't make this rule bad. I for one am all for it. I realize people like to freak the hell out over every change, but calm down. Just keep playing magic. Read the cards, and follow the rules. Call more judges if you're confused. Its going to be ok.

that's the problem. "read the cards". many cards don't represent the correct oracle text. i am not sure how this affects anything, but i definitely do not feel comfortable where i not only have to know the oracle ruling, but also have to know if it is a may situation or not.

what's the point of all this additional confusion?

[Parax]

So this effectively neuters the chance of turbo fog ever being a real deck, right? Cause you wont have to draw from Mines or Mythos correct? So you can't really deck yourself? Or am i wrong?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Something feels fundamentally wrong about turning a "must-do trigger" to an "optional trigger" that can effect the game.

There's been many games where decking a reanimator player with Jin-Gixatias out mattered. The new rules now make that "draw 7" an optional trigger? Reading the card implies it must be done, even if you lose the game from it.

This change is awkward and unintuitive.

Apparently Jin-Gitaxias doesn't count, because the triggered ability happens at a specific time so it's still mandatory?

Yeah, I don't even fucking know anymore.

[Just me]

As I said, even if your opponent reminds you, you can now chose to still insist on not resolving the ability. This is pretty huge.

Regarding the Angel of Despair, you have to check with this rule:

So basically, when your own permanents are the only legal targets, you still have to resolve it.

So, let's assume the only legal targets are my own and an lonely Academy Rector on the other side. Now I can actually ignore the ETB ability of the Angel? That's really weird when you look at the idea (intention) behind being forced to destroy your own stuff in these cornercases.

Can anyone explain how that works?

I still think they should have left it alone and just change the penalty guideline. Make sure I'm less responsible as my opponent for his Soul Warden (and similar). Or give me a positive incentive to help him during a tournament, not a negative. For example, top 8 'helpers' all get a box a boosters.

[betterthenandrew]

So, let's assume the only legal targets are my own and an lonely Academy Rector on the other side. Now I can actually ignore the ETB ability of the Angel? That's really weird when you look at the idea (intention) behind being forced to destroy your own stuff in these cornercases.

Can anyone explain how that works?

Exiles, damages, destroys, taps, or gives -x/-x to an opponent’s target permanent. If the ability could target your own permanents, it is not optional unless that ability could target an opponent.

- Because the angel can target your permanents, and cannot target your opponent it is not optional. You must kill something.

http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/tolarian-academy-%E2%80%93-some-winter-break-this-is/

[3eowulf]

Exiles, damages, destroys, taps, or gives -x/-x to an opponent’s target permanent. If the ability could target your own permanents, it is not optional unless that ability could target an opponent.

- Because the angel can target your permanents, and cannot target your opponent it is not optional. You must kill something.

http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/tolarian-academy-%E2%80%93-some-winter-break-this-is/

I hope it's mispelled and reads "it is not optional unless that ability could target an opponent('s permanent)".

Otherwise it makes absolutely no sense (showing again how much they're messing up).

[Malchar]

I wish that they had just banned brainstorm instead of inventing this colossal mess.

[Julian23]

@Parax: As I already stated like 200 times, effects that trigger at the same time each turn can't be skipped. It even says Howling Mine in the example.

Good point about Jin-Gitaxis though.

[betterthenandrew]

I hope it's mispelled and reads "it is not optional unless that ability could target an opponent('s permanent)".

Otherwise it makes absolutely no sense (showing again how much they're messing up).

Something like Murderous Redcap is now optional.

[alderon666]

We had enough of a hard time telling "mays" from "musts". Now we have to know which "musts" can be "mays". Thank a lot for making the game that much complicated.

[Malchar]

Jin-Gitaxias doesn't trigger at the same point in each players turn, so it is optional. Namely, it doesn't trigger at all during the opponent's turn.


Abilities that trigger at the same point in each players turn and do something to “that player” (e.g. Howling Mine) are never optional.

[The Wolf]

The amount of rules fail in this thread is epic.

The correct change would have been to make all cards printed from here on out may triggers, but they dont want noobs to cry. I guess wizards has never heard of "takebacks" that 99% of magic players use when not in tourneys. In what world do casual players force their friends to play as though they missed the trigger?

[Just me]

Exiles, damages, destroys, taps, or gives -x/-x to an opponent’s target permanent. If the ability could target your own permanents, it is not optional unless that ability could target an opponent.

- Because the angel can target your permanents, and cannot target your opponent it is not optional. You must kill something.


The thing is, I COULD target the Academy Rector. But it's optional and not something I want to happen. So I have 1 legal target on the opponents side of the table but I choose to not target it since that is better for me.

Or is the rule 'you must choose something'? If so, what changed with ETB and where is the line? Confused is what I am.

Geez, and I actually considered doing some Modern PTQ's since I like the format.

[cdr]

The thing is, I COULD target the Academy Rector. But it's optional and not something I want to happen. So I have 1 legal target on the opponents side of the table but I choose to not target it since that is better for me.

Or is the rule 'you must choose something'? If so, what changed with ETB and where is the line? Confused is what I am.

Geez, and I actually considered doing some Modern PTQ's since I like the format.

"When ETB" is a trigger, so it follows the new optional trigger rule (and the new "not responsible for other people's triggers" rule).

Something like Angel of Despair does not appear to be optional because it a) can target your permanents b) can't target your opponent. So you have to resolve the trigger, even if you only have targets on your opponent's side of the board (the new rule does not take into account game state).

These rules are so complex we still need further clarification and examples from above, though - it's hard to know for sure until then.

[Jeff Kruchkow]

I get the sentiment behind it, they're trying to cut down on judges fixing game states after missed triggers. And in theory, making the player an effect helps actually make sure they use their own cards correctly and higher RELs is important. But this is just terribly terribly executed and I don't actually see a way to do it correctly. I love the idea of only punishing the player who controlled and effect of a missed trigger, that's awesome. But there are wayy to many cards effected for them to ever do this well. This might just be a situation where they need to say, "opps we messed up, just kidding" and forget this whole nonsensical mess

[Zunam]

I really dislike the changes.

What I am really afraid of is that from now on I will almost always have to call a judge if my opponent claims that he just can "forget" a trigger in every situation where it would be beneficial for him.
This is because:
a) people will mix up that it is only relevant at Competitive and Professional REL (especially for people playing a lot at both type of events).
b) The rules list is a bit too long for me (and I guess for some others, too) to remember exactly by heart so I won't be completely sure about if my opponent is right or not. I think it will take me a lot of practice time until I can judge the situation correctly by myself.
c) I fell like it will lead to situation where people will first always claim that they can "forget" the trigger if it is beneficial for them independent of if it is true or wrong (sometimes intentionally sometimes because the rules are quite complex).

[Esper3k]

I like the change where you are no longer responsible for your opponent's triggers. Now you are never put into the situation where you have to screw yourself over because you remembered even though your opponent did not.

Optional abilities I'm not as happy with just because you can no longer read the card and tell if it's optional or not. It would've been easier on players to just make everything they wanted as an optional ability a may effect (although nightmare on WotC's end).

[Julian23]

This has been only 2 days but for the first time in my competitive career, I actually considered giving up on competitive play just because I really can't stand this change.

[colo]

This is a truly sad joke of a rules change, because "beneficial" is impossible to define correctly in the context of this rule. I hope (and actually expect) this to be reverted to the way it has been until now on the next iteration of rules changes. How can anyone who's supposed to be really competent with this game's rules commit such blatantly horrible changes to them?

[Koby]

This has been only 2 days but for the first time in my competitive career, I actually considered giving up on competitive play just because I really can't stand this change.

And I'm considering to quit being a judge because of how much I cannot agree with these changes from a player's perspective. It's one thing to change the rules to remove penalties for being honest; but it's another to change the way triggers are processed by giving more choices to ignore what the cards say.

The latter makes it difficult to explain "well, even though the card instructs you to draw a card, that's optional, because this draconic judging guideline says your opponent can ignore it."

[cdr]

Judging by tweets, "optional beneficial triggers" seems to have very strong support from WotC R&D, the Rules Manager, and the Magic Judge (not sure "DCI" exists anymore) leadership; I don't expect it to go anywhere unless it ends up being a complete clusterfuck in practice.

Between those two major changes we do seem to be only a step away from making all triggers and as-ETB optional; that would certainly simplify things :)

[Admiral_Arzar]

In what world do casual players force their friends to play as though they missed the trigger?

In our EDH playgroup it's common for someone to yell "PRISON RULES BITCH" and slam the table with a fist in response to an attempted take-back.


I like the change where you are no longer responsible for your opponent's triggers. Now you are never put into the situation where you have to screw yourself over because you remembered even though your opponent did not.


Yes. I just really wish it was worded such that triggers you own that benefit your opponent (i.e. Goblin Guide) would not function if the opponent receiving the benefit doesn't remember (god I hate reminding my opponents that GG has a drawback).

[Koby]

I'm a big fan of "Chess rules" for tournament magic. Once you tap a card and let go, it's tapped. Once a spell is announced, it must be played (obv needs legal targets).

[cdr]

Yes. I just really wish it was worded such that triggers you own that benefit your opponent (i.e. Goblin Guide) would not function if the opponent receiving the benefit doesn't remember (god I hate reminding my opponents that GG has a drawback).

That's pretty tough to do, though. They attempted to with the huge list of "beneficial" effects but it still misses a lot.

[Anusien]

I hope it's mispelled and reads "it is not optional unless that ability could target an opponent('s permanent)".

Otherwise it makes absolutely no sense (showing again how much they're messing up).
They mean "opponent". Things that can target any permanent could target yours if the opponent didn't have any of the appropriate type, so they are still mandatory.

[Zunam]

The amount of controversy discussion and questions is a clear indicator that the new guidelines lead to more questions than actually solving issues in my opinion.

I know that the guidelines are no "Magic rules" but more of a tool for judges. But the effect of them is so huge (and effects actual play and not only judging decisions) that this either has to be clarified by introducing clear Magic Rules that cover the guidelines or that the whole thing needs to be reworked somehow.

[prgmctan]

Is there perspective? For instance, if you are attacked by a Goblin Guide, can you choose to ignore the trigger? How does that work?

Edit: Nevermind, I re-read the OP.

[Artowis]

The amount of controversy discussion and questions is a clear indicator that the new guidelines lead to more questions than actually solving issues in my opinion.

I know that the guidelines are no "Magic rules" but more of a tool for judges. But the effect of them is so huge (and effects actual play and not only judging decisions) that this either has to be clarified by introducing clear Magic Rules that cover the guidelines or that the whole thing needs to be reworked somehow.
Have you been around for any major rule change? This is the same reaction they all get regardless of the actual outcome. It's quaint you may think otherwise, but every major change to the rules has gotten massive blowback and usually just served to outline how badly most people know the rules as-is.

Right now so many people are looking for corner cases that could break things and others just aren't reading the actual update, just snippets or examples posted by other people who assume things work one way when they don't. In the vast majority of cases all this update will just undo idiot-proof Shrines and such.

EDIT: Also if this policy is half as bad as many are suggesting, they can just blow it up and revert some of these changes. Judges don't like making things harder for other judges unless they believe it to be of real benefit.

[alderon666]

Have you been around for any major rule change? This is the same reaction they all get regardless of the actual outcome. It's quaint you may think otherwise, but every major change to the rules has gotten massive blowback and usually just served to outline how badly most people know the rules as-is.

Right now so many people are looking for corner cases that could break things and others just aren't reading the actual update, just snippets or examples posted by other people who assume things work one way when they don't. In the vast majority of cases all this update will just undo idiot-proof Shrines and such.

With the M10 rules everybody was crying over Mogg Fanatic being bad and combat tricks sucking in limited. But deep down we all knew it wasn't going to be that big of a deal and at least there was a convincing reason for it.

Now on this change, it's just a bunch of gratiutous exception-dependant crap that I'm not sure how OK it is.

You wanna play Competitive? Gotta learn this set of new rules that doesn't apply ANYWHERE else. Nice way to complement those M10 rules that tried to make the game simpler and more intuitive Wizards...

[lolosoon]

They should have banned brainstorm instead of making this crappy must=>may switch.

1) BS, draw 3 (5 if you're a SCG Open Series Champ) cards.
2) Opt to not put back 2 cards 'cause I can convince you it's a trigger, and a favorable one due to my active fetchland, and thus, an optional trigger.

Bad timing for Alex Bertoncini to be banned. Legacy would be all his with those IPG changes !

[Malchar]

The best we can hope for now is that Wizards is so fickle that they will invent some other rules change next year that makes this look pale in comparison.

Hopefully SCG will take over legacy and start running tournaments with their own (better) set of rules.

[Dark Ritual]

So transcendence + academy rector will be a thing now? Lol, this whole change is completely stupid. This is also hilarious because if you aren't at a Competitive or Profession level REL that transcendence becomes an awful card again. This whole change is really weird though, hopefully they switch it back. Then again, I guess you can't deck with enchantress at GPs now not that that was a huge deal anyways if you were a competent player.

Overall this change is just stupid though. Wouldn't surprise me if someone finds some stupid powerful older card that works really well with these new rules case in point being transcendence, formerly a junk rare that was completely awful but now it is potentially ridiculous with rector as a one of.

[Koby]

Transcendence is going to be dealt with as soon as a clarification is published. There's been a buzz regarding that particular card getting errata'd to coincide with its intended effect.

[cdr]

Transcendence is going to be dealt with as soon as a clarification is published. There's been a buzz regarding that particular card getting errata'd to coincide with its intended effect.

I'm skeptical. Functional errata is against 4+ years of policy, and I don't see how they could errata it to "work as intended" especially when it's a new tournament rule causing the issue, not even a game rule.

It's not like Transcendence is the only one or something, either.

The thing that would most be in line with policy would to be just ban anything that turns out to be an issue, Flash-style.

[biggerliz]

where do you guys go for pro opinions/commentary (aside from twitter)?

I heard that chapin and kibler had some responses, but i can't seem to find them.

[dahcmai]

Aside from the obvious problems like Transcendence and such, I actually kind of like this one. I'm sure there's a few corner cases where this is actually a problem, but I can't think of too many where it is. Beneficial definitely needs clarification to be sure. It seems to me that they will have to clarify it as anything that is only in your interest. And by saying "Only" meaning that you can't gain an unfair advantage that normally would have given the opponent an advantage had you remembered or some such. It's going to take some rewording obviously.

There will probably include later a missing section "if your opponent notices it and points out a trigger, you can't ignore it if you're going to get some benefit" Annihilator trigger with a rector out being a prime example of that. The opponent is just not required to point it out.

Let's face it, it's annoying as hell when someone has something like a sword of Fire and Ice out and hit you with it, then later they remember they had to draw a card. In larger tournaments, you both get warnings for that stuff and eventually get larger problems for forgetting constantly. In local tournaments, they just draw it over and over. It sucks when you were counting on a certain amount of cards in hand and then they change it because "they remembered". I've had it come up a lot. Gaining life three turns later and such because they tracked life totals on paper throwing off your combat math because they're missing it. Even if you caught it, it can still be problematic.

I prefer a "chess style" of playing also. If you forgot it, you're not getting it later several turns down the road. I hate having to keep track of my opponents triggers especially when they have a ton of them. I actually tend to play several turns in advance betting on what's going to happen and forgetting triggers constantly makes it really hard to calculate things in advance. Super Go back phase is annoying at best anyway.

I can see what they are trying to do with this, but it needs serious clarification.

[Zolek]

This has now been pulled and is going to be redone. Basically "oops".

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28790499/January_2012_IPG_Revisions?sdb=1

[cdr]

Yep, section 1.4 is apparently toast. No more "optional beneficial". Tabak is clearly unhappy (and probably has been the whole time) - I guess the new IPG really was as half baked as it seemed.

[Koby]

Immense negative feedback; looks like enough people finally called out Dumb-Stupid-Play on WotC's part.

How many days until the next Big Decision? (sure seems to be occuring far too frequently this year)

[KevinTrudeau]

This has now been pulled and is going to be redone. Basically "oops".

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28790499/January_2012_IPG_Revisions?sdb=1

Awesome news! Brightens up my day, yes?

[dahcmai]

You know it's about time they just got it out there and said oops. Too bad they don't do that with a few other things I can think of. It's much more respectable than just letting it run.

[colo]

This is good news. Merry Christmas everyone, I guess. Or something.

[jrw1985]

I was putzing around at work today, trying not to do any actual work, so of course Magic was going through my mind. I remembered this weird rule change and hopped onto the Source to read up on it. Super glad to see that it was redacted. Horribly confusing, too significant a rule change.

[Octopusman]

I was putzing around at work today, trying not to do any actual work, so of course Magic was going through my mind. I remembered this weird rule change and hopped onto the Source to read up on it. Super glad to see that it was redacted. Horribly confusing, too significant a rule change.

I too just noticed this today. I'm SO pleased!

I'll hold out hopes for an "oops" article regarding their reserve list policy.

[dahcmai]

Basically, it's going to end up like, You don't have to remind the opponent about mandantory triggers anymore and you don't have to remember them, but if the opponent points it out to you and if it's mandatory, you have to do it. They are trying to get rid of that problem of people getting ten million warnings for triggers and having to point out things your opponent is missing that are costing you a game.

Anybody know when the revised policy goes into place? I was out of town a bit and missed out on whatever the final result was.

[cdr]

Anybody know when the revised policy goes into place? I was out of town a bit and missed out on whatever the final result was.

The new IPG is still being worked on, no ETA. We are on the "old" IPG for the immediate future.

[Technics]

To that end:
1. Players will not be responsible for pointing out triggered abilities they don't control. This change was met with near-universal praise. At competitive events, the player must assume responsibility for his or her own cards.
2. If an optional triggered ability is missed, it is missed. No player is penalized, and the ability is essentially "lost." You can identify an optional triggered ability in two ways: it says "may" or it asks for a numeical choice (including number of targets), and 0 is a valid choice. The controller is simply assumed to have declined the ability or chosen 0, as appropriate.
3. Number of cards whose functionality is changing: 0. None. Zip. Zilch.
4. Number of cards that will play differently depending on what level of event you're at: 0. The empty set. The big goose egg.

There will be additional information made available in time detailing what exactly the Missed Trigger infraction entails, who gets penalized for what and when, and what players and judges can expect. Until then, I'll leave you with some principles of the changes:

1. If you forget a trigger that benefits you, you're unlikely to be penalized for it ouside of missing out on the effect. There's also little reason to alert a judge at that point. (e.g. Your opponent forgets to put a counter on his Shrine of Burning Rage. Just let it go. He's not getting a warning or the counter.)
2. If you forget a trigger that is to your detriment, you're likely to be penalized with a warning. Pay attention to your own stuff.
3. You will always have a window to point out that an opponent has forgotten a triggered ability and have the effect resolve. If he controls Honden of Whatever the White One Was Called, and you really want him to gain the 2 life, you'll be able to have that happen.


If this were the new IPG I would be happy. This single statement seems 1 Million times more though out, logical, clear, and better for the game that the cluster that was posted originally.