Flusterstorm - Missed trigger?

[strom]

Scenario:
Player A casts an instant and passes priority. He has one untapped land.
Player B casts Flusterstorm targeting the instant.
Player A asks player B if he passes priority. The answer is yes.
REL is competetive.

My question:
Did Player B miss the storm trigger with the effect that Player A can use his last mana to pay for Flusterstorm?
At least Player B didn't announce the storm trigger and therefore he didn't choose a target with copy.
On the other hand I have found this:

Triggered abilities that do nothing except create one or more copies of a spell or ability (such as storm or cipher) automatically resolve, but awareness of the resulting objects must be demonstrated using the same requirements as described above (even though the objects may not be triggered abilities).

For example, the Storm ability of Empty the Warrens is not considered missed even if the spell’s controller does not specifically announce the trigger before passing priority after casting the spell. However, if that player then forgets to put the additional Goblins onto the battlefield before moving on with his or her turn, the Storm trigger would be considered missed after all. Again, this is a concession to the way players actually play magic.

[Julian23]

No, he didn't miss the Storm trigger.

Unless he literally forgets his card has Storm (as in: allows you to just pay 1, then puts Flusterstorm into the yard and moves on with the game), triggers that don't have a visual effect on the game state don't require being announced.

For example, you also don't need to announe your Counterbalance, Craterhoof Behemoth or Tendrils of Agony triggers.

[decan]

Im wondering what all are visual effects. Im guessing tokens, destroying/sacrificing a creature, drawing a card. What else?

[Julian23]

"Do you need to move your arms to resolve the trigger?" - Yes/Visual, No/Non-Visual

We would need cdr for the official version though :wink:

[ScatmanX]

For example, you also don't need to announe your Counterbalance, Craterhoof Behemoth or Tendrils of Agony triggers.
Don't we?
I mean, if someone casts a spell with cb on the battlefield, and I simply use top in response, I've seen scenarios where we'll lose the cb trigger because we didn't announced it before using Top. Did that changed?

[Julian23]

Don't we?
I mean, if someone casts a spell with cb on the battlefield, and I simply use top in response, I've seen scenarios where we'll lose the cb trigger because we didn't announced it before using Top. Did that changed?

Yes, that changed at least 1, probably close to 2 years ago.

[sdematt]

Not quite 2 years ago, I think it's at least been over a year. During GP Denver, I think that rule was still in effect, and it was a terrible time.

-Matt

[Julian23]

Yeah, as I said "close to 2 years" ago. I remember during the GP Trials for GP Strasbourg 2013 (~April), the rule was already in effect.

[cdr]

Scenario:
Player A casts an instant and passes priority. He has one untapped land.
Player B casts Flusterstorm targeting the instant.
Player A asks player B if he passes priority. The answer is yes.
REL is competetive.

My question:
Did Player B miss the storm trigger with the effect that Player A can use his last mana to pay for Flusterstorm?
At least Player B didn't announce the storm trigger and therefore he didn't choose a target with copy.


No. The point at which B must demonstrate awareness of the storm trigger is the point at which the copies resolve and A must pay (or not). B does not have to announce targets for the copies, since they have the original target by default.

You have until a trigger requires a decision or affects the visible game state to acknowledge it. I think visible state is defined in the tournament rules, but it's physically represented things in zones (cards, copies, tokens, counters, etc), the state of objects (tapped, flipped, etc), plus life totals.

The most recent substantive change to the trigger rules was a little over two years ago, to settle that debate.

[firebadmattgood]

No, he didn't miss the Storm trigger.

Unless he literally forgets his card has Storm (as in: allows you to just pay 1, then puts Flusterstorm into the yard and moves on with the game), triggers that don't have a visual effect on the game state don't require being announced.

For example, you also don't need to announe your Counterbalance, Craterhoof Behemoth or Tendrils of Agony triggers.

Related question. If I cast shardless agent into counterbalance, and ask if cascade resolves, if my opponent answers "yes", then he missed his counterbalance trigger for the agent, correct?

Upon casting agent, the stack goes:

counterbalance
cascade
agent

So the only way for cascade to resolve would be for him to miss his trigger.

[Julian23]

That is correct because of the way triggers are put onto the stack in ActivePlayer-NonActivePlayer order. 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.

[iamajellydonut]

Unless he literally forgets his card has Storm (as in: allows you to just pay 1, then puts Flusterstorm into the yard and moves on with the game), triggers that don't have a visual effect on the game state don't require being announced.

You don't need to announce any triggers. You simply have to make sure they're acknowledged before you reach the point of no return. This is true for both visible and non-visible triggers.

Also, the only one of those triggers that could be deemed non-visible is the Craterhoof Behemoth's. What is and is not considered "non-visible" is defined by what happens when the spell resolves. Do you have to do anything. Do you have to do anything when Craterhoof Behemoth enters the battlefield? No. When Craterhoof Behemoth enters the battlefield, creatures you control would be assumed to have recieved +X/+X and trample. You don't have to acknowledge this or state this in any way until it's relevant. Usually that means assigning combat damage. However, if you attack with your creatures for a total of 24 damage and both you and your opponent write down "8" on your life pads, the trigger is then considered missed.

In sharp contrast, ignoring that their triggers are completely time-sensitive and therefore it's sort of irrelevant whether they are or are not visible, neither Counterbalance nor Tendrils of Agony are considered to be non-visible as they both have very visible effects when they resolve. Targeting, changes in life totals, revealing hidden information, and putting an opponent's card into a graveyard all count.

[iamajellydonut]

In other news, a question based off the OP's scenario.

Player A (Casting random instant with one mana source available)
Player B (Casting Flusterstorm)

Everything is hunky-dory with the stack and effects begin to resolve. Player A pays 1 mana for the Flusterstorm he sees, and Player B correctly points out that the spell is still countered unless Player A pays one more (there's a variety of wording Player B could use to state this).

What happens to Player A's one mana source?

[Esper3k]

In other news, a question based off the OP's scenario.

Player A (Casting random instant with one mana source available)
Player B (Casting Flusterstorm)

Everything is hunky-dory with the stack and effects begin to resolve. Player A pays 1 mana for the Flusterstorm he sees, and Player B correctly points out that the spell is still countered unless Player A pays one more (there's a variety of wording Player B could use to state this).

What happens to Player A's one mana source?

It's gone? He used it to pay for a Flusterstorm - a completely legal action to take.

[Julian23]

But he used it to pay for the effect of the card Flusterstorm, not one of his copies. You can't pay for that until the copies created by the Storm trigger have resolved.

So what would you do here? I asked a judge-friend of mine and he said he wouldn't be able to make a ruling with the information provided in this thread.

[Esper3k]

Yeah, I guess if he just tapped it and said "Pay it", you could assume he paid for a copy? You should probably just ask confirm that it's for the copy for the original to be clear. If he was trying to pay for the original before the copy, he might pick up a warning for trying to take an illegal game action?

[iamajellydonut]

The way I see it, it would depend on how each player phrased what they did, if they did...


If Player A silently tapped for a mana with no express intentions or tapped for a mana and said something along the lines of "pay one", it would be considered going towards the copy provided Player B remembered to mention as much.

If Player A paid one mana, and Player B put Flusterstorm in the graveyard either before or while stating that Player A needs to pay one more, I would consider the trigger missed.

If Player A tapped for a mana and said "pay for the Flusterstorm" or something along those lines, it would result in the crap that Julian mentioned, and I think the ultimate resolution of such a scenario after a bit of Q&A would simply be that Player A would untap their land and make decisions from there.

Thoughts?

[cdr]

The way I see it, it would depend on how each player phrased what they did, if they did...


If Player A silently tapped for a mana with no express intentions or tapped for a mana and said something along the lines of "pay one", it would be considered going towards the copy provided Player B remembered to mention as much.

If Player A paid one mana, and Player B put Flusterstorm in the graveyard either before or while stating that Player A needs to pay one more, I would consider the trigger missed.

If Player A tapped for a mana and said "pay for the Flusterstorm" or something along those lines, it would result in the crap that Julian mentioned, and I think the ultimate resolution of such a scenario after a bit of Q&A would simply be that Player A would untap their land and make decisions from there.

Thoughts?

The fact that A is expressing confusion is a pretty clear indication they're attempting to do something illegal. In most cases I think a judge would believe A, give the warning for GRV, and have them untap the land.

[iamajellydonut]

The fact that A is expressing confusion is a pretty clear indication they're attempting to do something illegal. In most cases I think a judge would believe A, give the warning for GRV, and have them untap the land.

How is it more or less of an illegal intention than what Jullian suggested with the Dank Confidant trick? (which I used to dodge The Abyss at GPNJ thanks to you, Julian.)

Edit: Not being snide. Just looking to know more.

[cdr]

How is it more or less of an illegal intention than what Jullian suggested with the Dank Confidant trick? (which I used to dodge The Abyss at GPNJ thanks to you, Julian.)

Edit: Not being snide. Just looking to know more.

Not sure what "the Dark Confidant trick" is.

In the Flutterstorm case it's not "an illegal intention", it's attempting to do something illegal - pay for an effect before the spell is resolving. If they were not attempting to do something illegal, they would not be surprised that the storm copies existed.

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.

[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/telliott/2013/02/03/missed-triggers-3-the-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/telliott/2013/02/03/missed-triggers-3-the-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

[Julian23]

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

Sorry, you didn't understand what I said. Why would you backup there? The moment your opponent says "ok" to Brainstorm he missed his Chalice trigger. If he has't said "ok" yet, you're probably in for a game loss and maybe even an investigation for maybe doing what you did on purpose.




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.

You're saying lying isn't easy when a judge is involved. I am not contesting that. I am saying that they make it easier.

Player A casts Flusterstorm
Player B : "did you remember the Storm trigger?"
Player A: "lol, of course."

In 99% of games the player will actually not have forgotten. But there is always this little % that a cheater gets away because he has a rather easy time selling his story. What I am suggesting is that it should be ok for Player B to just say "pay for the Flusterstorm" once both players have passed priority. Player A is assumed to have passed priority unless otherwise stated, so it's up to B whether he wants to resolve the top item of the stack right now. What you are saying is that before he gets to do that he must give his opponent one more "get out of jail free" card by giving him one more opportunity to remember his trigger even though he had already passed priority.

The example is somewhat far-fetched but this is about the principle behind the rules as it's clear that more likely situations could always occur. Besides that, the likeliness of a situation should not determine what would be the just/fair thing to do in the first place. Justice is abstract and applicable to any situation.

Call me a Magic Justice Warrior or whatever, but I think we really should be much harsher on people even just potentially gaining an (maybe even unintended) advantage from unclear/ambiguous plays.



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.

What you call "gotchas" is what teaches people to play a clean and fair game. If you don't play by the rules you will eventually get an unfair advantage because your opponent decided to not "gotcha" you. It's just another source of promoting clean Magic. Plays like Chapin's "all my legal targets gain Fear" is a great way of gaining a fair advantage over an opponent unaware of the board state or what a spell does. If you fall for something like that, you deserve to suffer the consequences.


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.

That's what I mean. There's a very clear difference between saying "A Sorcery and an Instant" and "Only a sorcery and an instant". The second is a clear attempt at cheating if phrased that way on purpose.

The difference is that Jackie Lee broke a clear rule of the game and was rightfully DQ'ed. A "gotcha" is not a "gotcha" when it breaks a rule.

You might not like players attempting tricky technical plays because it might get them punished. But honestly, what do you care? One less cheater playing the game. If the play is very tricky but legal, why would you criticize (as in "strong distate" etc.) them for it?

[cdr]

You might not like playing attempting tricky technical plays because it might get them punished. But honestly, what do you care? One less cheater playing the game. If the play is very tricky but legal, why would you criticize (as in "strong distate" etc.) them for it?

Because most people (including the people that make the game and the people that make the rules) want people to play the game, not "play the rules". That's the gist of it. Having technical rules is necessary to cover messy corner cases, but most people don't find having to worry about playing and communicating technically perfect every moment very enjoyable.

Few informed people would call Jackie Lee "a cheater" and she wasn't suspended following the DQ. If the rules had been written slightly differently at the time Patrick Chapin did his famous trick, he could've easily been DQed.

If you think you you can walk the line on technical gotchas perfectly every time, your ego is eventually in for a beating. There's at least 10 Jackie Lee incidents for every Patrick Chapin incident.

[Julian23]

Because most people (including the people that make the game and the people that make the rules) want people to play the game, not "play the rules". That's the gist of it. Having technical rules is necessary to cover messy corner cases, but most people don't find having to worry about playing and communicating technically perfect every moment very enjoyable.

So I assume it's eventually compromise between ease of play and integrity of the game. I can live with the people in charge arriving at a slightly different point on the <ease of play>-------<integrity> scale than I do, because that eventually makes it clear that it's not a question of underlying principle but one of personal perception on how the compromise should be balanced. Those things can hardly be discussed.


If you think you you can walk the line on technical gotchas perfectly every time, your ego is eventually in for a beating. There's at least 10 Jackie Lee incidents for every Patrick Chapin incident.

How is one's ego connected to how rules-knowledgeable someone is? I can see frowning upon players who base their ego on their skill....but knowing the rules? If anything, you should promote people being proud of playing on a tight technical level.

[cdr]

Integrity of the game has little to nothing to do with it. If anything, people attempting to take advantage of technicalities of meta-rules is what damages the integrity of the game. When your opponent asks "What's in your yard?" you know exactly what he's asking; everyone in the room knows what he's asking. The communication rules needing to be designed to be concise while covering as many cases as possible may at the moment allow you to basically legally lie, but why go through all the trouble? Far simpler to just make him determine the answer himself or just answer truthfully, and better for the game.

Is Kenji Tsumura a bad player for always reminding opponents of their Pact triggers?

[Julian23]

Integrity of the game has little to nothing to do with it. If anything, people attempting to take advantage of technicalities of meta-rules is what damages the integrity of the game. When your opponent asks "What's in your yard?" you know exactly what he's asking; everyone in the room knows what he's asking. The communication rules needing to be designed to be concise while covering as many cases as possible may at the moment allow you to basically legally lie, but why go through all the trouble? Far simpler to just make him determine the answer himself or just answer truthfully, and better for the game.

Is Kenji Tsumura a bad player for always reminding opponents of their Pact triggers?

I disagree. People playing inside the rules can never damage the integrity of the game. The only people damaging it are the ones who make a technical mistake and then don't want to suffer the consequences of their unclear/ambiguous play by labelling their opponent's play as "shady" or what you call a "gotcha".

Other than that I provided you with an example of how the integrity is compromissed in the Flusterstorm example. Maybe you are looking at it from another idea of what "integrity of the game" should mean, but the way I see it, it's all about punishing people who make mistakes while rewarding tight, clean and clear play. "Clear" does not mean that you are helping your opponent; if your opponent makes an unclear play, you should never be put into a position where you are a) guessing what he is doing or b) Helping him make a proper play.

Also, don't draw strawmans like that. You and I know that Kenji is one of the greatest to ever play the game. What we are talking about here is very far from as important as individual playskill and testing are to your final performance. For the sake of your question though, every legal advantage you don't take lowers your performance and EV. It doesn't matter whether you missed the advantage because you are incompetent or have moral doubts. We have rules so we don't need morals to judge a situation as morals are unreliable and unpredictable.

I'm still a bit worried that you as a judge can see a player make a legal play and still have negative feelings about it. Hate the rules that allow a player to do it, not the player playing by them. I mean, I totally agree that it doesn't "feel right" and wish we could just play the game as literally written on the cards (meaning that mandatory triggers can't be missed). But in the current setting of the rules there is no difference between making a "tricky" play and e.g. seeing a lethal attack on a complicated board.

[tescrin]

For example, you also don't need to announe your Counterbalance[..]

This gets goofy though, specifically your example of counterbalance.

The opponent plays a spell, you trigger "invisibly", you then go to flip the card and they go "no, Stifle" or w/e. A judge won't say "You missed your chance to stifle." If they play a spell, you get stuck explicitly mentioning the CB trigger or priority because they implicitly didn't hold priority. The second you go to resolve it or bypass it someone has to make it obvious what's going on either because of implicit priority passing or because people are trying to resolve things. What's worse for the CB player is that if he flips his top card immediately he'll get the warning for looking at extra cards when the opponent says "WHOA, excuse me? Stifling the trigger?" It's not really any different than someone brainstorming and immediately drawing cards when the opponent says "whoa, Vialing a SotL." You already drew extra cards because you didn't pass priority (which I imagine in almost any case will kill you since a backup is required BUT you drew the cards.)

This is all based on the idea that priority is implicitly passed unless you say "holding priority" (or some such.)

Certainly if I say "Ponder, in response, Brainstorm" you don't have to mention that there's a CB trigger for Ponder sitting in between there yet, but there's no way you can "gotcha!" someone outside of instant speed priority handling with a CB trigger due to having to mention "holding priority" or having to attempt to resolve the trigger (which is something a human can logically respond to.)

You could possibly "gotcha" someone by ensuring they passed priority before resolving the trigger (in which case they couldn't stifle) but you'd be stuck asking about Priority which is almost as bad as saying "HEY IDIOT. THERE'S A GOD DAMN CB RIGHT THERE."



P.S. I know that stifling CB is going to be an abysmal play 99% of the time, but it's the only obvious card to name.
Also, i agree with the rest of your post regarding Storm Triggers, Craterhoof, and probably exalted/prowess/etc.. but CB is a goofy example IMO.

[HdH_Cthulhu]

I remember when I countered Demigod of Revenge in T2 and he recurred itself with his trigger. He didn't have to announce anything...

Yes an odd example (outdated rules) but what I am trying to say it just feels bad if you get trapped like that. I mean now I know that I have to wait till the trigger resolves and then counter Demigod, but I am sure 90% of all player misplayed this just once! Why cant I let my cards do what I intend them to do...(if nothing gets announced) Like wtf ofc my flusterstorm triggers!

[TsumiBand]

I remember when I countered Demigod of Revenge in T2 and he recurred itself with his trigger. He didn't have to announce anything...

Yes an odd example (outdated rules) but what I am trying to say it just feels bad if you get trapped like that. I mean now I know that I have to wait till the trigger resolves and then counter Demigod, but I am sure 90% of all player misplayed this just once! Why cant I let my cards do what I intend them to do...(if nothing gets announced) Like wtf ofc my flusterstorm triggers!

Because your intention may differ from their function, I guess?

I am not a good Poker player but there is a saying I grew up hearing that I associate to the game. The handful of times I did try to play, these geezers would show no compunction at taking a sucker for a sucker even if it was clear that the new kid (me) Just Wasn't Getting It. It wasn't until this other kook came, this other old bastard, and started playing and would call shenanigans. I'd miss the strength of my hand for whatever reason - there were too many wild cards, or I just wasn't holding it right, or just didn't see it, too new or too stupid to get it - and he'd always point it out when the cards hit the table.

"Stop giving the kid an edge, grumble grumble" they'd say. "He said it was two-pair, it doesn't matter if it was a full boat" (or something totally obvious like that, that's not a great example)

The old dude would say, "Money talks, bullshit walks - however, the cards speak for themselves. Kid's got 7s in 4s. You lost. Lighten up."

I hesitate to invoke a slippery slope argument, but honestly - what else would you expect from a game with so many complicated interactions? The cards and the rules have to be the touchstone for all observations. They have to, or else it's just a bunch of administering the judge test to each other while a game of cards goes on under the radar. cdr put it succinctly:


...[M]ost people (including the people that make the game and the people that make the rules) want people to play the game, not "play the rules".

[ubernostrum]

First off, it is generally extremely difficult to legitimately miss a storm trigger. Nobody actually forgets to tell the opponent "you're dead" after a lethal Tendrils or Grapeshot or a lethal (at next draw step) Brain Freeze. Nobody actually forgets to put tokens down for Empty the Warrens, or insist something has been well and truly countered by Flusterstorm, etc. It's hard to miss storm precisely because there's a gigantic effect that the controller is going to acknowledge in some fashion, and trigger policy is extremely forgiving with regard to how little you can do and still be considered to have acknowledged a trigger.

As to philosophy of why it is this way, and why "cards don't do what they do", and so on, the simple answer is that the alternatives tend to be worse than the policy we have now, and the policy we have now is the product of years of iteration.

The longer answer, for those who are interested, goes like this:

There has never been a time I'm aware of -- and I've been involved in Magic off and on since Ice Age -- when "100% of triggers are 100% required to happen 100% correctly 100% of the time" has been tournament policy. There's always been an acknowledgement that players are sometimes going to forget about a triggered ability, and that sometimes it will be more disruptive to the game to suddenly make the trigger happen than it would be to leave it unresolved (a lot of the remedies for game-rules-related problems actually share this philosophy: when the game state is broken already, we should at least not break it even worse).

So this leaves us with some questions to answer. Three of them, in fact:


When can we identify that a triggered ability has in fact definitively been missed?
When we reach that point, how do we decide whether the ability should resolve anyway?
Who do we hold responsible for a missed trigger, and what form does that responsibility take?


The answer to (1) is complicated to put into policy language, but easy to explain: a trigger is missed when we are clearly past the point where it would have had some effect that players must have noticed, and that effect hasn't happened. Until we have that definitively one way or another, policy says judges and players should assume it has resolved correctly (in other words, triggers aren't "assumed missed until proven resolved", they're "assumed resolved until proven missed"). This takes a lot of words in policy because it has to account for all the various ways triggered abilities can take a while to have some definitively-noticeable effect on the game. For example, many power/toughness-altering triggers (exalted is the popular example) aren't necessarily noticeable until something -- combat damage, or surviving some sort of damage-dealing or toughness-reducing event -- occurs which actually needs the creature's power/toughness.

The answer to (2) has always been a bit flow-chart-y. Under previous iterations of policy, it would look first at whether the trigger was optional, then at whether it had a default action, then finally mostly would look at the time (in game terms, not clock terms) elapsed since the trigger was missed. Now, the flow chart goes like this:


Did it have a default action? If yes, resolve it with the default action and stop. The opponent chooses whether that happens right away, or at the start of the next phase of the turn.
Was it a delayed trigger that would move some game object from one game zone to another? If yes, move that object appropriately and stop. The opponent chooses whether that happens right away, or at the start of the next phase of the turn.
Did the trigger create an effect whose duration has already expired (like "until end of turn")? If so, stop. The players continue playing the game as-is.
Look at what phase of the turn it currently is, and look back to the beginning of the same phase during the previous player's turn. Was the trigger missed prior to that time? If so, stop. The players continue playing the game as-is.
If you have not reached a "stop" instruction, ask the opponent whether they would like the trigger to be put on the stack now. If the opponent says no, stop. The players continue playing the game as-is. If the opponent says yes, put the ability on the stack in its correct position if possible, or at the bottom of the stack otherwise, and stop. If the trigger requires choices, only game objects which were in the correct zone at the time the ability should have happened may be chosen (i.e., if the trigger says "sacrifice a creature", you can't sacrifice something that wasn't on the battlefield when the ability should have happened).


Which is complicated, but basically codifies a lot of kitchen-table-type intuition about how this should work. For the most part, things that don't make sense to apply now don't get applied, things that do make sense to apply now get applied, things you forgot about that would've been good for you don't happen, and things you forgot about that would've been bad for you do happen.

The answer to (3) is the one that's undergone the biggest change, and really comes down to looking at what sort of behavior is incentivized by the various possibilities. For a long time, both players were held responsible for all triggered abilities regardless of controller, and both players received penalties when a trigger was missed (although the penalty given to the opponent was one that generally did not upgrade with repeated offenses, but was still tracked for investigative purposes). The problems with this first started to enter the Magic-playing public's view around New Phyrexia, when this led to the unfortunate case of people who by policy should have been receiving Game Loss penalties from upgrading repeated missed Shrine of Burning Rage triggers (Soul Sisters was kind of a precursor, but Shrine was really the straw that broke the camel's back). I remember one GP in particular where the Head Judge flat-out instructed everyone that missed Shrine triggers were not going to be upgraded in that event, and that a solution for the problem was being worked on.

The discussion around that turned up not just the "I don't want to have to coach my opponent" complaints, but also an understanding that the everybody-is-responsible policy created incentives to do bad things. Under that policy, when you noticed that your opponent missed a trigger, the strategic best thing for you to do was keep your mouth shut, hope your opponent wouldn't notice (since odds were you didn't want it to happen, and you'd want to avoid getting a Warning yourself), and lie to your opponent and to judges if it ever did get noticed, by pretending that you forgot it too. We do not want to give people an incentive to lie to judges.

Keeping everybody-is-responsible, but removing the dual penalty (so only the controller receives a penalty), still has an incentive problem; there's no longer an incentive to try to lie to avoid the Warning, but there's still an incentive to lie when you don't want your opponent to get the ability. And again, we don't ant to give people an incentive to lie to judges.

Which gets us to... what we have now, after some rough drafts and iterations. Only the controller of a triggered ability is responsible for it. If you miss your trigger, your opponent has no obligation to speak up, and if you realize you missed it later, they have no incentive to lie about whether they noticed because they haven't done anything illegal that they'd want to cover up.

As to the form that responsibility takes, we now do not universally issue a penalty to someone who misses a trigger. Now we only issue a penalty if the trigger is one that -- considered in a vacuum, divorced from the game state at hand -- is generally detrimental to its controller (the rule of thumb is: if people play the card because of the awesome trigger, not detrimental; if people play the card because it's awesome in spite of the terrible power-balancing trigger, it's detrimental). For anything that's not generally detrimental, simply not getting the effect of the ability is usually punishment enough, and serves as a hand-on-hot-stove learning moment. Plus, the three-strikes upgrade path resets on each day of a multi-day event, cutting down on the accumulated "forgot my trigger" Game Losses.

And that's a lot of words to explain why things are the way they are, but sometimes a lot of words are what's needed.

[TsumiBand]

Speaking as an unapologetic over-explainer, the above post is pretty rad. It is true that understanding how we got to this version of exception handling in Magic helps one to see why it is as it is.